A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown

Foodways and Chinese Ways: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown

by Caitlin W. Chang A thesis project submitted to Sonoma State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In Cultural Resources Management

Committee Members: Alexis Boutin, Ph. D., Chair Adrian Praetzellis, Ph. D. Christina MacDonald, M.A.

May 28, 2018

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS

I grant permission for the print or digital reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Caitlin W. Chang May 28, 2018

iii

Foodways and Chinese Ways: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown

Thesis by Caitlin W. Chang

ABSTRACT

Purpose of the Study: This study interprets how ethnic identity was negotiated through foodways by Chinese migrants and their American born children at the San Luis Obispo (SLO) Chinatown during the late 19th to early 20th Centuries. The interpretation refers to themes of fluid identity, homeland memory, and the material culture associated with food and preparation. Procedure: A faunal analysis was conducted of the Feature 19 faunal assemblage associated with the Chong family. The faunal remains were interpreted with interviews from the original residents recalling their lives at the SLO Chinatown. The broader context of the Chinese diaspora was used to frame the interpretation of this site. Findings: The faunal material from this feature was found to consist mostly of Chinese-styles of butchering and cooking techniques. Instead of reflecting strictly traditional Chinese dietary habits as those seen in mainland China, the residents of the SLO Chinatown adapted their practices to satisfy their emotional and economic needs. Conclusions: The study found that while the foodways at the SLO Chinatown were related to traditional Chinese practices, the residents adapted their foodways according to their own interpretations of Chinese Ways. By allowing their concepts of Chinese heritage to remain fluid, the SLO Chinatown residents were able to negotiate a mixed multicultural identity during the Chinese Exclusion Era (1882 - 1943).

MA Program: Cultural Resources Management Sonoma State University May 28, 2018

Acknowledgements

I am sincerely thankful for my committee, Adrian Praetzellis, Alexis Boutin, and Christina MacDonald for all of their valuable instruction, expertise, and guidance throughout my master’s program and thesis. Many thanks for the months of support from the Anthropological Studies Center staff. Special thanks to Michael Stoyka and Whitney McClellan for your knowledge and lessons on faunal analysis. Thank you Sandra Konzak and Mary Praetzellis for all of your assistance. An incredible thank you to Lauren Carriere who has been my teammate throughout all the research, lab work and writing process. I couldn't have done it without your help! Thank you to the following institutions and staff for your aid and research access: San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, Robert E. Kennedy Library, History Center of San Luis Obispo County Thank you to my classmates in the CRM program for helping make this process really enjoyable. I’m forever grateful to my parents, David and Maureen Chang, for all of their support, patience, and inspiration for my thesis.

Food for Thought When my parents married, my Hong Kong-born father told my Irish-American mother, “Chinese don’t eat eggplant or lamb,” and encouraged her not to cook either of those ingredients. Many years and children later, my family had a dinner with some of our Chinese relatives at the Hong Kong East Ocean Seafood Restaurant in Emeryville, California. Prominently displayed on the menu was “Stir-Fried Lamb” and “Steamed Eggplant”, which our relatives casually ordered for the table. As it turned out, my father’s Chinese cultural authority was really just a personal dislike of those foods. In fact, the Chinese are the largest producers and consumers of eggplant in the world (Food and Agricultural Organization 2014). My mother’s reaction to my father’s fabrication was comical and long lasting. She now makes a point to prepare lamb chops every year on Easter, which my father has learned to eat heartily.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Regulatory and Archaeological Background ...... 7 Cultural Resources Management and Curation ...... 8 Orphaned Collections ...... 8 Federal and State Guidelines for Curation ...... 10 Project History ...... 14 Chapter 3: Historical Background ...... 21 Chinese as Sojourners...... 23 Chinese as Perpetual Foreigners...... 25 History of the City of San Luis Obispo ...... 27 Growth of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown ...... 29 Residents of the Palm Street Chinatown ...... 30 History of the Palm Street Parking Structure ...... 33 Feature 19 and the Chong Family Household ...... 37 The Chong Family...... 39 Chapter 4: Theoretical Background ...... 42 Historical Archaeology and Chinese Diaspora Archaeology ...... 42 Theme 1: Material Culture Studies of Chinese Migrants and Fluid Identity ...... 44 Theme 2: Transnationalism and Homeland Memory ...... 49 Theme 3: Foodways and Chinese Ways...... 54 Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods ...... 59 Excavation Methods ...... 59 Laboratory Methods...... 61 Historical Methods...... 66 Chapter 6: Findings ...... 70 Meat Weight from Feature 19 versus Meat Consumption in China ...... 70 Faunal Elements ...... 74 Meat Price ...... 80 Butchering Marks...... 85 Butchering Tools ...... 87

Meat Chunk ...... 90 Indeterminate Cuts ...... 95 Beef versus Pork Meat Weight ...... 96 Unique & Incidental Animal Elements ...... 99 Artifacts ...... 108 Imports ...... 109 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 114 Foodways ...... 114 Chinese Ways ...... 116 Transnationalism and Homeland Memory ...... 120 Homeland Memory: What China Means to Chinese Americans ...... 121 Future Research ...... 125 APPENDICES ...... 129 Appendix A: Faunal Analysis Overview ...... 129 Appendix B. SLO Chinatown Family Tree ...... 138 Works Cited ...... 140

vii

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Location of SLO County and City within California (Konzak 2016:3)...... 2 Figure 2. Map of project location in San Luis Obispo (Konzak 2016:5)...... 16 Figure 3. Ah Louis Store, 800 Palm Street Chinatown...... 31 Figure 4. Palm Street Parking Garage project area (Konzak 2016:8)...... 32 Figure 5. Features depicted on 1903 Sanborn Company map [with author edits] ...... 35 Figure 6. Major Mammal Meat Weight ...... 71 Figure 7. Mammal Skeletal Element Distribution ...... 76 Figure 8. Element Distribution by NISP ...... 77 Figure 9. Skeletal Elements by Percentage ...... 79 Figure 10. Percentage of Total Meat Weight by Price...... 81 Figure 11. Meat Weight by Price ...... 82 Figure 12. Total Number of Butchering Marks ...... 86 Figure 13. Percentage of Butchering Marks per Tool...... 88 Figure 14. Weight of Meat Chunk ...... 90 Figure 15. NISP of Meat Chunk ...... 91

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Since the mid-19th century, Chinese migrants and Chinese food have fascinated

and permeated American society and cuisine (Liu 2015). Few cuisines provoke as an

extensive range of emotions as Chinese food does in the United States. Foodways are

laden with personal, economic, and cultural values that serve to sustain individuals both

physically and emotionally. The history of how Chinese migrants negotiated their

foodways within American society is explored in this thesis through an archaeological

collection from the San Luis Obispo Chinatown (CA-SLO-64H) in California.

Background

San Luis Obispo is a city located in San Luis Obispo County on California’s

central coast, about halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles (Figure 1). The city of San Luis Obispo grew from the Mission San Luis Obispo De Tolosa in 1772 and was inhabited mainly by Chumash and Salinan native people, and Spanish/Mexicans and later

EuroAmerican immigrants (Gidney 1917:163). The arrival of Chinese migrants in San

Luis Obispo stemmed from the larger influx of migrants who arrived in waves at the beginning of the California Gold Rush in 1850 (Lee 2003:32). Chinese migrants in the

19th century were typically men from rural villages in southern China, notably

Guangdong Province, who left for economic opportunities in foreign countries around the

entire Pacific (Rohe 2001:4). The economic instability and civil unrest in China encouraged Chinese to seek employment in America where they could earn an estimated twenty-six to forty-six times more money for work as laborers (Chen 2006:158). In the

Chinese imagination, California was a land of economic opportunity, even named “Gum

San” or Gold Mountain (Wong 1987).

Figure 1. Location of SLO County and City within California (Konzak 2016:3).

Chinese migrants would form their own communities of support in Chinatowns

throughout major cities in California, and San Luis Obispo was no exception. The San

Luis Obispo Chinatown began to take shape around the 1870s as Chinese migrants began

arriving to work on the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad that ran through San

Luis Obispo (Gidney 1917:205; Ochs 1966:7). The San Luis Obispo Chinatown was

comprised of approximately one block of shops, dwellings and tenements along Palm

Street. The Chinese population in this Chinatown increased throughout the 1890s and

consisted of mainly laborers and merchants (Waite 1893:88). Several Chinese families

lived and worked at the Palm Street Chinatown through the mid-20th century in the

original brick stores (Wong 1987:83).

Exclusion Era

Eventually, the population of the Palm Street Chinatown fell as a result of

immigration restrictions on Chinese migrants as part of the Chinese Exclusion Act

(1882). The Chinese Exclusion Act was a federal law passed in 1882 that prohibited

Chinese migrant laborers from entering the United States until it was repealed in 1943.

This law stemmed from decades of xenophobia and working-class competition that

characterized Chinese laborers as foreigners who were diametrically opposed to

American ways (Lee 2003:33). As a result, new Chinese migrants were prevented from entering the US while those who remained were marginalized.

American Born Chinese

While Chinese migrants formed their own communities within different host

societies, they sometimes struggled to translate their ethnic identity and homeland

practices in foreign contexts (Rains 2003:34; Voss 2005:427). This struggle between

rectifying Chinese and American culture continued through the first-generation of

American Born Chinese. These first-generation children grew under multi-cultural influences from their Chinese parents and the broader American society. Multi- generational families present an interesting study for the formation of diasporic ethnic

identities through material culture consumption within migrant communities.

The distinction between the terms Chinese, Chinese-American, and American

Born Chinese have specific connotations when used in literature. In this study, the term

Chinese refers to individuals who were Chinese-born and -raised, regardless of their

migrant status. Chinese American refers to both Chinese-born migrants who were

naturalized in the USA and their first-generation children. I used the term American Born

Chinese (ABC) to differentiate children born in the US from their Chinese migrant

parents. The difference between Chinese migrants and ABCs are based on a difference in

birthplace as well as the degree of Chinese cultural inheritance (Tsai et al. 2000: 305).

The term ABC can be problematic as it can imply that their Chinese heritage supersedes

their American birthplace (Liu 2014).

The term “Overseas Chinese” has been used in previous archaeological studies to

refer to migrants who travel from their homeland in China to live and work in other

countries but then would typically return to China (Voss 2008:9). This study also

abbreviates San Luis Obispo as SLO when referring to the Chinatown and surrounding

city.

Archaeological Themes

The materials recovered from the SLO Chinatown date from the late 19th to the

early 20th century during the Chinese Exclusion Era (1882-1943), when new Chinese

5 migrants were discriminated against entering the United States based on their race and class. The Palm Street Parking Structure collection from the San Luis Obispo Chinatown allows for insights into the lives of both Chinese migrants and their American born children.

This thesis uses a faunal analysis of the SLO Chinatown collection to interpret how ethnic identity is negotiated through foodways between Chinese and American heritages. Faunal analysis is the scientific study of animal bones to determine how they were used by people in the past, such as food or tools. How animals were used for food can be determined through identifying animal species and butchering methods of faunal bone. Butchering patterns reflect broader influences of culture on ethnic foodways.

Instead of establishing rigid ethnic markers of Chinese identity as in past studies

(Twiss 2012), Mullins (2008:156) urges archaeologists to consider “…how China itself was defined by the Overseas Chinese and how that evolving memory of China became part of their identities.” The idea of an evolving memory and relationship to China becomes especially poignant for American Born Chinese as their concepts of China would be influenced by the cultural authority of their parents (Liu 2015:116). How first- generation ABCs negotiated their ethnic identity within the SLO Chinatown would be subject to social pressures during the Chinese Exclusion period. Previous archaeological scholarship addresses how Chinese migrants faced discrimination and cultural restrictions in host countries after the Chinese Exclusion Act (Sunseri 2015). In addition to understanding how exclusion impacted concepts of ethnic identity, this study investigates how ABCs negotiated their own place within the larger community.

In order to interpret how concepts of ethnicity were negotiated within the SLO

Chinatown, this faunal collection was analyzed using three theoretical frameworks to understand the complex factors involved with identity formation. The first theme

involves not only understanding how an individual’s identity is fluid and can change over

time, but that the meanings we ascribe to objects and material culture are fluid as well.

The second approach, as proposed by Mullins (2008), involves recognizing how

homeland memories and an imagined connection to China were maintained within a

transnational context. The final framework used to interpret this collection applies the

previous themes of material culture and homeland memory as they relate to foodways

and consumption.

Recognizing the evolution of memory enables archaeologists to approach Chinese

material culture as a process of identity negotiation instead of a product of rigid tradition.

Scholars have especially focused on migrant food practices as the solidification of certain

food traditions carry more meaning in a non-homeland context (Janowski 2012:177; Tan

2011). The choices and propagation of certain traditional foodways, or “soul food”, in migrant communities are seen as holding considerable memory and meaning for that group’s diasporic identity (Kennedy 2016:123). Memory and the perception of homeland are an important consideration of a minority group who chose to remain in California rather than return to China. This thesis investigates how not just food but the Chinese cultural practices or Chinese Ways were inherited by ABC and defined by their immigrant parents.

Chapter 2: Regulatory and Archaeological Background

Introduction

This chapter details the cultural resources management, excavation history and

curation of the Palm Street Parking Structure collection. This collection was excavated

under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of regulatory

archaeological compliance for the construction of the Palm Street Parking Garage for the

City of San Luis Obispo. CEQA is a state environmental regulation that takes into

consideration impacts to cultural resources as part of environmental review (Public

Resources Code 21083.2) CEQA allows for a review of potential impacts to a cultural

resource, however it does not provide specific mitigation measures or enforcement of

these guidelines. This lack of specific cultural regulation has often resulted in suboptimal

planning and protection of archaeological sites. CEQA projects sometimes defaulted to

salvage excavations for historical Chinatowns, such as Dead Cat Alley in the Woodland

Chinatown (Reichardt 2011:12) the Market Street Chinatown in San Jose (Voss

2012:152) and the Palm Street Parking Structure excavation.

The Palm Street Parking Structure fell partially within a known cultural site (CA-

SLO-64H) that had previously yielded mission period and late 19th to early 20th Century

American artifacts and features (Konzak 2016:6). The excavation of the Palm Street

Parking Structure was conducted by consultants from the Archaeological Resource

Services (ARS) group in 1987 to salvage archaeological data from the historical San Luis

Obispo Chinatown. The original project scope included curation of the collection. As a result of issues described later in this chapter, the collection was continuously neglected over time. How this collection was excavated, processed, and subsequently orphaned 8

determined the research potential the artifacts now hold. Due to improper curation, a

portion of this collection was destroyed before it could be curated and as a result, impacts

the interpretation of the entire assemblage. This chapter details the regulatory and

archaeological background of the Palm Street Parking Structure collection and how it was

rehabilitated as an orphaned collection.

Cultural Resources Management and Curation

The process of curating an archaeological collection begins in the planning stage

where the scope of the project is laid out in accordance with local, state and federal laws

and regulations, as appropriate. Once a budget is set, archaeologists will then conduct an

excavation or other fieldwork. The resulting materials will then be analyzed and prepared

for curation while a report is written about the findings (Childs and Bendan 2017:14).

Artifacts are curated not only to preserve their research potential, but to remain accessible

for stakeholders for heritage uses and educational outreach (Childs and Bendan 2017:18).

Stakeholders for this collection range from direct descendants from the SLO Chinatown

and SLO community to the broader history of Chinese Americans.

Ideally, an archaeological collection will be appropriately documented, cleaned and then stored and submitted to a curation facility for preservation. However, underfunded salvage excavations exacerbate the curation crisis when budgets are not sufficient for curating a collection (Milanich 2005; Voss 2012:149). These collections often became orphaned collections due to their incomplete and inadequate curation.

Orphaned Collections

The archaeological collection from the Palm Street Parking Structure is one of

many cultural collections that has suffered from inadequate curation. Due to a variety of

circumstances, such as insufficient funding, the curation of artifacts is halted resulting in

an orphaned collection (MacFarland and Vokes 2016:162). While improved practices of

incoming collections can help alleviate curation issues, unknown quantities of past

collections have already fallen into neglect. These orphaned collections are no longer

provided with adequate curation as a result of abandonment, facility closures or poor

funding (Childs and Benden 2017:13; Voss 2012:147).

Many collections were never curated responsibly to begin with and ended up in

insufficient facilities like shipping containers or garages that would further degrade

collections (Milanich 2005). When artifacts are stored in inadequate facilities they are at

risk of deteriorating when subjected to dangerous temperature fluctuations and vermin or

other pests. Orphaned collections typically have had their archaeological integrity

compromised by a variety of issues ranging from water damage, vermin infestations

and/or a loss of provenience due to missing field notes. Orphaned collections prove to be

an extra burden on curation facilities because not only must they be brought into curation

compliance, but must be re-evaluated to establish their research potential (Voss

2012:146). Efforts to accommodate the curation of more recent excavations can help

prevent a collection from becoming orphaned. However, existing orphaned collections

are already at risk for falling into neglect and are more prone to be deaccessioned and

discarded (Praetzellis and Costello 2002; Voss 2012:148). While orphaned collections

face the undeniable risk of discard due to the curation crisis, archaeologists are utilizing

alternative approaches to curation policies, research, and funding to bring new purpose to overlooked collections.

Federal and State Guidelines for Curation

The way archaeologists choose to curate a collection is essential to the research process as curators choose which resources from an assemblage are preserved and which are deaccessioned. For the past several decades, curation facilities have been faced with an inevitable limitation on space and resources resulting in the curation crisis

(MacFarland and Vokes 2016:161). Deaccessioning collections, including orphaned collections, has been introduced as the practical alternative.

Deaccessioning and then discarding collections due to their lack of provenience information has been a controversial topic among heritage practitioners. Archaeological collections are often the only remaining material culture associated with a certain people, place and time. The fear is that by discarding collections, archaeologists will lose important sources of data forever (Greenwood and Hale 2002). However, orphaned collections have few legal guidelines for treatment. The Federally Owned and

Administered Archaeological Collections (36 CFR 79) regulation enacted in 1990 details that pre-existing collections must be provided for and brought up to curation compliance

(36 CFR 79.5a). This would indicate that orphaned collections already under ownership of a federal agency must be curated. However, while there was a regulation on deaccessioning proposed in 1990, it has never been issued due to the controversy of discarding collections (NPS 2009).

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and

Historic Preservation does provide some guidance regarding curation of archaeological materials that “embody the information important to history and prehistory”

(48FR44716-42). However, there is no regulation or technical advice for the deaccessioning of orphaned collections. The lack of federal deaccessioning policy can

11 potentially protect orphaned collections by relying on the curator’s ethics and discretion, however it also fails to regulate what is actually being discarded.

The physical condition of orphaned collections must be assessed for its potential to be curated. A collection with artifacts already damaged beyond recognition is typically not in sufficient condition for curation. The collection must also have maintained its associated provenience paperwork and documentation. To help prevent the separation between collections and their paperwork, 36 CFR 79 mandated that associated records, such as field notes and reports, were to be curated with the collection (NPS 2009). By keeping associated records preserved with collections, the number of orphaned collections with no context could potentially be reduced. Unfortunately, this cannot account for records already lost. Regardless, federal curation practices have generally been improving over time with greater attention to cataloguing as well as aiding other facilities with developing curation policies (Childs 1995; Milanich 2005). Although not a substitute for formal regulations, improving standards of practice should at least help prevent the creation of new orphaned collections under federal ownership.

Deaccessioning Policies

In order to address the lack of standard discard policy in California, Praetzellis and Costello produced a pre-accessioning discard policy for California archaeology that evaluates the research potential, practicality and educational value of a historic-period collection (2002:31-33). Through their analysis of federal guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior (NPS 1983) and California state policies (NPS 1993), Praetzellis and

Costello (2002) determined that the government recognizes that research values must be considered when curating collections due to limited resources. This implies that orphaned

12 collections will suffer the most, as their research potential and management practicality have typically already been compromised (Childs 1995:11-12). Despite many orphaned collections lacking known research values, Praetzellis and Costello (2002) do not explicitly target pre-existing and orphaned collections in their deaccessioning policy.

This is not to imply that orphaned collections should never be deaccessioned, but that the conditions of these collections may require an alternative approach in determining research potential before discard.

Typically, archaeologists rely on excavation reports and field data to provide appropriate context for their research (Lees and King 2007). However, as previously mentioned, orphaned collections are often separated from the excavation records that initially gave them context. Despite the disassociation of orphaned collections from their archaeological provenience, Voss (2012:149) argues that curation methods can re- establish research potential through broader artifact based studies. Documenting an excavation is essential in establishing a collection’s scientific reliability. However, archaeologists should not rely only on excavation data for interpretation. Instead, Voss

(2012:146) suggests that preparing collections for curation can inspire alternative questions and interpretations for orphaned collections.

Revisiting Orphaned Collections

Many orphaned collections “cannot even be accessioned (let alone stabilized and curated) without substantial inventory and background research” (Voss 2012:148).

Essentially, acquiring an orphaned collection for curation already involves intensive investigation which could extend into a research project. This is evident in the work done by Barbara Voss (2012) on the orphaned collection from the Market Street Chinatown in

San Jose, California. Under Voss’s supervision, Clevenger (2004) wrote a thesis on

assessing the research potential of Market Street compared to non-orphaned Chinatown

collections. Clevenger’s (2004) thesis found that even as an orphaned collection the

artifacts recovered from Market Street were in stable condition with sufficient excavation

records. Instead of being deaccessioned, the Market Street collection became the basis of

study for several masters and doctoral theses, including Kennedy’s (2016) extensive

faunal analysis and Michaels’ (2005) analysis of peck-marked vessels.

Market Street Chinatown also benefitted from utilizing collections based research,

rather than focusing on the excavation by being more accessible to the public. Orphaned

collections have limited potential for strict archaeological analysis with missing

excavation records or incomplete inventories. While CRM archaeologists should always

strive to collect credible data for their reports, Lees and King (2007:58) argued that

archaeological reports focus too much on excavation methods to be engaging for the

public. Orphaned collections encourage archaeologists to expand their interpretations

outside of a more typical analytical report.

Voss (2012:155) was able to use inquiries from the public for a new research framework. Producing research from orphaned collections is an essential part of rehabilitating that collection’s heritage value as well as promoting multivocality

(MacFarland and Vokes 2017; Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011). As demonstrated by

Voss (2012:157) with the Market Street Chinatown Archaeological Project, this research is typically conducted by graduate students funded by a variety of sources including universities, city agencies and community historical societies. The importance of orphaned collections is also gradually being recognized statewide for their research

values by professional archaeological societies. The Society for California Archaeology

(2015) established a grant for graduate students conducting research on orphaned collections that have been abandoned for more than ten years.

Despite the challenges of curating, researching and funding orphaned collections,

some archaeologists have implemented more stringent excavation practices.

Archaeologists are not only revisiting orphaned collections, but re-evaluating the field

methods that led to collections becoming orphaned. While not all collections can be

saved in perpetuity, archaeologists are becoming increasingly aware of the dangers of

abandoning orphaned collections in poor conditions.

Project History

The Palm Street Chinatown collection has been greatly impacted by budgeting

issues and inconsistent curatorial standards resulting in its orphaning. The collection has

suffered from inadequate curation conditions, lost and inconsistent field notes and

accidental destruction of artifacts. In an effort to rehabilitate the collection, the San Luis

Obispo County Archaeological Society (SLOCAS) advocated for the curation, academic research and educational outreach of the Palm Street Parking Structure collection.

This collection was originally excavated in 1987 by Archaeological Resource

Service (ARS) as a data recovery effort of the Palm Street Chinatown prior to the

location’s conversion into a parking structure (Figure 2). Once the excavation was

completed, ARS catalogued approximately 2,500 artifacts by 1996 before ARS’s request

for more funds was denied by the City of San Luis Obispo (Konzak 2016:14). The

collection was removed from their care by the City of San Luis Obispo and transferred to

project manager John Parker at Parker and Associates Archaeological Research in 1997

15 for further cataloging and analysis (Konzak 2016:1). Parker coordinated approximately

250 volunteers and several archaeological staff members from 1997 to 2007 to catalogue, clean and prepare the artifacts for curation at SLOCAS. The collection was moved to several different buildings and cities due to limited resources throughout the decades the collection was in Parker’s care (Rigley 2014).

Figure 2. Map of project location in San Luis Obispo (Konzak 2016:5).

Curation

The collection was first processed at the California Polytechnic State University

(Cal Poly) lab over a span of six years until the university needed to reclaim the lab space

from Parker (Rigley 2014). Without a new lab facility, the City of San Luis Obispo

granted Parker access to store the artifacts in the Butron Adobe in San Luis Obispo. This

facility was not adequately secured and resulted in the collection being vandalized four

times by intruders (Konzak 2016:1; Rigley 2014). In 2007, Parker moved to Northern

California and left the majority of the collection stored in the Butron Adobe. From 2007

to 2014, Parker periodically worked on cataloguing and analyzing several boxes of the

collection and sent them for curation at SLOCAS. This portion of the collection was

adequately curated, however most of the material at the Butron Adobe was stored in less

than ideal conditions.

The City of San Luis Obispo closed out Parker’s contract due to slow progress in

January 2014 (Rigley 2014). The collection was then transferred to the Anthropological

Studies Center (ASC) at Sonoma State University for final processing and curation in

August 2014. Adrian Praetzellis, Director of the ASC, found much of the collection at the

Butron Adobe was in irredeemable condition. The collection had been infested with rodents and mold that deteriorated the material bags and the paper tags that catalogued the artifacts’ provenience information (Praetzellis 2014:2). Not only did Praetzellis find much of the collection had lost its research potential, but it also presented a health hazard.

The hazardous condition of the collection at the Butron Adobe resulted in the discard of approximately 40% of the material stored there (Praetzellis 2014:2). Due to the destruction of the labels and boxes the discarded collection could not be inventoried.

While much of the collection that was stored at the Butron Adobe was found in challenging conditions, the boxes Parker had catalogued and sent to SLOCAS were in stable condition. Approximately 220 boxes of artifacts were taken into care under the

ASC to prepare for their final curation at SLOCAS.

Deaccessioning

The poor condition of the collection greatly reduced the quantity of artifacts suitable for analysis from the Palm Street Chinatown. Additionally, the loss of provenience information and the lack of detailed field notes from the initial excavation by

ARS further complicated its research potential. When the ASC prepared an excavation report based on the field notes from ARS, it became apparent that the original excavation and feature notes from the 1980s were either missing or inadequately detailed for…. Only a portion of the hundreds of boxes of artifacts recovered by the ASC were deemed suitable for archaeological analysis. As a result, SLOCAS requested that the ASC deaccession the artifacts that had insufficient research and interpretive potential (Konzak

2016:2).

From summer 2016 to spring 2017, the entire collection of artifacts was re- evaluated and then curated or deaccessioned for educational outreach or for discard.

Artifacts that were found in stable condition with adequate provenience were fully curated. Several boxes of artifacts were found in stable condition but lacked provenience were deaccessioned for educational and outreach purposes. Artifacts that were mainly redundant materials including glass, brick, bone or shell were discarded. Artifacts that were fragmented beyond recognition were also discarded. Samples were taken from each

feature and discard weights were recorded from the materials deaccessioned at the ASC

(Konzak 2016:5).

Unlike the material discarded at the Butron Adobe, deaccessioning at the ASC

enabled archaeologists to properly evaluate the material before discarding. Not only that,

many of the materials that were deaccessioned can be used in engaging the community

and in interpretive displays in the future.

Outreach

The previously catalogued artifacts from SLOCAS in combination with the

salvaged collection at the ASC provided a great opportunity for student involvement and

public outreach. SLOCAS promoted the Palm Street Parking Structure collection to be

used as a tool to engage stakeholders in the SLO community and would not just be

curated and hidden away again for years. For almost three decades, descendants from the

SLO Chinatown and the greater SLO community worked to incorporate this collection into their local history. The collection is a means to re-establish the presence of the

Chinatown residents in SLO as much of the historical Chinatown has been built over.

Furthermore, the collection itself is unique in its archaeological research potential of multi-generational Chinese American households. Family households in Chinatowns from the early 20th century are typically underrepresented in archaeology assemblages compared to tenements of single male migrant workers (Voss 2008:37-39). Descendants from the SLO Chinatown community also provided valuable newspaper and book interviews regarding their personal experiences and history of the Chinatown (Wong

1987:1-86).

Artifacts from this collection have already been used in public outreach. Several

ceramics, bone and other deaccessioned artifacts were used during a public Archaeology

Day in October 2016. This event was organized by SLOCAS at the San Luis Obispo

mission and invited local cultural resource firms to present their findings to the public.

Sonoma State University (SSU) graduate student Lauren Carriere has used the collection for public outreach and interpretive displays for her master’s thesis. The large quantity of artifacts from this collection will allow future academics to further analyze this site and help gain a greater understanding of the SLO Chinatown. Despite the troubled history of the Palm St Parking Structure collection, it is still valuable for academic research and provides another case where orphaned collections can be redeemed.

The next chapter explores the historical background of the Palm Street Chinatown

and the residents associated with the Palm Street Parking structure collection.

Understanding the lives of former residents and families from the Palm Street Chinatown

allows for a richer interpretation of the collection beyond the curated artifacts. This

collection not only represents SLO heritage but provides a glimpse into the greater

history of the Chinese Diaspora.

Chapter 3: Historical Background

Introduction This chapter seeks to establish the global, local, and familial history surrounding

the collection from the Palm Street Chinatown. I will first summarize the history of the

19th Century Chinese Diaspora and how Chinese immigrants came to SLO. Second, I will

detail how Chinese Exclusion impacted Chinese American communities. Lastly, I will

discuss the specific history of the Palm Street Chinatown and the Chinese American

families associated with the Palm Street Parking Structure collection.

History of Chinese Migrants

Chinese migrants had long travelled outside of China for economic opportunity

before the California Gold Rush in the 1850s. Chinese had travelled to Southeast Asia,

Japan and the Philippines for nearly 2000 years as seamen, traders and laborers (Kwong

2005:22). Travelling to California and migrating throughout the US was a likely

extension to the practice of Overseas Chinese economics. Southern China was also

exposed to many international traders from colonialists who opened trading ports in

Shanghai, Macau and Hong Kong (Kwong 2005:21). The majority of Chinese migrants in

California originated from the Pearl River Delta of Southern China and around

Guangzhou (Kwong 2005:19) and typically consisted of laborers or merchants (Lee

2003:33).

The Chinese migration to California was part of a long history of the Chinese

diaspora though only several hundred Chinese lived in California before the California

Gold Rush in 1850. The Chinese population dramatically increased to nearly 25,000 by

1852 as migrants arrived for contract labor work (Rohe 2001:4). Nearly 140,000 Chinese 22

migrants traveled to the California by the 1870s (Lee 2003:33). The influx of Chinese

migrants in the US stemmed from both the opportunities presented there and the

conditions in China during that time. Much of the once thriving economy of Southern

China was devastated by the Opium Wars during the mid-19th century, leading to large

scale poverty for its people (Kwong 2005:36). At the same time various industries in

California were growing, as was the need for labor in areas such as mining, fishing, farming and railroads. As a result, Chinese migrated to the US on credit-ticket systems set up through Chinese labor organizations to bring massive amounts of labor to

California (Rohe 2001:3). Chen (2006:158) attributes the influx of Chinese migrants to the US due to the large income gap between the two countries as she estimates laborers made twenty-six to forty-six times more money in the US than China.

Chinese Exclusion Act

It was beneficial for non-Chinese laborers to encourage discrimination against the

rapidly growing competition from the cheap Chinese laborers in California (Kwong

200551). Aggression towards Chinese migrants was triggered by economic downturns as

their lower labor expenses were highly competitive. Anti-Chinese sentiment expanded

outside of California in the 1880s as politicians brought racial tension out onto the

national stage. The Chinese were seen as threat not only to American employment, but to

American society (Lee 2003:33). This growing dissent towards Chinese migrants

eventually culminated into the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Gyory (2003:124) posits that “The Chinese Exclusion Act represented class

politics on the cheap, a painless way for politicians to ensure working people’s support

without providing any genuine solution to their problems.” Chinese immigration became

a national issue regardless of the actual threat they posed to the average American life. As

a result, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 became the first federal law to prohibit

immigration based on country (Lee 2003:16).

Over the next several decades, the Chinese were restricted from entering the US

by the Exclusion Act and again by the Geary Act of 1892. The population of Chinese

Americans in the US declined from 105,000 in 1880 to 61,639 by 1920 (Kung 1962:33).

A permanent exclusion act was passed in 1902 that barred new Chinese migrants from

entering the US until it was repealed in 1943.

Chinese as Sojourners

There is a long history of exclusion and discrimination against Chinese migrant

communities in the US. Chinese migrants were often targeted for discrimination as their cultural and linguistic differences were incomprehensible to EuroAmericans. In 1876,

The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (1876:8) of San Francisco wrote to

President U.S. Grant addressing the cultural grievances laid against them:

It is charged against us that we eat rice, fish and vegetables. It is true that our diet is slightly different from the people of this Honorable country; our tastes in these matters are not exactly alike and cannot be forced. But is that a sin on our part, of sufficient gravity to be brought before the President and Congress of the United States? This letter reveals that Chinese migrants questioned the overtly critical comments on their

lifestyle, including their cultural foodways. EuroAmerican immigrants had little basis on

focusing discrimination on Chinese immigrants other than the perceived differences in

customs (Jones 2008:327).

The lack of Chinese integration into American society stemmed from several

factors. The first waves of Chinese migrants were typically motivated to work in the US

and then move back to China with their accumulated wealth (Greenwood 1980:114).

Scholars have termed this concept as the “sojourner thesis” (Orser 2007:162; Yang

2000:235) where Chinese migrants were characterized as sojourners who were unwilling to assimilate to American culture and remained insulated in Chinatowns (Siu 1952:32)

Anti-Chinese writings characterizing the Chinese as sojourners were commonly found in historical newspapers. “The Chinese never buys lands or build [sic] houses, or bring their families, and that in every respect a European immigration is superior to

Chinese” (San Francisco Chronicle, 1 February 1873:2). This quote exemplifies how anti-Chinese writers would frame the Chinese as non-contributing visitors rather than settlers. However, this was a circular argument as discriminatory laws discouraged or forbade Chinese migrants from bringing wives or their families to California (Lee

2003:90). Regardless of the intention of Chinese migrants to return or settle in the US, they faced greater challenges in immigrating to the US than Europeans did.

Another factor in the perception of Chinese migrants as sojourners was the economic structure that brought them to the US. The expanding California frontier

required infrastructure to accommodate the population influx and growing industries in

the area. To avoid needlessly increasing the population, Chinese migrants were

contracted with the expectation that they would return to China after completing their

labor and railroad work rather than settle down (Kwong 2005:97). This means that many

of the Chinese migrants who were contracted were expected to leave the US eventually.

“The Chinese immigrant of this period between 1850-1870 did not intend to establish

permanent residence in California… He thus lacked both the necessity to accommodate

and the incentive to adapt to new lifeways” (Greenwood 1980:114). The typical Chinese

laborer who worked in remote camps and as a seasonal hire would have little opportunity

to learn English or motivation to integrate into a sometimes hostile American society.

However, the Chinese didn’t necessarily consider themselves to be foreigners and

actively integrated into life outside of Chinatowns (Orser 2007:162; Praetzellis

2004:237). Additionally, despite discriminatory laws and tense social environments, not

all EuroAmericans were hostile towards the Chinese. Some EuroAmerican businesses

had active partnerships with Chinese labor organizers and businessmen. Chinese

merchants from the Sacramento Chinatown especially fostered personal and work

relationships outside of the Chinese community and would host dinner parties for non-

Chinese business partners (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1997:16). Chinese migrants did not

remain passive in the face of discrimination and actively worked to foster their

relationships within American society.

While many Chinese migrants may have initially intended to return to China after

striking it rich, the reality was that approximately half of all Chinese migrants remained

in their host country and created thriving communities (Voss and Allen 2008:9).

Comparatively, immigrant population studies from the early 20th century reveal that almost half of European immigrants also returned home after laboring in California

(Takaki 1998:15). The rate at which Chinese and EuroAmerican migrants settled in the

US was approximately the same. Therefore, historical characterizations of Chinese

migrants as sojourners was not accurate for many of the Chinese Americans who settled

in the US.

Chinese as Perpetual Foreigners

The Exclusion Act did more than just restrict entry to Chinese migrants. It also

barred Chinese American migrants living permanently in the US from citizenship and

codified them as aliens (Lee 2003:43; Voss and Allen 2008:10). Chinese migrants who had lived and worked in the US for decades were not granted the naturalization benefits that other Non-Chinese migrants could obtain.

Chinese migrants who continued to live in the US and ABC were by definition not sojourners, but were instead stereotyped as “perpetual foreigners” (Voss and Allen

2008:10). The concept of perpetual foreigners is essentially the modern reprint of the sojourner hypothesis that stereotyped Chinese Americans as foreigners regardless of their birthplace and naturalization (Yang 2000:236). The characterization of Chinese migrants as non-Americans was formed as a response to legal and social pressures to marginalize them as “the Asian other” (Lee 2003:33). Chinese migrants who settled in the US and their descendants were then faced with navigating their place within a discriminatory environment.

Stereotyping Chinese Americans as perpetual foreigners did not just have legal consequences but created a long-lasting fear of being further excluded (Lee 2003:213).

This is significant because first-generation ABC from the 19th to early 20th centuries were

not always socially accepted as American even though they were citizens by birth.

Modern Asian American migrants continue to face the perpetual foreigner stereotype

(Yang 2000:235-236).

Unlike most descendants of EuroAmerican migrants, ABC were continuously

regarded as ‘less American’. Anti-Chinese writings from the 19th century claimed

American Born Chinese “…will exercise upon the whole mass [Chinese] but little

perceptible influence, while they will be in all respects as essentially Chinese as though

born and reared in China,” (George 2003 [1869]:99). Regardless of whether ABC

practiced American customs, exclusion laws validated intolerance towards the Chinese.

Recognizing the impacts of exclusion legislation on Chinese migrants and ABC is

critical in understanding how Chinese Americans negotiated their ethnic identity. Gyory

(2003:125) argues that “… by sanctioning racism at the highest levels of government,

[the Chinese Exclusion Act] helped legitimize racist action at every level of society.”

Regardless of how Chinese Americans identified or the personal discrimination they

faced, government sanctioned racism set a precedence for allowing discrimination against

Chinese migrants and their descendants.

History of the City of San Luis Obispo

The general history of Chinese migrants in California presents a broad context for

understanding the more local histories of Chinese. SLO had a long history of

development before the Palm Street Chinatown was created. The city of San Luis Obispo

is located on California’s central coast and is situated almost halfway between San

Francisco and Los Angeles (Figure 1). Like many of California’s major coastal cities, the

area was originally inhabited by California native groups before the Spanish established

missions, followed by the annexation of California by the US government in 1848 with

the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Voss 2015:12).

The city of San Luis Obispo falls within the ethnographic and linguistic territory

of the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost settlement of the Chumash linguistic group

(Greenwood 1978:520). The Obispeño Chumash were coastal hunter gatherers who

mainly relied on exploiting shallow marine resources such as fish, shellfish and sea

mammals (Greenwood 1978:522; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:253). As a result,

settlements were most dense along the coast. Archaeological and ethnohistorical research reveal that some seasonal Chumash village dwellings may have housed up to 1,000 people (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:253). Relatively few historical and ethnographic accounts exist for the Obispeño Chumash until the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772. Contact between Spanish explorers and the Chumash at the project area first occurred in 1769 when the Portolá expedition travelled through what is now the city of San Luis Obispo. Journals from the Portolá expedition described traversing over sandy dunes and trading with various Chumash groups in the area for food (Engelhardt

1963 [1933]:3-7). As a result of missionization, the native villages in the area were

abandoned by 1804 (Nettles 2006:53). While the height of the missionized Chumash

population was over 900 in 1803, by 1838 only 170 Chumash had survived waves of

disease and the harsh conditions at the mission in San Luis Obispo (Greenwood

1978:521). Recruitment of the Chumash increased due to the reliance on native labor and the mission was gradually expanded to accommodate the increasing population and ranching complexes. While the original wooden chapel was built in 1772, the current extent of the mission was not completed until approximately 1788 due to various fires destroying previous constructions (Nettles et. al 2006:53).

As a result, the missionaries began building adobe structures with tiles rather than thatched roofs starting in 1784 (Engelhardt 1963 [1933]:19). The town grew around the mission as several adobe structures were built along neighboring streets by the 1800s

(Krieger 1988:30). Remains of these roof tiles and adobe structures are still found in archaeological excavations throughout the city, including the collection from the Palm

Street Chinatown Parking Structure (Konzak 2016:20; Hamilton and Hintzman 2014:3).

The Mission San Luis Obispo chapel is located one block west of the Palm Street

Chinatown and still functions as a church and center for community activities.

Growth of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown

Despite the establishment of the mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, the

population of the city remained relatively small. The permanent residents listed in the

1850 Population Schedule only counted 336 inhabitants of the city of SLO (Gidney

1917:184). It was not until the 1870s when the harbors and railroads were constructed that population of the county nearly quadrupled (Gidney 1917:200). The city of San Luis

Obispo also saw an increase in residents, though the number of Chinese who lived in

SLO was comparatively small. In the 1870s, the City of San Luis Obispo had nearly

1,500 residents, however only 59 Chinese reportedly lived in the entire county, with several working on the railroads (Hamilton and Hintzman 2014:18; Wong 1987:9). Part of the reason for the slowed growth was that the Southern Pacific railroad, which was predicted to extend from San Francisco to Los Angeles, halted construction in 1874 for thirteen years before it reached San Luis Obispo (Gidney 1917:205).

The population increased slowly in San Luis Obispo for work on the farms and fishing industries. Construction on the Pacific Railroad resumed in the 1880s and brought hundreds of Chinese migrants to San Luis Obispo County (Wong 1987:10). In 1890,

Chinese made up the largest non-EuroAmerican minority in San Luis Obispo with 284 residents living in the city itself, roughly 10% of the overall population (Waite 1893:88).

There was a strong Chinese presence in San Luis Obispo in the 1880s-1900s, despite the passage of the first Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Chinese population of the SLO Chinatown peaked around the 1890s, but by 1910 the population had

significantly fallen from previous years (Ochs 1966:8). As with the rest of the US, the entry of new Chinese laborers was prohibited by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) and the Geary Act (1892) (Voss and Allen 2008:7).

Anti-Chinese sentiment was certainly present in San Luis Obispo and the rest of the central coast. Various news articles and opinions on anti-Chinese sentiments were published in San Luis Obispo newspapers often decrying the presence of Chinese merchants or laundries (Ochs 1960:61). The San Luis Obispo Breeze (1896) detailed a mass meeting of local businessmen who pressured a local landlord’s decision to rent a shared building with a Chinese merchant on Higuera Street. The tenant argued that if the landlord refused to evict the Chinese merchant “he had decided to vacate his present quarter if the Mongol moved in” (San Luis Obispo Breeze 1896:1). This aggression towards Chinese merchants worked to diminish their presence in San Luis Obispo. By the early 20th century, only a few of the long time residential families remained at the Palm

Street Chinatown.

Residents of the Palm Street Chinatown

Much of the history and development of the Palm Street Chinatown can be traced

through Ah Louis (Wong On) who was one of the most prominent residents (Appendix

B). Ah Louis was a businessman who opened one of the first Chinese stores on Palm

Street in 1874 (Figure 3). He rented the land for $5.00 a month on November 15, 1874

before eventually purchasing it in 1878 (Wong 1987:14). Not only was Ah Louis a

shopkeeper, but also a labor organizer who would bring in new Chinese contract workers

and provide them with housing, food and loans (Wong 1987:17). Ah Louis would

eventually purchase and develop adjacent properties on Palm Street where the rest of the

Palm Street Chinatown continued to grow. 31

Figure 3. Ah Louis Store, 800 Palm Street Chinatown. The Quong Chong store is the furthest building on the right. Photograph Date c.1910. (Louis Family Papers, Special Collections and Archives, California Polytechnic State University). Most Chinatowns in California were predominantly male and working class due

to restrictions on Chinese migration and exclusion laws. However Chinese merchants sometimes brought their wives with them or started their own families in America. By

1903, several Chinese families were living and working in the Chinatown as several

buildings lined Palm Street (Figure 4). The most prominent families in the Palm Street

Chinatown included the Louis, Chong, and Gin families who established stores and restaurants throughout the Chinatown (Stark 1998b:16). 32

Figure 4. Palm Street Parking Garage project area shown on 1903 Sanborn Company map (Konzak 2016:8).

Ah Louis raised his family above his general store located at the corner of Morro

Street and Palm Street from the late 19th to early 20th century. He was considered the unofficial mayor of the Palm Street Chinatown and proved to be a central figure in the community throughout his lifetime (Wong 1987:20).

Several of Ah Louis’ children, especially Young and Howard Louis, actively worked to preserve the history of the SLO Chinatown and what it meant for them to grow up as Chinese Americans (Wong 1987:83). They collaborated often with Chinese Student

Associations at Cal Poly University throughout the late 20th century (Krieger 2004).

Howard Louis, the youngest son of the Louis family, took over the Ah Louis

Store for many years. Other Chinese families, such as the Chongs and Gins, had children

who grew up and ran businesses in the Chinatown. However, by the second half of the

20th century, the descendants of the three main families eventually moved elsewhere.

Despite the various efforts of descendants and community members, much of the

SLO Chinatown was built over with the Palm Street Parking Structure and commercial

buildings. The Ah Louis Store, Chong’s Candy Store, and the Mee Heng Low Restaurant

are the last remaining structures from the original San Luis Obispo Chinatown. The Ah

Louis Store was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2008 (Ref.

No.08000203) and was designated as State Historic Landmark No. 802 in 1965.

History of the Palm Street Parking Structure

One of the City of San Luis Obispo’s development projects in the Palm Street

Chinatown included the construction of the Palm Street Parking Structure in 1987

(Konzak 2016:1). The excavation of the Palm Street Parking Structure exposed several

refuse deposits that appeared to be associated with the dwellings fronting on Palm Street.

These historical features are non-portable cultural constructions that represent past human habitation. Features from the Palm Street Parking Structure are depicted on the 1903

Sanborn map and reveal that Feature 19 falls squarely within the 832/40 Palm Street Lot

(Figure 5). The actual addresses are sometimes inconsistent between Sanborn maps as

there are multiple floors and buildings that change over time but ranged between the “30-

40” series and an “800” series (Konzak 2016:6).The parcel excavated by ARS was found

to represent multiple residents who inhabited the area during different periods of time.

Interpreting the materials excavated from this parcel requires contextualizing which

features are associated with what time period.

1874 – 1886

The 1874 survey map of San Luis Obispo shows that the construction area of the

Palm Street Parking Structure fell under the parcels 5 and 6 of Block 15 and was owned

by a person named Matos (Harris 1874). The neighboring parcel on Chorro Street was

owned by the Lascano family, and would eventually be owned by the Chong’s neighbor,

Ah Louis (Harris 1874). It is unknown exactly when all the buildings associated with the

Chinatown were built, but by 1886, the Sanborn maps reveal a wash house, residence and

dwelling within the project area.

Figure 5. Features depicted on 1903 Sanborn Company map [with author edits] (Konzak 2016: 25).

1900 -1926

Population Schedule records and Sanborn maps give glimpses into the inhabitants

of the Chinatown regarding the structures and people who lived there. The excavation

area of the Palm Street Parking Structure, as represented on Sanborn maps from 1900-

1926 (Figure 5), reveals that the excavation spanned three lots. Richard Chong, who was born on the first floor of 832 Palm Street in 1905, described the merchant stores,

dwellings and gambling houses that lined the street (Dart 1977). Richard stated the Palm

Street buildings in these lots were comprised of a wooden fronted two-story building that was separated into three different store fronts. The leftmost store front was Quong Chong which was owned by Gin Sai Yuen (aka Chong) while one of the neighboring stores was

Wing Hing Lung. The second floor of this wooden building was the Joss house that was

accessible by the stairs on the side for religious worship (Wong 1987:23).

The 1903 Sanborn map reveals at least one dwelling behind the Quong Chong

storefront and what appear to be fences dividing the lots (Figure 5). In an interview, Palm

Street Chinatown descendant Howard Louis described how the Chong children were born in the back of the store and that “It was all boarded up, Chongs, had four daughters, and he boarded it up so the guys couldn’t walk through here,” (Stark 1998a:21). This reveals that Gin Sai Yuen fenced off his lot from the neighboring parcels, which is consistent with the 1903 Sanborn map.

1926-1950

After about 1926, the owners of the 834 Palm Street storefronts and lots changed.

By the 1930s, the Chong family no longer inhabited the same store front and dwelling.

The 1930 Population Schedule designated Joe Shek, a Chinese migrant, as the head

37 resident at 834 Palm Street and owner of a cigar store. Historical photographs from the

1930s and oral histories from the Louis family indicate that the store became ‘Luzon

Co.’, a Filipino boarding house (Stark 1998a:5). The 1950 Sanborn map reveals that the buildings on the lot were demolished. It was later used as a parking lot before the parking structure was erected.

Feature 19 and the Chong Family Household

The association of Feature 19 with the Chong family is based on several lines of evidence, including analysis of historical Sanborn maps, descendent interviews, and artifact dates. Parker compiled the excavation notes from ARS and produced a map indicating the location of all features within the Palm Street Parking Structure project area.

Figure 5 depicts the location of the excavated features as they are represented on the 1903 Sanborn map. This map places Feature 19 within the parcel associated within

832/40 range of Palm Street (Figure 5). The 1910 Population Schedule lists the Chong family as living at 834 Palm Street. While none of the Sanborn maps depict the 834 Palm

Street address, it is likely that the Quong Chong store front had a separate address (832

Palm Street) than the resident dwellings above and behind the store (834 Palm Street). It can be posited that two different addresses for store and the dwelling may account for the inconsistent address numbers for the same location.

Interviews with Palm Street Chinatown descendants Richard Chong (Anderson

2010[1974]; Dart 1977:7), Howard Louis (Stark 1998a:5), and Young Louis (Wong

1987:22) indicated that the Chong family store and residence were located where the

Palm Street Parking structure now stands. Howard Louis described how the Chongs ran

their store on the first floor while they lived on the second floor and in an adjoining

structure behind the store (Stark 1998a:5). Figure 5 also shows that Feature 19 is located

in what appears to be a fenced backyard space. Howard Louis confirmed that there were fence divisions between the Chongs’ dwelling and those of their neighbors (Stark 1998a:

21). This further suggests that Feature 19 may have been used exclusively by the Chong family.

Lastly, the artifacts found within Feature 19 date from the late 19th to early 20th

centuries (Konzak 2016:31). The Chong family appeared to have lived at this location

from 1900 to 1926 according to the Population Schedule. Some of the family members

moved to a new location on Palm Street as indicated in the 1930 population schedule.

While the period of the artifacts from Feature 19 is fairly long, their dates fit within the

timeframe of the Chong family residence.

Feature 19 appears to be unique to the Palm Street Parking Structure collection

because it is likely associated with one family household. Other features from the

collection appear to be mixed refuse deposits from surrounding stores and tenements

(Konzak 2016:27). Many Chinatown archaeological assemblages are communal refuse

deposits that cannot be linked to a particular household. Due to the communal deposits, it

is rare that a feature deposit can be associated with a particular family unit in most

Chinatown collections (Voss 2008:39). While it cannot be determined from the

archaeological excavation that Feature 19 was a private Chong family refuse deposit, it is

likely that this feature was separated from neighboring deposits and privies by the fences

erected by Gin Sai Yuen. Therefore, this thesis considers Feature 19 to be a household

assemblage associated with a single family, the Chongs. The other features from the Palm

Street Parking Structure assemblage appear to be from mixed tenement refuse deposits

and likely cannot be as specifically attributed to one household. Associating Feature 19

with a single family allows for this study to interpret the collection on a household level.

The Chong Family

The history of the Chong family at the Palm Street Chinatown begins with Gin

Sai Yuen who owned and ran the Quong Chong market at 832 Palm Street While Gin Sai

Yuen’s family and their descendants use the name “Chong”, according to US Census records from 1900 to 1930, the original family name was “Gin” until at least 1920 when the family name changed to “Quong/Chong” after their store (Dart 1977). Gin Sai Yuen was known as “Quong Chong” specifically, while his children took “Chong” as their

surname. In order to differentiate the store from the individual, Gin Sai Yuen will be

referred to under his original Chinese name, while the rest of his family will be referred

to as Chong as that is how they were best known in writings and the community.

Gin Sai Yuen and his wife, Yup Shee Chong, came to California from “Canton,

near Hong Kong, in 1870,” according to an interview with his son, Richard Chong

(Anderson 2010 [1974]). While Gin Sai Yuen may have arrived to California in 1870, it

is unknown when exactly he came to San Luis Obispo. A newspaper article recorded the

Chinese Lunar New Year festivities at the Palm Street Chinatown and detailed a

beautifully cut paper lantern made by Gin Suey for Yee Chung’s store (The San Luis

Obispo Tribune [SLOT], 12 February 1896). Anglicized spellings of Chinese names were

not consistent at this time, therefore “Gin Suey” could refer to Gin Sai Yuen. This

indicates that the Gin/Chong family had arrived at San Luis Obispo by 1896, with the

1900 Population Schedule firmly establishing the Chong family as residents of the Palm

Street Chinatown by that year.

All twelve of Gin Sai Yuen and Yup Shee Chong’s children were born in

California (Anderson 2010 [1974]) (See Appendix B). The eldest child, George Chong was born in 1885 while Gin Sai Yuen’s youngest child, Elena Chong, was born in 1911.

The Chong children had Chinese and American names and were referred to by their

American names by 1920 according to the population schedule from that year. At least three of the Chong children, George, Addison, and Richard continued to live or operate businesses at the Palm Street Chinatown from the 1920s-1970s. The Population Schedule indicated the other Chong family children appeared to have moved to other cities. In addition to his American family, Gin Sai Yuen had at least one daughter in China, though it appears she had never met his American children (Anderson 2010 [1974]).

While the Feature 19 site materials were associated with the Chong family residence at 832 Palm from 1900-1926, members of the Chong family continued to live in other locations at the SLO Chinatown. Addison Chong built a new house for his family at the corner of Palm Street and Chorro Street According to the 1930 US census, Gin Sai

Yuen and his wife, who were 87 and 67 accordingly, lived at the same address as

Addison. In addition to a new residence, Addison built a brick building for his Chinese restaurant around 1923-1925 (Anderson 2010 [1974]). This restaurant was open until about 1954 when his brother, Richard, took it over and ran a candy store until his death in

1978 (Anderson 2010). This brick building is no longer related to the Chong family, but a plaque commemorating Addison and Richard’s place in the community remains on the storefront.

Historical Narrative and Archaeology

The history of the Palm Street Chinatown provides valuable background

information about the community and the residents. This historical narrative provides

context for the archaeological materials recovered from the Palm St. Parking Structure.

Bridging the historical narrative of the residents with the archaeological materials

recovered from the Palm Street Parking Structure requires several theoretical approaches.

In the next chapter, I use concepts of fluid identity, diaspora and memory, and foodways to frame my approach to interpret this collection. The first theme considers how self-identity can be represented through historical artifacts. The second theme looks at how nostalgia and memories are influenced by migration and transnationalism. The

last theme looks at how food and food choice are defined by Chinese ethnic groups.

These themes look beyond the known history of the Chinatown and allow for a more

meaningful interpretation of how Chinese American identity was negotiated over time.

Chapter 4: Theoretical Background

Introduction

This chapter explores the theoretical frameworks used to analyze and interpret the

Palm Street Parking Structure archaeological collection. Historical records enable

archaeologists to identify who may have used certain objects in the past. However developing and employing archaeological theories helps researchers to understand why these objects were used. The theoretical methods used in analyzing the collection can yield a deeper interpretation of the material culture. The themes of this thesis focus on the

interplay of material culture, migration and memory and foodways in negotiating identity.

Historical Archaeology and Chinese Diaspora Archaeology

The current archaeological literature on Chinese migrants is entrenched in

theoretical issues that challenge interpretation of ethnic identity. Over the past several

decades, archaeologists have attempted to analyze artifacts from Chinese assemblages in

order to define the complex relationships between material culture and ethnic identity.

However, recognizing that cultural meanings do not equate to material constructs has

proved to be problematic for the field of archaeology in general.

Much of the literature concerning Chinese Diaspora archaeology is focused on the

maintenance, or change, of Chinese ethnic identity within non-Chinese societies. The

study of ethnic identity began with the theories of cultural anthropologists such as Fredrik

Barth (1969) and were later used by archaeologists. Barth (1969:14) stressed that ethnic

groups are created through social boundaries in respect to other groups and maintained by

cultural and symbolic material practices. Anthropologists have generally defined ethnic 43 identity as an individual’s association with an ethnic group based on shared homeland, kin, and/or culture (Barth 1969:11; Ross 2013:53). This definition argues that ethnic identity is a process negotiated over time that is reinforced through cultural contact, such as those seen in colonial or diasporic settings.

The study of Chinese immigration is inherently an international study of homeland and host countries. Archaeologists studying the Chinese Diaspora have used transnational and diaspora study methods to compare artifacts such as plate ware (Ross

2013:165) and building features between Overseas Chinese communities in California to those in mainland China (González-Tennant 2011). Studying migrant Chinese archaeological sites naturally brings into focus culture contact and cultural continuity when interpreting a collection. However, determining an ethnic preference for any population based on artifacts can lead to overemphasizing the degrees of Americanization of Chinese migrants or elevating exotic Chinese material (Mullins 2008:152). This presents a challenge to archaeologists who rely on material culture in determining social integration because the manufacture origin does not necessarily equate to an individual’s ethnic identification.

More recent archaeological studies have begun to recognize how identity can change within an individual’s lifetime, therefore attempting to determine ethnic identity through static objects may be futile (Mullins 2008:153; Ross 2012:38). Understanding that material culture use does not necessarily equate to ethnic identity presents a paradox to archaeologists. This theory recognizes human agency and acknowledges that people can use material culture outside of their own ethnicity without it altering their identity.

Attempting to define an overall ethnic identity could also lead to an assumption that there

44 is an inherent ethnic practice that is unchanging regardless of an individual’s life experiences.

This subject raises many questions from the international archaeological community in how to produce meaningful interpretations from artifacts while avoiding falling into stereotypes. The theoretical frameworks used in analyzing ethnic identity in archaeology have varied over time as a result but follow certain themes for interpretation.

The first theme used to interpreted Chinese migrant ethnic identity is understanding the contexts behind material culture and the fluidity of ethnic identity. The second approach recognizes how transnationalism influences memories through the material and emotional connection between Chinese migrants and China overtime. The third theme looks at how foodways can reflect ethnic practices by transforming intangible cultural values into a consumable material.

Theme 1: Material Culture Studies of Chinese Migrants and Fluid Identity

Some of the earliest studies of ethnicity within Chinese Diaspora archaeology were compiled by Schuyler (1980) in his book Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History and addressed the link between acculturation and material culture use. Schuyler (1980: 87) argues that while

Chinese American immigrants did not have an unchanging static culture, they resisted acculturation into EuroAmerican society more than other ethnic groups, such as African

Americans. The comparison between Chinese and other minorities has long been part of the idea that Chinese are an exception to the typical American culture. This relates to the sojourner hypothesis as Chinese migrants were considered to have isolated themselves

from American society more than any other ethnic minority or migrant group (Yang

2000:244).

Greenwood (1980:114) argues that Chinese migrant workers were isolated from the larger part of American society due to their work in rural areas where they would live

in seasonal Chinese camps and use materials provided by their labor contractors. Unlike

Schuyler (1980), this theory reasons that Chinese migrants did not necessarily insulate

themselves from American society as an act of resistance, but as the result of the lifestyle

of contracted laborers. While many Chinese migrants were hired to work in isolated

locations, many other migrants were employed outside of the Chinese community as

laborers, factory workers and farm hands who only lived in Chinatowns as temporary

residences (Voss 2008:44).

Archaeologists have found that historical cultural material from both rural and

urban Chinese dwellings favored Chinese imported plateware and ceramics (Greenwood

1980:114). Felton et al. (1984:87) excavated an 1870s Chinese laundry in Woodland,

California and found Chinese-origin ceramics and Chinese foodways dominated the

assemblage. Like Greenwood (1980), Felton et al. (1984:98) considered the economic factors that may have influenced the Chinese residents’ dominant consumption of

inexpensive Chinese ceramics rather than EuroAmerican ceramics. However, Felton et al.

(1984:98) suggests that other assemblages from EuroAmerican, Black, and Hispanic sites

of similar economic background had far more diversity in ceramic patterns than the

Woodland Chinatown. This pattern of dominant Chinese-origin material was typical of

many other Chinese migrant sites across the US including those in Tucson, Arizona

(Olsen 1978; Schuyler 1980). This indicates that buying power was not necessarily the main limiting factor in the variety of material culture among Chinese migrant sites.

The analytical methods archaeologists use to approach a collection can unintentionally bias interpretations of Chinese Diaspora assemblages. Early archaeological studies of Chinese migrant-associated collections tended to fixate on

Chinese origin materials and unique Chinese practices. An analysis of a Northern

California Chinese general store inventory by Sando and Felton (1993) provided valuable insight into Chinese records and merchants. However, while a variety of items, such as hardware and clothes were sold at the store, only opium pipes and Asian ceramics were analyzed in Sando and Felton’s report (1993:152). By excluding analysis of non-Chinese

artifacts from the report, this study elevated Chinese origin objects and ignored artifacts

that were not considered unique to Chinese ethnic identity.

Other past archaeological studies utilized numerical counts of both Chinese and

non-Chinese artifacts to determine the degree of Chinese acculturation of migrant

communities. A study of Chinese immigrants in El Paso, Texas by Staski (1993:145),

counted the number of Chinese ceramics compared to EuroAmerican ceramics and

determined that the small amounts of EuroAmerican ceramics indicated that the Chinese

immigrants there did not integrate into western society. This approach to studying ethnic

identity and culture change relied heavily on empirical patterns of material culture and

ignored social and economic factors that could contribute to understanding the residents.

However, unlike purely Chinese-centric studies, Staski’s (1993) approach broadened the

focus of material culture to include all objects of different cultural and national

manufacture origin. Mullins (2008:153) argues that to move beyond empirical pattern

analysis, Chinese cultural material should not be routinely elevated as symbols of ethnic

identity. Instead, Mullins (2008:153) challenges archaeologists to contextualize patterns

of Chinese migrant consumption without unintentionally reinforcing stereotypes.

The mid-1990s was a time when archaeologists changed their approaches to the

relationship between ethnic identity and material culture in Chinese American sites. A

comprehensive study of the Sacramento Chinatown was conducted in 1997 when the

Anthropological Studies Center excavated the HI56 Block in Sacramento. Adrian and

Mary Praetzellis (1997) conducted a thorough study of the entire excavation assemblage

while looking beyond the binary Chinese and EuroAmerican interpretation. Instead, the

authors took into consideration how merchant classes, resource access, and Victorian social values impacted the communities’ material culture. Regardless of if the Chinese community used Chinese or EuroAmerican artifacts, Praetzellis and Praetzellis concluded that “Material innovation is far from being coterminous with cultural change; the cultural significance of the former depends on the meaning of the artifact within a given social context” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1997:25). Therefore, it is not what material an individual or community uses that is significant to cultural identity, but how and why it is used. This stands in stark contrast to Staski’s (1993) interpretation of ethnic identity through empirical pattern analysis of artifacts. The concept of fluid identity and culture change confounds archaeological interpretations that rely on material culture origin, because a shift in material culture does not necessarily result in a shift in ethnic identity.

The archaeological work conducted by Praetzellis and Praetzellis (1997:281) in

Sacramento is a conscious movement away from the kind of quantitative analysis employed by Staski (1993). Staski (2009) also encouraged a broader analysis of material

culture beyond percentages of Chinese vs Non-Chinese artifacts. The process of archaeological analysis and identifying patterns of use can sometimes lead to superficial interpretations of culture. Focusing on Chinese origin artifacts tended to bias interpretations toward the sojourner thesis as it isolated one type of cultural material from

the broader collection. Current archaeological studies have typically moved away from

the sojourner thesis (Orser 2007:162). As Mullins (2008:153) states, “… even the best-

intentioned scholars sometimes projected their systematic empiricism onto stock racial

and cultural stereotypes.”

The idea that Chinese migrant identity changed over time derives from two

factors: 1) The motivations for Chinese to migrate to the US changed over time and 2)

that the identity of the Chinese migrants who remained in American changed throughout

their lifetime (Greenwood 1993:381). The Chinese migrants who were motivated to stay

in America would negotiate their new identities there as they lived, worked, and made

new connections over time. Greenwood (1993:381) states that the later waves of Chinese

migrants entering the US would be more likely to adapt to American ways and American

material culture, unlike their predecessors.

While the manufacturing origin of material culture was traditionally accepted as

an indicator for cultural affiliation in the past, archaeologists have been working towards

recognizing how objects are imbued with different meanings regardless of cultural origin.

Mullins (2008:154) suggests that sojourning Chinese migrants consumed traditional

Chinese materials not as a determined effort to reject American society, but that they had

little motivation in incorporating American practices. The continuous use of Chinese-

origin artifacts was one of habit rather than active resistance. Similarly, Ross (2012:40)

questions when an object of foreign origin becomes incorporated into a culture to the

point of becoming indigenous. Ross (2013:183) found that consuming western beers in

China was a common practice that continued among Chinese migrant communities.

Therefore, the consumption of non-Chinese materials in a migrant community does not necessarily reflect a different cultural practice than what was common at home.

Theme 2: Transnationalism and Homeland Memory

Many past archaeological studies of Chinese ethnicity and identity were framed

by the question of defining authentic Chinese practices of their subjects’ lives (i.e.,

Chinese Ways). Studies would focus on finding “strange” or “unusual” Chinese materials and maintain their ethnic boundaries through these traditional practices (Mullins 2008:

154). Instead, archaeologists have become more self-reflexive in their characterizations of Chinese material objects. Despite recognizing these issues, archaeologists continue to struggle with the “myth of the traditional” when attempting to define Chinese practices in an American context (Kennedy 2016:146; Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2015).

In order to break away from the notion of Chinese Ways assigned by archaeologists, Mullins (2008:156) challenges archaeologists to consider “…how China itself was defined by the Overseas Chinese and how that evolving memory of China became part of their identities.” Instead of relying on mainstream American constructions of Chinese ethnic identity, this concept of memory acknowledges a more personal understanding of an individual in a diasporic setting. Personal memory grants the subject more agency in defining their identity rather than imposing an over-arching concept of tradition (Ross 2012:46).

Homeland memory is described as “a collective memory, vision or myth about

their original homeland” that is maintained by diasporic groups through use of objects or

rituals (Safran 1991:83). Unlike the more rigid framework of tradition, memory is

dependent on an individual’s or group’s perceived notion of what is Chinese. In other

words, homeland memory brings into focus the mythical aspects of how tradition is constructed, inherited, and maintained (Kennedy 2016:149; Ross 2012:46). Instead of focusing on the empirical data of artifacts, archaeologists such as Ross and Kennedy are looking at how Chinese migrants may have used objects as emotional vessels of homeland nostalgia. Transnational connections are also maintained through travel and visits to an immigrant’s homeland. Emotional connections do not require actual travel but can be invoked through nostalgia, such as eating food from one’s childhood (Holtzmann

2006:367).

To incorporate material culture into diasporic studies, archaeologists look at how

the transnational exchange of people and goods is related to ethnic identity. Diaspora and

transnationalism are similar concepts as they are both concerned with the dispersal of

people. Transnationalism focuses on the connection these diasporic peoples maintain

between their home and host countries. Transnationalism addresses economics and

exchange between migrants with their homeland while diaspora studies focus on how

identity is maintained and shared from their homeland (Ross 2013:31). In the past,

diaspora has referred to the Jewish exile from their homeland, however it is used in

multiple disciplines to refer to various communities either forcibly or willingly displaced

(Chen 2009; Safran 1991). However, transnational studies specifically address how

communication and material culture are exchanged between homeland and host country.

Transnational studies originated within contemporary studies of global migration.

Transnationalism arose from the rapid exchange of economics, socialization, and culture between nations brought by modern transportation and technology (Portes et al.

1999:228). Historical archaeologists have begun applying transnational theory to their research to highlight the role of material culture exchange as it applies to ethnic identity.

The continued importation of Chinese foods and goods for Chinese-only markets during the 19th century is an example of transnationalism from the past (Ross 2013:181).

While transnationalism refers to an exchange of goods or people between a migrant’s homeland and host country, homeland memory can refer to a non-tangible connection, such as an imagined relationship or alliance to their homeland (Ross

2012:46). During the Chinese Exclusion Era, this transnational link might have relied more on a continuously imagined connection rather than a tangible link. This is because travel between both places was prevented for laborers and discouraged for merchant classes.

Migration studies of transnationalism and diaspora lend themselves to comparative studies between migrant communities because “understanding the Asian immigrant experience worldwide would help illuminate that experience in any particular place,” (Staski 2009:355). This means that studying Chinese migrant archaeology and history throughout the world has become increasingly important in understanding the broader historical impacts of the Chinese Diaspora.

However, comparisons with mainland China can be problematic as they can characterize the Chinese as overly traditional and unchanging which threatens to homogenize all Chinese migrants (Mullins 2008; Ross 2013:32). In order to counter this,

archaeological studies need to be self-reflective in their analyses to avoid circular arguments. Many archaeologists instead are now looking more into understanding the history of mainland China and how Chinese migrant lives were impacted before immigration (Voss 2015). The Chinese Diaspora not only influenced the host countries, but impacted China as well. Chinese who returned to China from abroad brought new wealth as well as new funding and innovations for electricity and transportation (Chen

2009:28). Therefore, it has become critical to use transnational approaches in order to create a comprehensive context of Chinese migrant lives. As people’s motivations and identities change over time, what Chinese migrants consider their homeland did not remain consistent. It was customary for Chinese migrants to have their bones shipped back to China to be permanently buried as an act of returning to their birthplace (Farkas

1998:1; Wong 1987:40). However, some Chinese migrants would decide to be buried in the US as they no longer considered China their homeland.

Archaeological studies of American Born Chinese who were born during the early

20th century in particular presents a new challenge in understanding the negotiation of

Chinese and American identities. Due to exclusion laws that prohibited wives of laborers

from entering the US (Voss and Allen 2008:7), the number of ABC in California was

relatively small compared to Chinese-born migrants. Similarly, many of these families

were raised in Chinatowns where it is difficult to discern the difference between family

and workers tenement assemblages due to mixed refuse deposits. The scale of analysis

used in Chinatown archaeological studies could vary from a single household to an entire

community depending on the features (Voss 2008:39). As a result, archaeological reports

on Chinese American families are underrepresented due to limitations on data recovery.

While the archaeology of ABC is limited, various historical interviews and

autobiographical writings have been published detailing the lives of ABC during the

exclusion era. Unlike their Chinese migrant parents, Yin (2006:212-213) proposes that

ABC were not as connected to China because “…America was their only home: few

emotional or personal bonds linked them to their parents’ old country.”

The notion of homeland memory is confounded for ABC children who never traveled to China, but were raised by Chinese migrant parents. Instead, what it meant to

be Chinese to ABC was a cultural construct derived from immigrant caretakers. Like

their Chinese migrant parents, attempting to impose a blanket sense of ethnic identity for

ABCs ignores individual agency. Chinese language schools were established for ABC in

the US, though the actual interest that ABC had in practicing Chinese and customs varied

among students. Some students would be instilled with lessons on Chinese civility and

morality, while others would only learn rudimentary Chinese and favor American public

school education (Lai 2006: 208-209). Regardless of their emotional connection to a

Chinese identity, their concepts of a Chinese homeland were built through parents,

teachers, and the greater American society. Tsai et al. (2000:305) argues that

In specific contexts, ABC may be influenced by Chinese culture, whereas in other contexts (e.g., school, work), they may be influenced by mainstream American culture. Thus, their notions of being Chinese and being American may be context- specific and may develop independently of each other.

Determining the context of material culture is essential in archaeological

interpretations of ABC. Household contexts would fall under the sphere of influence

from Chinese migrant parents. How Chinese migrants conceptualized their homeland

memory played a significant role in how they influenced their ABC children in

understanding and constructing their Chinese identities.

Theme 3: Foodways and Chinese Ways

The third theme of this thesis looks at how archaeologists have approached interpreting Chinese Ways and how culture is transmitted through foodways. Foodways are a social construct that utilize consumable materials and cooking practices to express intangible social values. Chinese Ways are practices considered to be authentic to

Chinese heritage or tradition.

Historians and anthropologists have long been fascinated by Chinese foodways and have produced an extensive amount of written material on the topic since the arrival of Chinese in California. This includes cookbooks, newspaper articles and research on butchering techniques (Chen 2017:1). Archaeologists have found that the study of foodways has been an effective theme in identifying how Chinese Americans used cultural materials to negotiate their ethnic identities. Foodways are significant for research of cultural practices because food creates sensory based memories that can evoke a sense of eating at home (Kennedy 2016:232).

Food and food related artifacts are typically found in abundance throughout historical archaeological sites. Foodways studies have been a common research theme in the analysis of Chinese identity as food choices can reflect many influences of culture and society (Kennedy 2016; Langenwalter 1980:110). While there are many dimensions and contexts of identity and cultural material, “people will consume what is meaningful to them,” (Orser 2007:13). Therefore, while using food related artifacts in analyzing ethnic identity could overemphasize empirical data, it is still imperative archaeologists interpret material culture to contextualize ethnic identity.

Chinese food is commonly characterized by the greater use of pork, cleavers and fan and tsai, or staples of rice and vegetables (Chang 1977:7; Kennedy 2016:49). This

thesis uses the term Chinese Ways as being synonymous with authenticity as many studies and biographies will refer to certain practices or customs as being uniquely and traditionally Chinese.

Authentic food implies that products are prepared using the same ingredients and processes as found in homeland of the ethnic, national, or regional group. Americanized ethnic food suggests the local and traditional characteristics of the dish as indigenously prepared have been modified or transformed. In this "moral" sense, the food does not deserve the label of being authentic (Lu and Fine 1995: 538).

This definition of authenticity maintains that for Chinese food to be authentic in

America requires that it is prepared exactly as it would be in China. However, in an

American context, the authenticity of Chinese food is determined by Chinese migrants

and transmitted to ABC. According to Liu (2015:116), the cultural authority is the person

or persons who are responsible for transmitting cultural values to others. Chinese Ways,

and therefore Chinese authenticity in the US, are based on the cultural authority that

Chinese migrant parents held over their children (Liu 2015:116).

Liu’s (2015) book From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express details the origins

of Chinese food in the US to its current popularity in chain restaurants. For many years,

chop suey was sold as a traditional Chinese food when in reality it was an imaginary

authentic Chinese food (Liu 2015:51) that was heavily adapted for EuroAmerican tastes.

Anthropological studies comparing ABC and overseas food practices also became popular in the 1970s (Kelly and Kelly 1980:135). For example, an ethnographic study

comparing ABC food preferences with those of overseas-born Chinese in Tucson found that there was little difference in practice between the groups except that ABC were much more likely to eat non-Chinese foods throughout the day (Howard 1974:xi). Though the studies of Chinese from 20th century migrations comprised a different wave of migrants

than from those from the late 19th century, this study is an example of the persistent

research conducted on Chinese foodways.

Due to labor discrimination, many Chinese Americans turned to running Chinese

restaurants during the Exclusion Era (Chen 1966:191). This association between Chinese

Americans and Chinese food has been used as a mark of foreignness by EuroAmericans

since the 19th century. Chinese have long been criticized for their ‘unusual’ food

preferences and practices, from using chopsticks, to eating rice, or using “taboo” animal

products (Liu 2015:30-31). Anti-Chinese sentiments would disparage Chinese migrants through stereotypes. “Chinese immigrants’ purported diet of ‘rice and rats’ was also cited as a clear sign that they had a lower standard of living, one that white working families could not (and should not) degrade themselves by accepting” (Lee 2003:33).

Regardless of the opinion of Chinese food as unusual, Chinese food does have a particularly distinctive way of being prepared as fan and tsai with a focus on rice and vegetables and a preference of cleavers for butchering (Chang 1977:7; Kennedy

2016:253). These distinctive methods of preparation can sometimes be identified in cultural materials from archaeological remains.

Artifact analysis can consist of many different material types such as lithics, ceramics, and faunal analysis. Faunal analysis has become particularly prominent in the analysis of Chinese foodways. This is because faunal bone can be analyzed for multiple lines of data such as animal species, meat preference, and butchering tool use. One of the earlier faunal studies of Chinese migrant foodways was conducted by Langenwalter

(1980) at the Lower China Store in Fresno from the 1860s. Similar to interpretations from other archaeologists at the time, Langenwalter (1980:110) states that the Chinese

57 migrants almost exclusively used cleavers for butchering unlike the handsaw based butchering practices of EuroAmericans practices.

As archaeology moved away from interpretations of behavior of acculturation, new faunal studies investigated how cultural practices changed over time. One such study comes from Gust (1993) who analyzed several faunal collections from five historic

Chinatown residences from different time periods. Gust (1993:208) found that there do not appear to be any Chinese food practices that are uniquely attributed to Chinese migrants. Instead, her faunal analysis suggests that food practices were more consistent between Chinese groups when accounting for economics rather than culture.

Faunal analyses also have been used to explore the relationship between foodways and ethnic identity of Chinese immigrants for projects from the Market Street

Chinatown (Kennedy 2016) and the Mono Mills Chinatown (Sunseri 2015). Kennedy

(2016) completed a comprehensive faunal analysis of merchant and tenement complexes for the Market Street Chinatown in San Jose. He found that the Chinese migrant laborers incorporated much more animal protein in their diets than was typical of those working classes in mainland China (Kennedy 2016:265). Kennedy concludes that residents did not particularly adhere to food practices as they were in China, but instead were able to eat more decadently and adapt to the abundance of American ingredients, such as beef. This contrasts to the earlier studies that claimed the Chinese migrants were resistant to adapting new foodways. Instead, Kennedy’s (2016) argument suggests that what archaeologists conceptualized as Chinese food was not entirely representative of homeland practices. Even though Chinese migrants did not mimic EuroAmerican

58 foodways, they created and adapted their foodways within their own terms of cultural negotiation.

Conclusion

Studying foodways and Chinese Ways allows archaeologists to study material culture in relation to Chinese ethnic identity. Due to the vast number of historical references, anthropological studies, and artifacts, foodways have become a particular focus for researchers in determining the relationship between material culture, practice, and ethnicity. To understand Chinese American ethnic identity, this thesis combines themes of fluid identity, transnationalism, and a faunal analysis of foodways for a comprehensive interpretation of the Palm Street Parking Structure site.

In the next chapter I will detail the methods used in my faunal analysis and the limitations of my research for this collection. This includes the historical research conducted for the Palm Street Chinatown and the sources used to determine the residents associated with the archaeological collection. The next chapter also explains the laboratory techniques used in processing the faunal collection from Feature 19.

Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods

Introduction

In this chapter I will describe the research design and methods used for data

collection and faunal analysis. In this thesis I used multiple lines of evidence to explore

the relationship between ethnic identity and material culture. This chapter explains why I

chose to focus on the analysis of the Feature 19 faunal materials excavated from the Palm

Street Parking Structure. First, I describe how Feature 19 became the focus of this research, as well as the related excavation techniques used during data recovery. Next, I detail the laboratory methods used to analyze the faunal bones and how faunal remains are used in interpreting foodways. Finally, I analyze the history of the Feature 19 artifacts using historical records and descendant interviews to contextualize my interpretations of the collection.

Excavation Methods

The excavation history and curation process of the Palm Street Parking Structure

collection was detailed in Chapter 2. The Palm Street Parking Structure excavation was a

sizeable project that encompassed one half block of the Palm Street Chinatown in the city

of San Luis Obispo. The excavation by ARS in 1987 yielded 28 features, which produced

220 boxes of cultural material. This area of the excavation was a portion of a larger

multi-component site of CA-SLO-64H that encompassed the 800 block of Palm Street between Chorro and Morro Streets (Konzak 2016:1). The materials recovered from the

Palm Street Parking Structure excavation encompass periods of occupation by Native

Americans, Mission-period settlements, and the Chinatown from later 19th to the early 60

20th Century (Konzak 2016:iii). The majority of the features excavated from this site were likely refuse deposits from the surrounding Chinatown buildings (Figure 5).

While a large quantity of artifacts was recovered, part of the collection had been

damaged due to inadequate management and storage over the years. Consequently, not all

features retained their research potential. Some features that did maintain their excavation records showed inconsistencies in the data collection, such as arbitrary levels and screening methods used.

One of the more intact features that provided research opportunities was Feature

19. Feature 19, a redwood lined hollowed/filled feature retained much of its contextual associations such as labels, levels and associated paperwork. Feature 19 also contained a

large number of faunal remains and associated artifacts. This feature is a continuous

deposition of a hollow-filled pit that may represent a privy, cesspool or filled basement

(Konzak 2016:27). The Feature 19 paperwork indicates that the feature measured about 3 meters by 2 meters and was excavated in increments of 20 centimeters down to a depth of

1.5 meters.

Due to the poor storage conditions of the entire collection, many of the faunal

bones from Feature 19 had become fragmented over time. The bones were likely exposed

to moisture or crushed by the weight of artifacts they were stored with. A bone that was

excavated as an intact element can crack or break into multiple pieces to the point where

it cannot be identified. Bones broken in storage can sometimes be mended, such as rib

fragments, however it takes considerable effort depending on the number of bone

fragments.

Analyses by ASC archaeological staff determined that the contents from this

feature indicate it was used between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This thesis

focuses only on the faunal remains and artifacts recovered from Feature 19 due to the

relatively well-preserved context and completeness of this feature and the extensive

amount of faunal bone recovered.

Some of the Feature 19 artifacts were catalogued and weighed by Parker though the bones were not identified beyond taxa (Konzak 2016:C.1). Bones were sorted and catalogued by unit provenience and depth from the Feature 19 excavation. The ASC processed the collection in 2014 where Feature 19 bones were cleaned and re-bagged for sorting. The initial sorting of the Feature 19 collection was conducted by Sonoma State

University graduate student interns under the supervision of ASC staff Michael Stoyka and Whitney McClellan in spring 2015. During this internship the faunal remains were sorted by mammal, bird, fish or reptile and then sorted by size and species. In 2017, I

completed the cataloguing and faunal analysis as part of the research design for this thesis

using the Bone and Butchering Analysis System (BABAS) designed by Sherri Gust

(2001). All provenience and specimen information was entered into an Access database.

Laboratory Methods

The BABAS method is used to create an accurate representation of actual meat

weight found in a collection as opposed to bone weight. Rather than just quantifying

bones, this method determines the total meat weight and the price calculation of cow, pig

and sheep meat cuts based on the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), bone length,

and the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI). BABAS calculates the meat weight using the historical average weight of butchering cuts to create a table that converts bone

lengths to steak equivalents. Steak equivalents are the actual flesh weight of meat based

on the cut of bone from each species and skeletal element. For instance, one inch of

butchered bone from a cow hindshank would equal one steak equivalent and one pound

of meat (Gust 2001:9). For mutton and pork, one inch of bone is equal to two steak

equivalents. Therefore, this method measures bones for length and meat weight rather

than bone weight.

In my lab analysis, I identified and analyzed over 2,200 small, medium and large

mammal bones using this system. These bones were analyzed for several characteristics

including species, element, meat chunk, and butchering marks. I then calculated for meat

weight based on steak equivalents and species of either cow, pig, or sheep.

Each specimen was analyzed with zooarchaeological methods to identify as

precisely as possible the taxonomic classification. Species and element were determined

using the ASC comparative faunal collection and various references on animal skeletal

anatomy. If mammal size could not be determined, the specimen was typically too

fragmented for further analysis and was not entered into the faunal database. Faunal bone

identification of goats and sheep are typically difficult to differentiate and are sometimes

combined in faunal analysis (Kennedy 2016:115). Oral history interviews indicate that

the Louis family raised goats in their backyard in the Palm Street Chinatown (Stark

1998a:16) though there is no evidence the Chong family raised goats. Different regions in

China will use the same word yang (羊) to refer to either sheep or goat which can confound English translations for these animals (Simoons 1991:301). Therefore, due to the relatively low number of caprine bones found in the collection, they have been

analyzed as sheep or mutton for ease of comparison to the more prominent pig and cow

faunal remains.

The MNI was calculated based on counts of repetitive unique bones and their

side, such as right scaphoids. However, the NISP of mammal elements are typically more

useful in urban sites than MNI, as animals were raised on a smaller scale and butchers

were readily accessible (Goodman 2006:7).

Species not typically associated with meat consumption were also found in the collection and entered into the spreadsheet. This includes animals such as rodents and horses. While these non-meat animals were typically considered incidental for

EuroAmerican assemblages, this analysis takes into consideration Chinese cultural preferences. Traditional Chinese medicines will often incorporate non-domesticated or

wild animals such as snakes (Heffner 2013:32). Therefore, this study interprets incidental

faunal remains as ‘Unique Fauna’ separately from domesticated animals. By creating a

separate category, this does not automatically assume that these unique fauna were

consumed as food. It is important to recognize that food taboos will vary between

cultures and Chinese migrants did not necessarily hold the same western ideas of

appropriate cuisine (Liu 2015:31). BABAS allows for easy comparisons between other

archaeological collections regardless of ethnic association. The one disadvantage,

however, is that BABAS most accurately accounts for the meat weight from mammals

and birds, but does not calculate reptiles (such as turtles).

In order to determine the butchering methods and preparation, each specimen was

examined for butchering marks associated with either cleavers/axes, handsaws, machine

saws, knives, or impact fractures. These tools will typically leave distinct marks on cut

64 bone that can be used to classify how it was butchered. Tools used to make large cuts on bones such as cleavers will leave a flat surface (Goodman 2006:4) while sawn bones will exhibit striations on the cut surface from the saw teeth. Knives leave shallower butchering marks and were used mainly to carve meat off of the bone rather than cut the bone itself. If the tool used could not be determined, the cut was noted in the data table as indeterminate. A hand lens was used in order to identify butchering marks on each specimen and then entered into the database using a guide for location of cut. The butchering marks were then added up according to tool type. Faunal remains with no butchering marks were left blank in the tool type section of the database.

Butchering marks, or “meat chunk”, denotes how the meat was prepared such as a steak, a roast, or soup (Gust 2001:11). Meat chunk is determined by animal, element, size, and butchering marks present on the bone. For instance, a one inch cut of scapula butchered on both ends indicate that it was a steak cut, as opposed to a roast which would be a thicker cut and require a different kind of preparation (Schell 1977).

Bones specimens were also analyzed for other taphonomic markings including being blackened from heat alteration, calcined, or animal gnawing. This taphonomic data from burned or calcined bone can indicate whether the deposit was burned, while animal gnawing can indicate if the assemblage was left uncovered and accessible to animals

(McClellan 2015:78).

Butchering large and medium mammals begins with quartering a carcass into segments of primal cuts. Retail cuts are butchered subdivisions of primal cuts such as a sirloin, brisket or rump cut (Gust 2001:10). Retail cuts were analyzed based on the element of bone and cut. Due to the high fragmentation of ribs, calculating the retail cut

of ribs might skew their meat weight higher. Cross-mending ribs for a more accurate

meat weight proved to be unproductive as a large amount of bone was fragmented in this collection. However, bone fragments that were clearly broken post-deposit were counted as a fraction of a normal steak equivalent to minimize overrepresentation of meat weight in the assemblage. The meat weight of fragmented bone specimens was then split between relevant retail cuts (i.e. rib/chuck rib).

The advantage of calculating meat weight versus bone count is that comparisons between species, such as cows and pigs, accounts for size rather than number, meaning even if an equal amount of cow and pig vertebrae were found, the actual cow meat weight would still represent a greater amount of actual meat. Due to the calculations of meat weight for BABAS, not all skeletal elements can be given a steak equivalent.

Certain cuts of meat are typically regarded as “waste bone” and were cheaper and often discarded by EuroAmerican butchers (Langenwalter 1980:108). Because of this, meat weights will be skewed slightly low without the addition of caudal vertebrae, feet and skull bones. However, Chinese cooks will often times incorporate oxtail (Kennedy 2016:

172) and pigs’ feet into their cuisine (Diehl et al 1998:27). While the BABAS analysis is accurate in calculating meat weights, it favors EuroAmerican cuts. However, the presence of waste bone in the assemblage is still considered when using BABAS and has successfully been used to analyze Chinese collections in the past (Gust 1993).

This analysis focuses on mammal bone remains as a study of butchering techniques and foodways. Bones from small taxa such as birds, reptiles and fish have been only cursorily analyzed due to inconsistencies in archaeological screening techniques within the feature. The bird and fish remains recovered from the feature are

relatively few in number compared to the mammal remains. When Feature 19 was

excavated, different depths and units were screened using a 1/4 inch screen, while some

used a 1/8 inch screen or were water screened (ARS 1987). It is unclear why the decision

was made to use three different screening methods for this feature. It is possible a lack of

time may have encouraged the excavators to use larger screen sizes for faster recovery as

the project continued. Due to the potential loss of data during screening, NISP for faunal remains under the size of ¼ inch may not be a representative sample of Feature 19.

Feature 19 was excavated using arbitrary levels to a maximum depth of 150 to

230 cm within each unit (Konzak 2016:27). The excavated material from Feature 19 appears to have been filled in one continuous deposition. Artifact catalogues show that some levels were labeled as being excavated from “surface to depth” which cannot be reliably determined (Konzak 2016:13). The ASC received the Feature 19 collection already organized by provenience, but it was not individually labelled for sorting. The cross mending of bones between contexts was not conducted because the associations between proveniences were unclear and would not provide sufficient information to warrant such analysis. Instead, fragments of unfused epiphyses were not given a NISP to prevent over representation of a particular element or species.

Historical Methods

In order to create a comprehensive interpretation of ethnic identity this analysis

draws from multiple lines of evidence including historical documents. As discussed in

Chapter 4, contextualizing artifacts is essential in understanding their use and meaning.

Part of the domestic refuse found in Feature 19 was food related artifacts. These included

objects related to food preparation, consumption and storage such as jars and knives.

In addition to artifact analysis, a comprehensive investigation of the Palm Street

Chinatown historical background was conducted. Resources included primary source

writings, census data, oral history interviews, newspaper articles and extensive library

and internet research. Primary source writings such as newspaper articles, letters and

ledgers have provided essential information regarding relations between the Chinese and

non-Chinese communities of San Luis Obispo. Understanding where the Chinese immigrants originated from in China and their motivations for coming to San Luis

Obispo allows for a better interpretation of their homeland memories and nostalgia.

The interviews used in this study were drawn from a variety of residents and

descendants from the Palm Street Chinatown such as Ah Louis, Howard Louis and

Richard Chong. The majority of interviews were conducted by SLO journalists or

submitted as editorials by local community members over the course of the 20th century

(Cattaneo 1999; Hess 1934). Copies of these interviews were obtained through the

History Center of San Luis Obispo County and from the Robert E. Kennedy Library at

Cal Poly SLO. John Parker provided the ASC with transcripts of his conversations with

Howard Louis (Stark 1998a).

While this collection is associated with the Gin/Chong family, interviews with

neighboring residents, such as the Louis family, provide a more comprehensive

understanding of the entire community. The Louis family was interviewed extensively by

H.K. Wong (1987) in his book Gum Sahn Yun: Gold Mountain Men. Additionally, Joel

Fetzer (2010) translated a selection of letters written by Ah Louis and others related to

the SLO Chinatown.

Primary source writings and interviews from first-generation Chinese Americans provide the majority of information regarding personal life and ethnic identity during the

Exclusion Era. These interviews are essential for interpreting “… how China itself was

defined by Overseas Chinese and how that evolving memory of China became part of

their identities” (Mullins 2008:156). Gaining the perspectives of both Chinese migrants

and ABC provided valuable insight into interpreting the archaeological collection such as

community involvement and relationships.

Population records from SLO County were essential in understanding Chinese

naming conventions, as not only were names anglicized differently, but often Chinese

immigrants would change their names over the years. This presented some difficulties in

identifying the Gin/Chong family line. Oral history interviews and news articles were

corroborated with population records to help identify the association between Feature 19

and the Gin/Chong family (Anderson 2010 [1974]).

Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were essential in the analysis of the Palm Street

Chinatown as the buildings and makeup of the community changed over the 19th and 20th

centuries. Excavation maps from the Palm Street Parking Structure were created by ASC

staff and depicted onto a number of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps in order to determine

the association between features and parcels (Konzak 2016). While the artifacts from

Feature 19 cannot be unquestionably associated with only the Gin/Chong family, oral history and feature maps indicate a strong likelihood that Feature 19 contained materials from the family. It is also useful to interpret the history of SLO through the Gin/Chong family, as well as the Louis family, as they were prominent members of the community who continued to live in the Chinatown through the mid-20th century.

To understand how immigration and homeland memory has influenced the Palm

Street community, I researched mainland Chinese history and foodways. Archaeology in

China does not necessarily have equivalent research goals to American historical archaeology as it does not focus on the more recent past or community archaeology (Voss

2015:3).

The methods used for this study have drawn influence from a variety of previous zooarchaeological studies and faunal analysis of both EuroAmerican and Chinese assemblages. By combining quantitative and qualitative data from faunal remains with anthropological perspectives and oral histories, this thesis allows for a more effective interpretation of ethnic identity than if one line of evidence was used.

In the next chapter I describe my findings from the Feature 19 faunal analysis.

These findings encompass a detailed analysis of the mammalian remains with an overview of the non-mammal and artifacts found in Feature 19. This includes identified species, meat weight, and other data related to foodways. Some comparisons to other contemporaneous archaeological sites will be referenced to give context to the faunal remains and how they relate to the broader SLO community. The interpretation of this data is explained in Chapter 7.

Chapter 6: Findings

Introduction This chapter will detail the findings from my faunal analysis of the Feature 19 assemblage. A complete review of the mammal faunal remains was conducted including an interpretation of unique specimens and non-mammals from Feature 19. I will cover the major meat mammals (cow, pig and sheep) first and then give an overview of the unique faunal remains and incidental animals. Feature 19 represents a large faunal assemblage with 2,264 NISP and a combined major mammal meat weight of 1,336 lbs. from beef, pork and mutton. The faunal remains from Feature 19 were dominated by beef and pork with a minor amount of mutton and various unique and incidental mammals such as ground squirrel.

In this study I have analyzed the Feature 19 faunal remains associated with the

Chong family. I contextualize this feature within the broader history of the Palm Street

Chinatown and the SLO community, while referencing other historical Chinatowns, such as the Market Street Chinatown. The majority of my comparisons will be drawn between mainland Chinese patterns of consumption and those from Feature 19.

Meat Weight from Feature 19 versus Meat Consumption in China

Similar to other Chinese-American assemblages from the turn of the century, beef dominates the Feature 19 assemblage with 765.9 lbs. Pork is the second most abundant

meat weight with 486.9 lbs. while mutton only comprises a relatively small amount of the

meat weight of 83.6 lbs. (Figure 6). Such a high meat weight of beef and pork in

comparison to mutton has typically been found to be consistent with other Chinatown

faunal assemblages (Gust 1993; Kennedy 2016:166).

Figure 6. Major Mammal Meat Weight

900 765.9 800

700

600 486.9 500

400

Meat Weight (lbs) Weight Meat 300

200 83.6 100

0 Beef Mutton Pork

It is difficult to determine from this assemblage how frequently the Chong family ate meat. However, faunal analyses from other California Chinatowns indicate that

Chinese Americans typically ate more meat than their Chinese counterparts (Kennedy

2016). In fact, very little meat was consumed regularly in China. Frederick Simoons

(1991) compiled a book detailing Chinese foodways such as access, preparation, and consumption during the early 20th century. One survey in his study found that meat and fish only accounted for 1.7% of the Chinese diet in the 1920s, though wealthier families would consume more (Simoons 1991:293). This change in amount of meat eaten is most likely due to cattle and other domestic animal farms being more plentiful in the US than

China which resulted in a culinary shift for Chinese migrants (Kennedy 2016).

Beef

While the meat weights reveal that beef was the most consumed meat from the

Feature 19 assemblage at 57%, beef was not a meat commonly eaten in China. A 1930s

survey found that beef made up only 7% of the total meat consumed by southern Chinese

(Simoons 1991:302). Unlike mutton, the lower consumption of beef in China versus

America does not appear to be influenced by taste, but rather availability. Cows in China

were expensive and were valued as beasts of burden for work in the fields (Simoons

1991:304). In contrast, the high consumption of beef by Chinese Americans indicates that

the plentiful and relatively cheap beef cuts available in the US allowed for it to be

consumed in greater quantities. Beef was the most preferred meat for EuroAmericans as a

sign of wealth and extravagance, even if cheaper cuts were consumed by middle classes

(Liu 2015:34-35). EuroAmerican preference for beef was also seen in other areas of San

Luis Obispo. A few blocks away from the Chinatown on Marsh Street, Gust (2003:A-3)

conducted a faunal study of three contemporaneous households and found that beef

dominated at approximately 90% of each assemblage.

Pork

Pork was found to be the second highest meat weight after beef in Feature 19 with

487 lbs. accounting for 36% of all meat from the assemblage. Pork was by far the most

consumed meat in China, with village surveys finding that pork accounted for 50%-80%

of all meat consumed in the early 20th century (Anderson and Anderson 1977:324;

Simoons 1991:297). Southern China especially favored more pork consumption while mutton was eaten marginally more often in Northern China. Beef was not nearly as present in Chinese diets as pork (Simoons 1991:304).

Liu (2015:34) states that at the turn of the 20th century, pork was considered less desirable than beef, mutton, and poultry by EuroAmericans. Unlike in China, beef was cheap and plentiful in the US and proved to be an economical source of meat (Kennedy

2016:80). However, the prices of beef and pork appeared to vary by time and location in

California (Gust 1993). Kennedy (2016:190) suggests that Chinese merchants at the

Market Street Chinatown were able to eat more pork (as well as a variety of fowl) than the laborers during the 19th century because pork had a higher price than beef in San Jose.

Calculating the exact historical meat prices in California can be difficult due to fluctuations in availability and region. Local retail prices at the Fulton market in SLO listed that mutton was actually the cheapest at 8 to 10 cents, while beef and pork ranged from 8 to 18 cents with an average of 12 ½ cents (SLOT, 7 December 1883:7). While these prices are from a EuroAmerican butcher, the prices show that beef and pork were perhaps not so different in price. When available as livestock, pigs were cheaper when not butchered, being sold for as little as 4 cents a pound while cows sold for 7 1/2 cents

“on foot” (SLOT, 7 December 1883:7). While these prices could have fluctuated by the early 20th century, the relative values of each cut, such as loin versus chuck, typically remained constant within meat mammals (Gust 2001).

Butchering a whole hog was more economical than buying the equivalent retail cuts from a butcher. Some complaints were made against the Chinese in 1890 as they were accused of raising pigs inside the city limits (Tognazzini 1991). This indicates that the Chinese residents of SLO were likely to have raised and then butchered their own pigs within the Chinatown to secure their own economical sources of fresh pork.

Mutton

Mutton and goat were not commonly eaten in Guangdong or the rest of southern

China, with some rates of consumption lower than 1% (Simoons 1991:302). This may be due to the fact that sheep were traditionally raised in more arid northern and western areas of China and not humid regions like Guangdong. As the Chong family migrated from Guangdong, the lower mutton consumption in Feature 19 appears to have been consistent with cultural preferences from this part of China. Supposedly, southern

Chinese claimed that mutton has a strong odor and flavor and is not well liked just as matter of taste (Simoons 1991:47). However, mutton does not appear to be a favored meat among EuroAmericans in SLO either. Mutton accounted for less than 10% of the meat weight from the three EuroAmerican households from Marsh Street (Gust

2003:A.3) and was the least represented NISP of the major meat mammals from the neighboring Palm/Morro area excavations (Goodman 2006:3). Similarly, mutton only makes up approximately 6% of all major meat mammals consumed from Feature 19. The comparison between these households indicates that regardless of ethnicity, mutton was not a preferred meat in SLO during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Faunal Elements

The minimum number of individuals (MNI) of the main meat mammals in

Feature 19 was found to be five cows, two sheep and nine pigs. Figure 7 reveals that every skeletal element for cows and pigs were found within this collection, though in varying amounts. Such complete skeletal element representation indicates that the Chong family was using the complete carcass of these animals. While pig and cow are highly represented in this collection, sheep do not represent nearly as many elements or as high a

NISP, indicating they were not commonly consumed in the household. Regardless of

MNI, calculations of meat weights provide a more accurate representation of the actual amount of meat consumed.

While pork does not make up the highest meat weight of Feature 19, pig elements make up the most numerous bones found. Beef accounts for the highest meat weight in

Feature 19 (Figure 6), but pig skeletal elements dominate the assemblage with a NISP of

1352 and account for 62% of all major mammal faunal remains represented (Figure 8). In contrast, cow bones have a total NISP of 635 (30%) while sheep bones only make up a

NISP of 177 (8%). Although pig elements dominate numerically, cow bones represent a higher meat weight due to the natural difference in the species’ sizes.

Pig Sheep Skeletal Element Skeletal Cow 0

80 60 40 20

200 180 160 140 120 100 NISP

Figure 7. Mammal Skeletal Element Distribution

Figure 8. Element Distribution by NISP

ELEMENT Cow Sheep Pig Total

Forelimb Scapula 29 15 34 78 Humerus 9 8 41 58 Radius 13 3 38 54 Ulna 8 7 34 49

Hindlimb Innominate 14 5 42 61 Femur 15 12 48 75 Tibia 18 1 24 43 Fibula 0 0 31 31 Patella 5 0 13 18

Axial Skull 17 0 63 80 Mandible 3 0 14 17 Teeth 18 1 54 73 Hyoid 6 0 0 6 Cervical Vertebrae 31 12 90 133 Thoracic Vertebrae 80 9 76 165 Lumbar Vertebrae 55 11 71 137 Sacral Vertebrae 1 0 19 20 Caudal Vertebrae 6 0 15 21

Rib Dorsal Rib 114 34 94 242 Middle Rib 47 12 86 145 Ventral Rib 27 16 42 85 Costal Cartilages 13 2 11 26 Sternabrae 1 3 13 17

Feet Carpals 21 5 29 55 Tarsals 19 8 49 76 Metacarpals 1 0 48 49 Metatarsals 3 2 23 28 Metapodials 9 2 68 79 Phalanges 52 9 182 243 TOTAL NISP 635 177 1352 2164

In particular, pig phalanges (NISP 182) greatly outnumber any other element in

the collection. As pig feet contain more bones than those of cow or sheep, it is expected

that more pig foot elements will appear in an assemblage. Therefore, while pig feet

significantly outnumber those of cows and sheep, an MNI of only about 16 pig forefeet

and hindfeet can be determined. Cow phalanges (NISP 52), while not as numerous as the

pig phalanges, constitute a relatively high number of specimens in comparison to

EuroAmerican sites (Goodman 2006:5; Gust 2003:A.2). While the difference between

ratios for feet in pig and cow are not as dramatic as NISP in Figure 7 suggests, pig and

cow hooves in Feature 19 still represent a significant portion of the collection. The

presence of such elements is important considering that EuroAmerican butchers would generally throw the feet away as they were considered waste bone (Goodman 2006:5).

Beyond the high amount of foot bones, the most common skeletal elements of cows and pigs in this collection are vertebrae and ribs (Figure 7). This is expected as

vertebrae and ribs are the most numerous bones in these animals. Ribs make up 32% of

the entire skeletal representation for cows for Feature 19 (Figure 9). Individual elements

from the forelimbs and hindlimbs appear to be relatively correlated within each category.

For instance, a similar NISP of cow femurs and tibiae were found, indicating these

elements may have been articulated at one point. This further suggests that meat chunks

were purchased as relatively whole limbs and then home butchered.

Figure 9. Skeletal Elements by Percentage

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Feet Vertebrae Ribs Hindlimbs Forelimbs Cranial Pig Cow

Many of the pig bone elements did not have fused epiphyses or epiphyseal caps.

This indicates that the pigs were not fully mature when slaughtered (Gust 1993:191).

Butchering sub-adult pigs can indicate that the Chong family, or a neighbor, was raising their own pigs, rather than buying them wholesale (Kennedy 2016:176). Additionally, the wide range of pig skeletal elements including cranial, caudal and podial elements indicate that these pigs were not bought from a butcher who might throw out waste bone. Howard

Louis’s oral history revealed that his family would raise chickens and goats in their backyards (Wong 1987:23). Sub-adult pig bones suggest pigs also were being raised within the Chinatown as they may have been slaughtered at an earlier age than if purchased from a commercial butcher. This is similar to other Chinatowns, such as the

Market Street Chinatown in San Jose, as the complete usage of the carcass indicates access to full pigs rather than butchered cuts (Kennedy 2016:54).

The SLO Chinatown residents may also have bought their meat wholesale and

butchered it themselves. In her study of the “Women’s Dormitory” or brothel next door to the Chinatown, Nettles (2006:178) found several faunal remains that arguably had

Chinese cleaver butchering patterns in their assemblage. In this same study, Goodman

(2006:1) proposed that the residents bought these cleaver cuts of meat from the Chinese

grocers on Palm Street. There are several other cases throughout California in which

Chinese merchants were shown to be major pork suppliers to both the Chinese and Non-

Chinese residents during the 19th century (Kennedy 2016:54). This suggests that

Chinatown merchants, including those on Palm Street, sold to the larger community in

San Luis Obispo. Ah Louis had a dedicated butchering shed in his backyard on Palm

Street (Wong 1987:23). While resident interviews do not reveal if Gin Sai Yuen or Ah

Louis sold butchered meat, it is not unlikely that one or the other did provide meat in

their stores. If so, the faunal remains from Feature 19 would likely have been obtained

from a Chinese butcher.

Meat Price

The price of meat per major mammal was calculated using historical retail meat

cut prices from California based on a scale of low, moderate and high price retail cuts

(Gust 2001:10). The price of retail cuts correlate to different segments of a butchered

carcass. For instance, beef sirloin is a high priced cut while cuts from the blade or hind

shank are moderately to low priced retail cuts (Gust 2001:10; McClellan 2015:35). Meat

cuts would then be sold by butchers according to their relative retail price.

While the Chong family may not have obtained their meat directly from butchers, the meat price still can indicate the relative value of meat, even if obtained from a

wholesaler. When accounting for all mammal meat weight in the Feature 19 assemblage,

moderately priced cuts account for 52% with high and low priced meat weights split

almost equally at 23.4% and 24.6% respectively (Figure 10). These numbers indicate that the Chong family centered their diets mainly on moderately priced cuts of meats that were periodically supplemented by higher and lower priced cuts. This meat price distribution does reflect the moderate wealth of merchant classes, such as the Chong family, and their ability to purchase both moderate and high priced meat cuts.

Figure 10. Percentage of Total Meat Weight by Price

24.6% 23.4% High

Moderate

Low

52.0%

The findings from Feature 19 reveal that beef dominates the high priced cuts of

meat with a meat weight of 201 pounds and the moderately priced cuts with 412 pounds

(Figure 11). Almost equal amounts of low priced beef and pork were consumed. Mutton

does not appear as a significant contribution of meat weight to any part of the

assemblage. However, mutton does follow the other meat weight ratios in that it favors

moderate price cuts with roughly equal high and low priced cuts (Figure 11). This suggests that while mutton was consumed less frequently than beef or pork, it was likely prepared in a similar way.

Figure 11. Meat Weight by Price

450

400

350

300

250

200

Meath Weight Weight Meath (Lbs) 150

100

0 High Moderate Low

Average Relative Cost Beef Mutton Pork

The meat weight of beef greatly outweighs that of all other mammals in this

collection in terms of high and moderately priced cuts (Figure 11). As beef outweighs all

other mammals in this collection in general, this is expected. However, pork slightly

outweighs beef in low priced cuts with 160 pounds of pork to 151 pounds of beef (Figure

11). This reveals that while moderately to high priced cuts of beef were preferred over

pork, there was little preference between beef and pork for low price cuts. This could be

due to the fact that low priced cuts of meat were typically used more for flavoring soups

or braised dishes (Kennedy 2016:172). In particular, foot and tail elements from phalanges and caudal vertebrae are low priced cuts of meat that are found in relative abundance in Feature 19.

The actual meat weight for low priced cuts of meat may be skewed slightly lower due to the lack of steak equivalents for foot bones in the BABAS system. While the meat weight of pig feet can be roughly calculated based on numbers of foot bone elements, cow feet do not have a meat weight calculation due to their limited use. However, while not as numerous as pig feet, cow feet account for 16% of the represented skeletal elements (Figure 9).

Like cow feet, cow tails are a low priced cut of meat that do not have an exact meat weight. However, it is clear that oxtail was consumed at the Palm Street Chinatown as cow caudal vertebrae with butchering marks were found in the Feature 19 assemblage.

Oxtail is still a popular ingredient in China and Taiwan today that is prepared by braising or in a soup (Lu and Fine 1995:541). In these cases, low priced cuts cannot be fully embodied by meat weights. Instead, focusing on cultural cuisines and butchering marks can better represent foodways of Chinese Americans.

Pig’s Feet

Despite the economic distribution of meat cuts in the assemblage, high retail price

does not necessarily indicate a higher meat cut preference for the Chong family. While

animal feet are a low priced cut of meat and not preferred by EuroAmericans, Chinese

food practices are generally less discriminatory about species or animal parts (Liu

2015:31; Lu and Fine 1995:541). As merchants, the Chong family would have been moderately wealthy, therefore the using cow and pig feet in dishes would not be solely an

economic choice, but a preference. The roughly equal amounts of high and low retail cuts

(Figure 10) also supports that cooking waste bone was not a purely economic choice.

Instead, consuming animal foot elements was most likely a continued cultural practice from China where pig feet are commonly consumed (Simoons 1991:297).

Though pigs’ feet do not account for the highest meat weight in the collection, pig foot

elements occur more frequently than any other skeletal element in the collection. Pig foot

elements made up 29% of all pig skeletal elements (Figure 9). This indicates that

preparing pigs’ feet was a preferred food, despite the moderate wealth of the Chong

family. Braised pigs’ feet are a dish that can still be found in China and Chinese

restaurants around the world (Simoons 1991:297).

EuroAmericans and other ethnic groups would also cook or pickle pig feet

throughout the US. Faunal assemblages of several EuroAmerican households from Marsh

Street in SLO uncovered no foot bone elements regardless of economic status (Gust

2003:A.8-A.10). Comparatively, excavations from the neighboring EuroAmerican

brothel reveal that some distal leg elements of pig were used in soups and stews

(Goodman 2006:37).Therefore, while consuming pigs’ feet is not exclusively a Chinese

practice, they appear to be much more frequently consumed by Chinese Americans than

other ethnic groups in SLO.

Animal parts that were not as popular with EuroAmericans, such as pig and

chicken feet, were incorporated into the Chinese diet. While BABAS is accurate in

determining meat weights, archaeologists still must account for cultural preferences in

foodways and take caution not to favor EuroAmerican patterns of consumption. This

means that a meat weight may not always represent a full picture of what was actually

eaten in the past

Butchering Marks

The Feature 19 assemblage includes a large number of butchered faunal remains.

Out of the 2,000 bones identified, 41% showed evidence of butchering marks. Tools

represented include handsaws, knives, and cleavers/axes. Signs of impact fracturing were

also recorded in the database. Faunal remains that were butchered but the tool type could

not be identified were listed as ‘cut’. No faunal remains exhibited evidence of machine

saw butchering, which was not common until the 1930s (Goodman 2006:5). The lack of

machine sawed bones corroborates the hypothesis that the Feature 19 assemblage dates prior to the 1930s.

Percentage of Butchering Marks

A total of 1600 butchering marks were identified on the major meat mammal

assemblage. Most butchering marks were identified on pig remains with a total of 1172

butchering marks (Figure 12). Pig faunal remains were the most butchered species

regardless of tool type (Figure 12). Only cow bone was the exception where impact

fracturing occurred more frequently than pig. This may be due to the fact that cow bones

are much larger than pig and would need to be broken down into more manageable

chunks for cooking or accessing bone marrow.

Figure 12. Total Number of Butchering Marks

600

500 Marks 400

300 Butchering

200 Number of 100

0 Ax/Cleaver Unkwn. Cut Handsaw Impact Fracture Knife Tool Cow Sheep Pig

Pig faunal remains dominate the collection (Figure 8) and correlate with the higher rate of butchered bones compared to all other mammals. Approximately 48% of pig bones had at least one butchering mark, compared to 41% of sheep and only 26% of all cow bones. The higher rate of butchered pigs lends itself to the theory that pigs were being raised and home butchered within the Chinatown.

Nearly half of all pig foot elements (48%), were found to have at least one butchering mark. This provides more evidence that pig foot elements were not just thrown away, but heavily incorporated into cooking. Gust (1997:251) found that the butchering marks were more prevalent on bones with low meat content as an indication that intensive meat recovery was occurring “to maximize utilization of purchased meat.”

Regardless of if the Chong family raised pigs or purchased them, the nearly 200 pig foot

bones with butcher marks suggest the Chong family were using these bones to their

fullest.

A notable number of specimens from both cows and pigs were found to have multiple butchering marks on the same bone. Gust (1997:251) used the term “kitchen butchering” for when an element is found to have multiple irregular cuts, nicks or scores

on the bone as a result of meat removal. Professionally butchered retail cuts would

generally not be hacked quite as much as meat butchered at home. It is likely that these

kitchen butchered bones are evidence of adapting EuroAmerican retail meat chunks, such

as steaks, into a more ‘Chinese-Style’ dish. Evidence of this practice has also been found throughout other California Chinatowns such as Market Street (Kennedy 2016:174) and

West Oakland (Yang 1999:62). The Louis family were certainly butchering their own

meat as former resident Young Louis recalled “We spent lots of time in the store’s

backyard which was like a farm. The kitchen was next to the store and butchering shed

and chicken house divided the vegetable plots,” (Wong 1987:23). As the Chong family

were also merchants and grocers, they may have had a dedicated area for butchering. The

1903 Sanborn map (Figure 5) depicts a structure adjacent to Feature 19 that may have functioned as a butchering shed.

Butchering Tools

The butchering mark analysis suggests there are patterns in the butchering tool

used depending on the animal species. This is likely due to different food preparation

practices for different types of meat. Figure 13 displays the percentages of tool types used

between cows and pigs. While Figure 12 establishes that pigs were more heavily

butchered than any other mammal, the specific tools used on the rest of the collection

varied greatly depending on species. 88

Figure 13. Percentage of Butchering Marks per Tool

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

Percentatge 20%

15%

10%

0% Ax/Cleaver Unkwn. Cut Handsaw Impact Fracture Knife

Tool

Cow Pig

Cleavers were used the most on bones in this feature and made up 43% of pig and

23% of cow butchering marks (Figure 13). There is a distinct preference for using cleavers in butchering pork. Not only is pork generally the preferred meat in China, but cleavers are also the preferred tool for butchering all meat (Goodman 2006:4; Kennedy

2016:81). The high percentage of pig bones showing cleaver marks indicates that the pork was cut into small pieces. This is consistent with traditional Chinese butchering patterns as chopsticks would be used to pick up small pieces of meat rather than cutting with a knife and fork (Liu 2015:30).

In contrast, EuroAmerican butchers preferred to use handsaws particularly for beef due to the size of the bones (Goodman 2006:4). The cow bones found in this feature were most prominently butchered by handsaws with this tool making up 33% of 89

butchering marks (Figure 13). This may indicate that the Chong family obtained beef cuts

from a EuroAmerican butcher. In contrast, handsaw butchering marks were only found

on 17% of pig bones. This lower rate of handsaw butchering marks on pigs could be

attributed to raising pigs at home and, therefore, cutting out the middle-man

EuroAmerican butcher. The Chong family may also have occasionally begun using

handsaws as butchering tools. Regardless of if the pork was obtained from a commercial

butcher or home raised, it is clear from the pig’s feet that they would break down larger

meat chunks into smaller pieces through home butchering.

A similar preference for handsaw butchering by EuroAmericans was found at the

Marsh Street assemblage where Gust (2003) identified almost all of the butchering marks

from handsaws with only a small percentage from cleavers. The neighboring woman’s

dormitory (brothel) on Palm Street also favored handsaw cuts, though Goodman

(2006:17) argues that the cleaver marks present in the collection were purchased from the grocers at the Palm Street Chinatown. While EuroAmerican butchers also used cleavers, cleaver butchering marks typically do not appear as frequently as they do in Chinese migrant sites. Cleaver butchering marks on pig bones alone account for nearly 32% of butchering marks on all mammal bones in Feature 19.

Knife butchering marks were found to make up the smallest percentage of tools used in butchering the Feature 19 faunal assemblage. Meat chunks are typically not butchered with a knife, which would be used to remove meat from the bones. Knives leave a smaller score on bones than handsaws or cleavers and are commonly seen on roasts when used to carve off slices of meat. Much of the meat weight of the assemblage consists of soup bones (Figure 14), therefore the meat was more likely to be boiled than

90 carved off the bone. The practice of consuming meat with chopsticks also necessitated meat be pre-cut before being served.

Figure 14. Weight of Meat Chunk

450

400

350

300

250

200

Meat Weight Weight (Lbs) Meat 150

100

0 Indeterminate Roast Steak Soup Bone Meat Chunk Beef Mutton Pork

Meat Chunk

The Feature 19 faunal remains were analyzed for indications of preparation by meat chunk. The meat chunk is how each section of meat would be prepared and bones were sorted by soup bone, steak, roast, or indeterminate chunk. Figure 14 illustrates the distribution of meat chunk through meat weight while Figure 15 displays the NISP distribution and percentage of skeletal elements.

Figure 15. NISP of Meat Chunk

Beef Chunk NISP % Indeterminate 341 54% Roast 13 2% Steak 28 4% Soup bone 253 40% TOTAL 635 100%

Mutton NISP % Chunk Indeterminate 94 53% Roast 12 7% Steak 9 5% Soup bone 62 35% TOTAL 177 100%

Pork Chunk NISP % Indeterminate 469 35% Roast 22 2% Steak 48 4% Soup bone 813 60% TOTAL 1352 100%

Soup Bones

Soup bones were found to have the highest meat weight for both pork and beef

meat chunks (Figure14). Soups are a popular addition to meals in southern Chinese

cooking. Typical southern Chinese meals consist of “…rice with meat/vegetable topping

(the main dishes), or soups,” (Anderson and Anderson 1977:360).

Figure 8 reveals that beef and pork have almost equal meat chunk weights for soup bones. While the total meat weights of Feature 19 demonstrate that beef was more commonly eaten by the Chong family (Figure 6), beef was not a meat commonly eaten in

China. However, the meat weights for beef and pork soup bones were almost even. The meat weight for soup bones also correspond to the weight of low priced retail cuts

(Figure 11). This is because lower priced cuts are generally tougher and require more

liquid when cooking. The large number of hoof specimens indicate that the Chong family

would consume soups or other simmered dishes often as these foot bone elements would

typically not be prepared in other ways.

While pork was a common meat to use in Southern China, there is no clear

preference in this assemblage between beef and pork for soups. EuroAmericans would

typically prefer to eat beef as steaks or roasts, but this does not appear to be the same for

Chinese residents on Palm Street.

Soup bones make up a large amount of the meat consumed by the Chong family.

For the southern Chinese, soup is an especially important style of food preparation. Soup

would be prepared by simmering ingredients for hours and then served weekly or

sometimes even daily (Yan 2009: xi). Soup was not only a meal, but could be prepared

medicinally to prevent and cure sickness. Much like chicken noodle soup in American

Culture today, the soups the Chong family were consuming may be considered a comfort food.

Roasts

After soup bones, roasts made up the second highest meat weights for both beef

and pork (Figure 14). Despite this, cow and pig roast chunks account for the fewest

skeletal elements but the highest proportional meat weight (Figure 14 & Figure 15).

Much of this is due to particularly large skeletal elements found in the assemblage that

would need to be roasted or carved to be prepared. Nearly whole elements found in the

collection, such as a cow humerus and scapula, account for 38 lbs. of roast meat weight

alone.

Steaks and roasts were not a common method of food preparation in China, at

least not in the same ways they were eaten in the US. Instead of baking in ovens,

“Roasting is done by specialty merchants to produce Cantonese ch’a siu…ducks and

sometimes other meats are marinated and spit-roasted by Cantonese specialists and some others,” (Anderson and Anderson 1977:359). Roasting meat at home was not commonly done in China due to the ovens needed to prepare them. Oral histories reveal that the

Palm Street Chinatown residents took to producing their own roasted meats. In an

interview with Howard Louis, Ah Louis’ son:

Howard especially remembers his father’s barbecue pits where pigs would hang over the coals as they were carefully basted by Ah Louis. Howard recalled, “You never tasted more succulent pork. Chinese workers would come from miles away to enjoy this great treat” (Krieger 2012, San Luis Obispo Tribune). Howard’s statement suggests that not only were pigs roasted in pits, but that they were considered a ‘treat’ rather than a typical meal. This also suggests that the Chongs had easy access to roasted pork from their neighbors, whether they roasted their own pigs or obtained them from Ah Louis. Howard’s brother, Young Louis, described that “A pair of cypress trees shaded the two whole pig roasting ovens…” in their backyard (Wong

1987:23). This account reveals that not only were pigs roasted whole, but that there were at least two dedicated roasting pits along Palm Street. Therefore, while not consumed as frequently as soup bones, roasts still made up an important dietary component for the

Chong family and greater Palm Street Chinatown community.

Mutton roasts consist of 22 lbs. of meat in all, a much lower meat weight than beef or pork (Figure 14). The relatively small amounts of mutton in the feature may suggest it was prepared only periodically to supplement beef and pork dishes during certain occasions. Despite the lower meat weight, mutton has an almost equal NISP to

beef roast chunks with 12 elements (Figure 15). This may suggest that mutton was

roasted at a similar frequency to that of beef and consumed on seasonal occasions such as

festivals or celebrations. Chinese celebratory feasts emphasize diversity in dishes and

“…festivals are used as an excuse to bring in classes of foods that would otherwise be

missed because of the trouble and expense of producing them,” (Anderson and Anderson

1977:363). Also, unlike pork and beef, mutton was eaten more as roasts than soups or

steaks. The mutton roasts in this collection deviate from the beef and pork patterns of

consumption which further suggests mutton was an occasional food.

Steaks

Steaks are the least prevalent meat chunk found in the assemblage and comprise a

meat weight of 40-50 lbs. of the meat chunks for beef and pork, respectively. Steak cuts, which require a knife and fork for consumption, are not characteristic of Chinese food.

Instead, meat is typically sliced thinly for faster cooking and to maximize its flavor when used over vegetables or rice (Anderson and Anderson 197:361), unlike EuroAmerican steaks that are cut thicker.

Despite the cultural differences in meat cuts, Feature 19 does contain

EuroAmerican style steak cuts. Pork steaks outweigh beef steaks by 15 lbs. and appear

almost twice as frequently as beef in the collection. Most of these steak cuts were shown

to have handsaw butchering marks. The high use of handsaws as a butchering tool as

opposed to a cleaver could indicate that steak retail cuts were purchased from a

EuroAmerican butcher rather than prepared at home. Alternatively, the Chong family

may have used handsaws for butchering their own home-grown pork for the larger primal

cuts of meat.

A study of the faunal remains from the Oakland Chinatown recognized that knife

scores on steak bones indicated the meat was removed from the bone for soups or stir-fry

(Yang 1999:580). Therefore, some meat chunks that were purchased as steaks would not

necessarily be prepared as steaks according to EuroAmerican culinary style. In

comparison, while a small number of steak cuts in the Feature 19 assemblage were found

to have additional knife scoring, most of the steak cuts were not intensely butchered.

Unlike the steak cuts found in the Oakland Chinatown, the faunal remains suggest that

sometimes, steak cuts were eaten as steaks rather than re-butchered into smaller pieces for stir-fry by the Chong family.

Indeterminate Cuts

Much of the faunal remains, approximately 47% of the meat weight, could not be

categorized as either soup bone, steak or roast. This is partially due to the condition of the

collection as the fragmented bones often made it impossible to differentiate certain cuts.

However, much of the meat weight of this feature is comprised of ribs and vertebrae

which, regardless of fragmentation, are generally not identifiable meat chunks.

Most of the indeterminate meat weights for beef came from high and moderately

priced retail cuts. In particular, porterhouse cuts from lumbar vertebrae comprise almost

75 lbs. of indeterminate cuts. Porterhouse cuts of beef were also a prominent meat weight in the assemblage. While porterhouse steaks were found in the collection, not all of these cuts of meat were necessarily eaten as steaks, but may have been cut smaller to use in stir fries (Kennedy 2016:253; Yang 1999:62).

One whole cow lumbar vertebra found in Feature 19 contributes much of indeterminate retail cut meat weight, as it shows no clear butchering marks. Such a large

96 bone may have been used in a roast or as a soup bone, but not a steak, as it would have needed to have been butchered into smaller pieces. Instead, it is likely that it was part of a primal cut of meat that could have been barbequed.

The indeterminate meat chunks could also be a result of differences between

Chinese and EuroAmerican food preparation. Pit roasting and stir-fry, both common

Chinese methods of food preparation, do not translate easily to EuroAmerican roasts and steaks. While Chinese styles of preparation and butchering appear to dominate the assemblage, this is not to say that meat was never prepared according to EuroAmerican tastes, as the steak cuts in this assemblage confirm. Instead, the indeterminate cuts distinguish that the Chong family was not limited to one style of meat preparation.

Beef versus Pork Meat Weight

The higher beef to pork meat weight ratio found within Feature 19 may not be representative of the food practices of other residents the Palm Street Chinatown. The high amounts of beef in the assemblage conflict with longtime resident Howard Louis’ interview with John Parker. During an interview about the faunal assemblage from this site, Howard said “very little beef” was eaten compared to pork in his family (Stark

1998a:1). This suggests that the Louis family and the Chongs may have had different preferences of meat.

Additionally, while beef dominates the Feature 19 assemblage, the faunal remains from additional features from the Palm Street Parking structure may indicate pork was actually eaten more by the neighboring residents. While a faunal analysis of the entire collection has not been conducted, it is possible pork may dominate in meat weight overall. In a statement on the preliminary findings from the Palm Street Parking Structure

97 collection ARS owner Bill Roop stated that “8 tons of pork chop” bones were found in the collection and the resident’s diets were only supplemented by beef (Fulks 1987:C1).

The oral history and greater SLO Chinatown archaeological overview suggests that

Feature 19 might be an exception to the rest of the Chinatown residents in that more beef was consumed than pork. However, as stated earlier in this thesis, a higher NISP of pig bones does not ultimately determine if there was a higher pork meat weight than beef represented in the collection. Further meat weight analyses of the other Palm Street

Chinatown archaeological features would reveal a more comprehensive understanding on the actual amount of beef and pork consumed outside of Feature 19.

In a similar comparison between pork and beef meat weights from the Market

Street Chinatown in San Jose, Kennedy (2016:167) found that the Chinese merchants would consume a higher meat weight of pork than beef, while the residents of tenements would consume a higher proportion of beef than pork. The ratios of beef to pork are not consistent between all features, but this does suggest that wealthier residents may be more inclined to eat pork. Economics could be a factor in the different ratios of beef to pork for the Louis family and the Chong family despite both functioning as merchant class in the same Chinatown.

Alternatively, the relatively high quantity of beef represented in Feature 19 may indicate that the Chong family was simply more receptive to eating beef than the Louis family. Additionally, the faunal remains do not necessarily indicate a difference in purchasing power between the Chong and the Louis families because it is comparing only one dataset between them. Each families would have individual priorities in investments that cannot be determined from one feature.

Raising animals versus purchasing meat cuts also influences the economic

patterns in faunal analysis. The Louis family was known to have raised many animals in

their backyard and owned seed farms (Wong 1987:23). By raising their own pigs, goats

and chickens, the Louis family would be less dependent on meat from butchers. Kennedy

(2016:177) also argues that the regular access to fresh pork in Chinatown communities

greatly impacted Chinese American food practices by allowing them to eat more meat

than they would have in China at the time.

The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps indicate that the Chong family did not appear to

have as large a parcel of land as the Louis family and may not have actually raised their

own animals. While the butchering marks and faunal elements from the Feature 19

collection are consistent of those with raised pigs, it is likely the Chong Family bought

their pork from a Chinatown neighbor who raised pigs, rather than raising their own.

The SLO Chinatown residents may have had their own source of fresh pork, but fresh beef from EuroAmerican butchers would be just as readily available. Richard

Chong recalled that during the 1910s “…the real Western cowboys used to drive cattle and sheep from Santa Margarita along Palm Street down to Nipomo Street to Gingg’s

Slaughter House...” (Dart 1977:1). This suggests that fresh beef was plentiful in SLO, regardless of what other animals were raised at the Palm Street Chinatown. Additionally, newspaper advertisements from local SLO butchers suggest that beef and pork were typically similar in price during the late 19th century averaging about 12 ½ cents a pound

(SLOT 1883:7). Similar prices of beef and pork indicate that there may have been little economic advantage choosing one meat type over the other.

It is unclear exactly how the Chong family obtained the pork whose remains are deposited in Feature 19 at their 834 Palm Street home address before the 1930s.

However, after the 1930s, Addison Chong’s restaurant, located at 798 Palm Street, obtained their smoked pork from a non-Chinese butcher. SLO resident Bill Cattaneo

(1999) recalled:

My father, a butcher and sausage maker who had smoked hundreds of pork loins for the Chinese restaurants over the years, developed an easy friendship with the restaurant owners and once a month we enjoyed Chinese dinner at Chong’s or Mee Heng Low on Palm Street. This reveals that while pigs may have been raised and smoked at the Palm Street

Chinatown in the late 19th to early 20th century, by the 1930s, pork was being obtained from commercial butchers. This may be due to the decline in Chinese population in SLO and the movement away from urban animal raising in the area.

Unique & Incidental Animal Elements

The faunal assemblage of Feature 19 was heavily dominated by cow, pig and sheep bones. However, a variety of other faunal remains consisting of birds, fish and other atypical animals were found in this feature. It is important to note that the presence of an animal’s remains in an assemblage may be incidental and may not actually have been consumed as food. However, there is a long and somewhat notorious history of the

Chinese utilizing animals that are taboo for EuroAmericans as food and medicine (Liu

2015: 31). In order to avoid imposing value judgements or stereotypes on Chinese culture, the interpretation of the unique faunal remains in this study considers how animals were regarded in a broader cultural context beyond foodways.

100

Skunk

Two cervical vertebrae belonging to a skunk were identified in Feature 19. The epiphyseal caps of the vertebrae were unfused, indicating it was a sub-adult at the time of death. As no butcher marks were found on the vertebrae, it cannot be determined if the specimen was incidental or consumed. Skunks were sometimes regarded as vermin that would prey on poultry and would be trapped or poisoned by farmers (Lantz 1923: 24).

However, several sources indicate that skunks were consumed by Chinese Americans.

Long time Palm Street Chinatown resident Howard Louis was shown the excavation materials by John Parker. When they reached the faunal bones Howard commented

“Skunk. You can see these… I did a lot of hunting. Bring it back, mix it with Chinese herbs. I’d kill anything,” (Stark 1998a: 2). This quote reveals that skunk was opportunistically hunted and consumed at the Palm Street Chinatown,

Like Howard, the Chong family children may have gone hunting and brought home the skunk that was found in the feature. A bullet slug was also found in Feature 19 indicating that the family may have owned firearms. Other features throughout the rest of the Palm Street Parking Structure collection contained bullet shells which suggests hunting may have been common for most residents of Palm Street Chinatown.

Chinese migrants consuming skunk was also found outside of the Palm Street

Chinatown. California Wildlife writer Lloyd Ingles (1947:71) wrote:

Striped skunks are used for food by certain Chinese, who pay the trapper for the carcass after the fur has been removed. The gall bladder is also highly prized and is said to be used in special Chinese medicines. Not only were skunks consumed by Chinese in America, but they were also used in

Chinese medicines. This is clearly an innovation for traditional Chinese medicines as skunks are native to North American habitats. Using skunk oil as medicine may have

101

been introduced to the Chinese through American practices. Skunk was used in other

parts of the US as a medicinal rub to relieve rheumatism and throat afflictions, though it

was not a particularly popular practice (Lantz 1923:17).

Eating skunk meat was not limited to the Chinese in America. While not

common, it was not unusual for farmers, trappers and Native Americans to catch and eat

skunk or raise them for their fur (Lantz 1923:17). Pierre Blot (1863:160) learned how to skin and cook a skunk from farmers in New Jersey.

We certainly would not have thought that it was a skunk the name of which is repulsive. The following week we dined with the farmer. Ate some of that identical skunk and found it very good (Blot 1863:161). While hunting and consuming skunk was considered a somewhat unusual practice in general, it was not exclusive to Chinese Americans. Therefore, Howard Louis’ quote about cooking skunks with Chinese herbs and the skunk vertebrae in Feature 19 are perhaps more representative of the semi-rural location of the SLO community rather than a reflection of Chinese cultural practice.

Squirrel

Squirrel and ground squirrel faunal elements were the most numerous of small

mammal bones in the collection with a NISP of 31. Like the skunk, no butchering marks

were found on the squirrel remains. When looking over the collection with archaeologist

John Parker, Howard Louis commented that squirrels were “very common then” (Stark

1998a:2), though the context of the comment is ambiguous as to whether the squirrels were regarded as vermin or actually consumed.

The presence of squirrel bones in Feature 19 may have instead been the result of

vermin control. Advertisements from the SLO Tribune (16 February, 1894:5) promoted ground squirrel poison available at grocery stores. Residents detailed the swarms of

102 ground squirrels and their destructive nature on gardens and farms. It encouraged their slaughter since their natural predators, such as coyotes, were already hunted out of the areas (SLOT, December 14, 1883:7). The Chong family may have grown their own vegetable garden and used poison to control ground squirrel infestations as was common at the time.

Dog and Cat

Several dog (NISP 17) and cat (NISP 18) skeletal elements were found in Feature

19. Bones from both a small juvenile dog and a large adult dog were found in the assemblage. No butchering marks were found on either dog or cat bones. Recent archaeological studies are more cautious about attributing dog or cat remains in Chinese

American assemblages to food, though there is evidence of their consumption in other

Chinatowns (Kennedy 2016:253). Although the occasional consumption of dogs in China was well documented in the past (Simoons 1991:309), I have found no evidence from

Feature 19 or local histories indicating that dogs or cats were eaten at the San Luis

Obispo Chinatown.

Instead of being utilized as food, the presences of canid bones in the feature suggest the dog may have served other purposes. A large metatarsal from an adult dog was found in Feature 19. The dog is estimated to have weighed over 50 lbs. While it is possible that the remains of the dog were from a deceased stray, it could also have been raised as a pet or watch dog, or even used in dog fights. The SLO Tribune (February 16,

1894:5) noted that the Chinese community was celebrating Lunar New Year with firecrackers and dog fights. Dog fighting was not only a spectacle, but was used as a vehicle for gambling and betting (Wagner 2014:21). Several of the buildings along the

103

Palm Street Chinatown were known to be gambling houses and may have introduced dog

fighting as a source of entertainment.

Faunal remains from EuroAmerican deposits also commonly include dog bones,

such as the large and small dog elements found in the Marsh Street assemblage in San

Luis Obispo (Gust 2003:A.2). While the Marsh Street faunal remains were attributed to

those of pets, dog fighting was not exclusive to the Chinese and was found in a variety of

cultures (Wagner 2014). While there is not enough historical or biological data to

determine the particular function of the dogs found in Feature 19, acknowledging the

influences of dog fighting in historical archaeological deposits could help bring to light

new interpretations of canid faunal remains.

Horse

Two horse phalanges (NISP 2) were identified in Feature 19. Horse was

somewhat regularly consumed in China during the 19th century (Simoons 1991:305),

though no butchering marks were present on the horse remains from Feature 19.

Much like water buffalos, horses were valued more for labor than food in China. In fact,

consuming horse was mostly done in northern areas of China as opposed to the southeast,

i.e., Guangdong (Simoons 1991:305). There is little cultural precedence for southern

Chinese migrants eating horse flesh in China or the US. Instead, the horse remains can

likely be attributed to a non-consumptive practice as there were no butchering marks on them.

In conversation with John Parker, Howard Louis had made reference to a horse that died in the fire behind a vegetable peddler’s house on Palm St (Stark 1998a: 6):

John Parker: OK. Is that the horse that died in the fire? Howard Louis: …You know where the big bones come from?

104

John Parker: Because they had to cut it up to move it out. Howard Louis: That was barbecued horse. How do you move barbecued horse? You sunk a hole in the barn and shoved it in. It’s clear that the “barbecued horse” was not actually eaten from the context of this quote, as the remains resulted from an accident rather than intentional food preparation. The need to butcher a horse before being able to move its carcass also indicates that butchering marks present on large faunal bones may not always be the result of food preparation. Ah Louis raised dozens of his own horses for racing and as draft animals, though outside of the city limits of San Luis Obispo and the Chinatown (Wong 1987:32,

37). The presence of a single horse element within the Chong family Feature 19 assemblage does not have burn marks and it is unknown why it might have been in the deposit.

Much like dogs, horses were known to be consumed in some parts of China, but were a taboo food in America. Like the dog remains encountered in the collection, consuming horse meat does not appear to have been practiced at the SLO Chinatown in spite of the presence of horse bones.

Bat

A complete bat humerus with fused epiphyses, indicating it was an adult, was

identified from Feature 19. It could not be determined as if this was an Asian or

American species. While this bat humerus could be an incidental deposit, bats hold

significant cultural value in China. Bats are considered lucky in Chinese culture due to

their name (fu 蝠 or wufu 五蝠) being a homonym for Five Fortunes (wufu 五福) (Sung

2002:32). Similarly, fish (Yu 鱼) are consumed during the Lunar New Year for luck due

to their name being a homophone for abundance (Yu 馀) (Sung 2002:242). As they are

105

associated with luck, bat motifs are also often found in Chinese designs, including

artifacts found in other features from the Palm Street Chinatown.

The 16th century Book of Herbal Medicine or Ben Cao Gang Mu (本草纲目)

claimed that eating bats will promote long life and healthy eyesight (Li 2003 [1593]).

Other various parts of a bat, including bat wings, are sometimes prescribed as ingredients in medicines (Perkins 1999:27; Sung 2002:32). Due to the lack of butchering marks on this bat humerus, it may have come from a full bat wing that may have been used in

medicine. Bats have also been consumed by Chinese migrants in Papua New Guinea as

medicine (Wu 2011:78). While the evidence from Feature 19 cannot determine how this

bat bone was used, it is important to consider the cultural significance and symbolism of

this animal behind its consumption.

Marine Mammals

This collection contains skeletal elements from a whale and a mustelid, possibly a

sea otter. The whale bone consists of an unfused vertebral epicap fragment with no signs

of butchering or weathering. While whaling was practiced out of the nearby San Simeon

harbor and Whaler’s point (Vivian 1891:475), the practice was mostly gone by the early

20th century.

Several elements identified as mustelid closely resemble sea otter. While the exact

species could not be determined, sea otters are found commonly around Morro Bay near

San Luis Obispo. Sea otters along the nearby Santa Barbara coast were hunted for their

fur through the end of the 19th century (Vivian 1891: 474). No signs of butchering were

found on any marine mammal remains. Gust (2003:A.3) identified a sea otter tooth in a

neighboring privy on Marsh Street and theorized that it may have been a souvenir from

106

the beach. Similarly, the whale bone and mustelid remains showed no butchering marks

and may have been picked up from one the nearby beaches as items of interest.

Small Mammals In addition to the unique mammal elements, bones of several incidental small

animals were found in the deposit. Various skeletal elements from rats, mice and a pocket

gopher were identified. As these faunal remains are from burrowing animals and show no

butchering marks or weathering, they most likely entered the feature post-deposition.

At least one Black-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus Californicus) was identified in the

collection. The rabbit elements in this collection were generally whole with no butchering

marks. However, rabbit was commonly raised and eaten in China and is a major meat

export (Simoons 1991:305). John Parker also indicated the rest of the Palm Street

Chinatown collection contained a significant quantity of rabbit remains (Stark 1998a:2).

Domestic rabbits were also likely raised within the Palm Street Chinatown. Elsie

Louis described to John Parker the time an opium den was raided by the police and the residents quickly replaced the opium with rabbit pellets (Stark 1998b:11). The convenient availability of rabbit pellets described in this interview suggests that a significant number of rabbits were being raised within the SLO Chinatown.

Non-Mammals

The Feature 19 assemblage contained a small amount of bird, fish and turtle remains. A variety of avian faunal remains were found within the collection including chicken, duck, turkey and quail. Eggshells, most likely from chickens, were found throughout Feature 19 as well as the Palm Street Parking Structure excavation. Oral history interviews with Young Louis revealed that chickens were also raised in the

107

Chinatown (Wong 1987:23). Chicken and duck were popular in China with specialty dishes such as roast duck (Simoons 1991:297).

Fish bones also comprised a relatively small but consistent presence in the Feature

19 collection. In China, fish was consumed fairly commonly in Cantonese style dishes

(Anderson and Anderson 1977:334). Cuttlefish is not native to the Americas and instead has a long history of being exported from China (Spence 1977:288). Cuttlefish bones found in Feature 19 indicate that it continued to be consumed in San Luis Obispo. Much like other Chinese imports, cuttlefish would have been introduced to first-generation children at the Palm Street Chinatown by their parents. Consuming imported foods became an act of cultural continuity that was not necessary, but clearly desired.

In contrast to the imported cuttlefish, California abalone shell was found

throughout the Palm Street Parking Garage assemblage. Abalone was commonly

harvested in Morro Bay near the city of San Luis Obispo and then shipped to China

(Vivian 1891:475). Not only did the Chinatown residents eat abalone, but this exchange

between California and China worked in part to maintain the transnational relationship

between mainland and Overseas Chinese.

Pond turtle shell fragments were found throughout the various levels of the

Feature 19 assemblage. Turtles have a long history of being consumed in China for their

nutrition as well as the medicinal belief that they promote longevity (Simoons 1991:354).

Consuming turtle soup in England and America was so popular that mock turtle soup was

created for when turtles were not readily available (Goodman 2006:6). Though

consuming turtles did not appear to occur frequently within Feature 19, both Victorian and Chinese society considered turtles a delicacy.

108

Artifacts

Much of the content of Feature 19 was comprised of faunal bones while other features recovered from the Palm Street Parking Structure excavation yielded many more diagnostic artifacts. One artifact that appears to be unique to Feature 19 is a wedding cake topper figure of a groom. This wedding cake topper is made from porcelain bisque and appears to date to the 1910s-1930s (Henderson 2005:19). The groom is wearing western style clothing with a long tail coat and with remnants of black paint.

Many of the children from the Chong and Louis families married over the course of the early 20th century. The 1910 census record indicated that Gin Sai-Yuen’s son,

George Chong (Gin Poy Gin) was married by that time to Wong D Chong (Hong Shi

Quong). By 1930, Addison Chong was married to Mary Chong and they had opened

Chong’s Chinese Restaurant at 798 Palm Street. Other ABC children, such as Ah Louis’ son, Young Louis, married his wife Stella in 1912 in a Christian church, wearing a pin- striped suit and Stella wearing a western gown (Wong 1987:59). However, not all

Chinese Americans in the 1900s desired to have western style weddings and women would still occasionally wear traditional Chinese embroidered jackets (Farkas 1998:106).

Western style weddings appeared to be popular at the SLO Chinatown among the ABC.

It is possible that this wedding cake topper was from a Chong family member’s wedding cake. Wedding cake was a EuroAmerican tradition, but over time, eating sweets in general appears to have been incorporated not only into Chinese American festivities but also those found in mainland China (Anderson and Anderson 1977:380). This wedding cake topper indicates that EuroAmerican traditions were incorporated into important family ceremonies at the Palm Street Chinatown.

109

Imports

Artifacts directly imported from China were found throughout the Palm Street

Chinatown and Feature 19 such as Chinese brown glazed stoneware and other containers for Chinese imported sauces and liquors. The artifacts found in Feature 19, such as bottles, cutlery, seed remains and other food related artifacts were well represented in the

SLO Chinatown such as in the Yung Lot across the street from the Chong family

(Hamilton and Hinztmen 2014:60).

The Feature 19 faunal assemblage consists mostly of bones from domesticated animals and native North America wildlife. A small amount of cuttlefish bones represents the only clear faunal import from China. However, the lack of faunal remains imported from China does not rule out consumption of other Chinese imports. Shark’s fin and sea cucumber are luxury Chinese foods that were imported to the US (Simoons 1991:435), but their lack of bones and gelatinous consistencies would not survive in an archaeological deposit. In fact, Young Louis described imports to his father’s store, such as salted duck eggs, sea cucumber, dried duck, dried abalone and various dried seafood, that would deteriorate naturally (Wong 1987:18). This is noteworthy as many of the ABC in the SLO Chinatown appeared to have never traveled to China or had only travelled to

China as adults. As children, they would only be introduced to a limited number of non- perishable Chinese imports.

Beyond imports of meat and fish, Young Louis described how leong fun, also known as grass jelly, was brought from China and sold at Ah Louis’ store:

Leong Fun is like American ice cream for enjoyment in hot weather. The light brown jello-like substance comes in cans (needs no refrigeration). Served with melted yellow sugar or syrup, it is a smooth cooling desert (Wong 1987:18).

110

Young’s comparison of ice cream and leong fun indicates that both were similar in that they were served as a cool, sweet dessert. However, since ice cream was much more accessible in the US than grass jelly, consuming leong fun would be emotionally satisfying in a different kind of way. Holtzmann (2006:367) suggests that eating can evoke a sense of nostalgia for something never experienced as the memory is supplied by the marketing of the consumed material. Eating leong fun would represent a “homeland that is largely imagined… nostalgic remembering of comfort foods need not be linked to a happy childhood but can serve to create the fiction of one” (Holtzmann 2006:368).

Consuming foods imported from China was significant because they invoked an emotional connection to China regardless of alternative foods available in the US.

Importing foods is not just accessing a material but maintaining a transnational link to

China. Additionally, food habits are not easily abandoned by Chinese migrants, especially when imports are readily available (Ross 2013:184).

While merchant class migrants were partially exempted from exclusion laws, the process of travelling between nations was very strict in its regulations (Lee 2003:49). By maintaining imports of Chinese foods, the Chinatown residents maintained a transnational relationship with China, even when physical travel was limited. ABC children enjoyed Chinese imports, however, these foods served to actually differentiate

Chinese American diets from those in mainland China. Imported foods were clearly still used as a means to evoke a sense of homeland nostalgia rather than adhere to a traditional cultural practice.

111

Chinese Ways

EuroAmericans were not the only cultural influence on the Chinese migrants at

the Palm Street Chinatown, as various ethnic groups lived in San Luis Obispo.

Interactions between Native Americans and the SLO Chinatown residents have been documented in oral histories, memoirs and letters. In a translated letter from an unknown

Palm Street Chinatown resident, Richard Chong and his father, Gin Sai Yuen, were said

to meet with “Indians” to conduct business (Fetzer 2010:18). While the specific business

the Chongs conducted is unknown, Ah Louis would trade rice and flour with local Native

Americans for deer and bear meat to treat his workers (Wong 1987:51). Young Louis

recalled:

Indians would bring in bear testicles to the store…I learned to prepare them the Chinese way. Cured and hung them like laundry in the sun to dry. I had to keep an eye on them too, for they were highly prized as an aphrodisiac (Wong 1987: 51). No bear faunal remains were found in Feature 19, though it is likely that the Chongs were

also trading meat or other game with local native people. Bear paws are also considered a

delicacy in China and bear gall bladders were highly valued for Chinese medicine

(Simoons 1991:433-432). Therefore, working with local Native Americans in obtaining

certain game would prove very beneficial and lucrative to the Palm Street Chinatown

merchants. Similarly, Chinese Americans at the Mono Mills built mutually beneficial

relationships with their Paiute neighbors by trading foods and ingredients (Sunseri

2015:425).

What is most interesting about Young Louis’ quote about bear testicles is that he

“learned to prepare them the Chinese way”. His Chinese way of preparation was about

infusing a sense of Chinese authenticity in his actions as he was selling them to other

members of the Chinese community. The authenticity of Chinese medicine was

112

inseparably tied to Chinese culture and the sense of generations of inherited skill (Liu

2006:147). Young would have inherited his medicinal knowledge from his father, Ah

Louis. However, while he would often prescribe and sell medicine in his store, Ah Louis

was not a professional herbalist (Krieger 2003). Young claiming that his way is the

Chinese Way is significant in understanding how cultural practice was constructed in the

Palm Street Chinatown. Neither the Louis or Chong family children were born and raised in China. How the SLO Chinatown ABCs conceptualized Chinese Ways were learned through the somewhat limited scope of their parents and the Chinese American community.

Conclusion

When contextualized with resident interviews and local history, the analysis of

faunal remains found in Feature 19 allow for an in depth understanding of what life was

like for Chinese migrants and their families at the San Luis Obispo Chinatown. Faunal

remains reveal not only meat types, but how meat might have been obtained and

consumed. The feature demonstrated that cleavers were the dominate tool for butchering

and a high preference for pork and foot elements are characteristic of Chinatown

archaeological assemblages. The faunal analysis of Feature 19 reveals that the foodways

of the Chong family did not completely follow traditional southern Chinese food practices however. The higher proportion of beef to pork reflects a more typical

American diet than a Chinese diet. Various unique animal elements, such as skunk and

horse, present in the feature were referred to in oral histories from the SLO Chinatown

residents. While none of the unique or incidental mammal bones (e.g., skunk) had

butchering marks, oral histories indicated they may have been consumed as foods or

113 medicines in the SLO Chinatown. Understanding the linguistic significance of bats also suggests a new line of evidence from a bone that would otherwise be considered incidental. By drawing from a variety of data and documents, a more comprehensive interpretation of the Feature 19 context can be made regarding how ethnic foodways are transferred in a migrant culture.

114

Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion

Introduction In this chapter I synthesize the interpretations of how foodways, homeland memory, and fluid identity were used to negotiate Chinese American ethnicity. The interpretation of the Feature 19 collection will synthesize concepts from the literature review, historical background, and findings chapters from this thesis. Additionally, the

Chong family’s lives relating to the Feature 19 assemblage are contextualized through

oral histories and their involvement in community life during the Chinese Exclusion Era

in the early 20th century. By contextualizing the faunal remains from Feature 19, I

determine how the residents of the Palm Street Chinatown understood their own Chinese

Ways in practice rather than focusing on ethnic markers or cultural continuities as

archaeologists have done in the past

Foodways

Foodways and food choices reflect the complex interaction between social,

cultural, and community changes within the Palm Street Chinatown. The faunal analyses of Feature 19 reveal that the Chong family did not rigidly adhere to the foodways common in Guangdong, China. Instead, their food choices were mostly consistent with those of other Chinese-Americans in meat choice and methods of preparation.

The Palm Street residents were not practicing traditional foodways in the sense that they tried to exactly emulate mainland Chinese. The high meat weights of beef and pork indicate that these meats were consumed regularly, while in China, these were luxury foods. Instead, the residents took advantage of the availability of fresh meat to enhance their diets. 115

The moderate priced meats made up 52% of the assemblage with 23.4% high cost cuts and 24.6% of low priced cuts of meat indicating that the residents were modestly wealthy. This pattern could indicate that while the residents typically ate moderate cuts of meat, high quality cuts were purchased during special occasions, especially during festivals such as the Lunar New Year. During a Chinese freemason annual feast at the

Joss House in San Luis Obispo, “Pork, beef and chicken floated swiftly downward with the stream of gin” (San Luis Obispo Weekly Breeze, September 4, 1896:6.)

Mutton appears to have played a fairly small role in the diet of the Chong family.

Mutton was one of the more expensive meats in the Canton markets (Gust 1993:188), however this may be due to the fact that sheep were not typically raised in southern

China. Relatively small quantities of mutton being consumed at the residence is consistent with practices in southern China (Simoons 1991:301). However, mutton was not commonly consumed in the neighboring EuroAmerican faunal assemblages from

Marsh Street and the female boarding house (Nettles 2006). In this regard, it is not accurate to prescribe mutton as a particular ethnic preference as neither the Chinese nor the EuroAmerican residents of San Luis Obispo appeared to prefer mutton over beef at all.

The unique animals found in this collection also represent how the interpretation of material culture is characterized by those studying it. Bones from bats or skunks can be contextualized within Chinese medicines and allow for a deeper interpretation of both language and cultural adaptations.

116

Chinese Ways

While the quantity of meat being consumed from Feature 19 was not necessarily the same as in China, how the food was prepared remained mostly consistent with meat cuts in China and other Chinatown sites such as the Market Street Chinatown. This is

demonstrated by the clear preference for using cleavers and the preference for soup

bones. The findings from Feature 19 reveal that the way Chinese-American residents

negotiated their identities through foodways was based not only on what they were

eating, but how they were eating it.

The Feature 19 assemblage reveals that the archaeological interpretation of faunal material is not as meaningful without understanding the intentions behind their preparation. Skunk was certainly not a traditional Chinese food, but it was commonly eaten by certain North American groups and perhaps occasionally by the Palm Street

Chinatown residents. Howard Louis made sure to use Chinese herbs when cooking the skunk (Stark 1997:2). And when Young Louis obtained bear testicles, they needed to be prepared the Chinese Way (Wong 1987:51).

Chinese Ways are a method of food preparation that is perceived to be authentic but transforms over time because it is a social construct (Lu and Fine 1995:538). As a result, what was considered to be Chinese Ways was not a rigid all-encompassing

Chinese tradition, but relied on the transmission of culture from individual agents. Much like how identities are not constant over time, Chinese Ways changed over time for the residents of the SLO Chinatown.

To understand how the Chinatown residents negotiated their ethnic identities, this study also takes into consideration the family’s histories beyond the temporality of

Feature 19 and how the children of Gin Sai Yuen negotiated their lives as ABC. While

117

the Feature 19 assemblage does not appear to date beyond the Chong family’s move from

the Quong Chong Store in the 1920s, members of the Chong family lived in the

Chinatown throughout the 20th century.

The whole pig roasting pits in Chinatown differentiated the Chinese Ways of

preparation from the American way of butchering meat chunks of an animal before

roasting. While pig roasting pits were used at the Ah Louis store on Palm Street

Chinatown in the early 20th century, by the 1930s-1940s the Chinese restaurants in SLO would get smoked pork loin from the local butcher (Cattaneo 1999).

Chong’s Chinese Restaurant was opened in the 1920s by one of Gin Sai Yuen’s sons, Addison Chong. Chong’s Restaurant wasn’t named after an exotic Chinese location.

Instead, it was his family name, one that had been established in San Luis Obispo by Gin

Sai Yuen and the Quong Chong store. Much like how the Chong family’s original surname was Gin, over time the family changed how they were known within the community. This name change can also be considered a Chinese Way of reimagining their Chinese identities in the US. It is likely the Chongs changed their name based on the

store’s name as they also lived above and behind their store front.

Ah Louis also changed his name from Wong to Louis as he became a more

prominent figure in the Chinese and SLO community. After the Quong Chong shop and

Chong’s restaurant closed in the 1950s, Richard Chong continued using the family name

for his business as a candy store until he passed away in 1978.

In the 1930s-1940s SLO resident Bill Cattaneo would visit Chong’s restaurant

with his father, a butcher who smoked the pork loins for local Chinese restaurants:

We always scanned the menu as though we were just about to order something ‘new and exotic’ but when our food was placed on the table, it was always deep

118

fried prawns, pork fried rice… and my father’s favorite: smoked pork slices served cold with mounds of paper-thin slices of pickled turnip. When the pork and turnips were served, I always remembered with great pride that the pork loins had been smoked less than two blocks away at Berkemeyer’s by my father. (Cattaneo 1999)

The greater SLO community seemed to embrace the Chinese restaurants on Palm Street and the food they served. The Chongs had incorporated Cattaneo’s smoked pork into their dishes, creating a dish that was less foreign and more familiar. Cattaneo’s comment reveals that the food at Chong’s restaurant was not some new and exotic fare but an object of nostalgia for the writer. Clearly by this time, the Chong family had established their place in the community of San Luis Obispo, not necessarily as Chinese residents but as a local presence.

Chong’s Restaurant incorporating roast pork from a non-Chinese restaurant does bring into question the authenticity of their Chinese food. ABC writer Jade Snow Wong would retell in her autobiography how prominent food was in representing Chinese culture in the 1940s:

…she remembered a common Chinese saying, “A Chinese can cook foreign food as well as, if not better than, the foreigners, but a foreigner cannot cook Chinese food fit for the Chinese.” (Yin 2006:228)

This quote not only exemplifies the proud attitude many Chinese Americans held for their cuisine, but establishes the belief that there are unique Chinese Ways in food preparation. After all, Chinese immigrants in general were more familiar with

EuroAmerican styles of cook than vice versa, as many Chinese cooks worked for

American families and labor camps (Liu 2015:23).

To the Chong family, Cattaneo was not a foreigner, but a neighbor. Their Chinese ethnic identity was not defined by a conflict of Chinese and American ways. Instead,

119

Chinese practices and American culture were not mutually exclusive. Using smoked pork

from a EuroAmerican butcher did not make the Palm Street Chinatown residents any less

Chinese or capable of producing Chinese food than eating Chinese food made a

EuroAmerican more Chinese. This is because “Food is both culture and commodity. But when food becomes a commodity, it is no longer an inherited culture” (Liu 2015:135).

This allows for Chinese food to be created by Chinese Americans as an inherited culture but made accessible to non-Chinese.

Much like the roast pork at the Chongs’ restaurant, Liu (2015:69) argues that

Chinese American foods was not a loss of Chinese culture, but an adaptation:

[Chop Suey] shows that the formation of Chinese American ethnicity was more than just a simple blending of Western and Asian cultures. It reflects how Chinese Americans negotiated with a hostile racial environment, explored new opportunities, and creatively adapted their food culture to American society. While Chinese food was being shaped, transformed and sometimes altered by American popular tastes, Chinese restaurant businesses at the same time helped shape the American diet. The adaptation was a two-way process.

Despite the impacts of Chinese Exclusion and the reduced Chinese population, non-

Chinese residents from San Luis Obispo were also influenced by Chinese Americans, especially Chinese foodways. If authentic Chinese food is a practice done as exactly as in

China, then much of what Chinese Americans were practicing was not entirely consistent with those foodways from China (Liu 2015; Lu and Fine 1995). The Chinese food in

American was not authentic in the sense that it was a replica of Chinese foods. Instead

Chinese American food was derived from past memories of Chinese foodways and reconstructed by migrants not only for the present, but also the future (Janowski

2012:177). The Palm Street residents constructed their own understanding of Chinese

Ways to negotiate their multicultural identities in America.

120

Transnationalism and Homeland Memory

Contextualizing the faunal bones helps scholars to understand what is considered

to be Chinese and how these patterns are determined. What the Palm Street Chinatown

residents considered to be Chinese food relied on their own evolving memories and

transnational relationships with China. Transnational frameworks study the transfer of

material culture in understanding connections between Chinese migrants and China

(Kennedy 2016). While many kinds of goods were imported from China to Ah Louis’

store, foods were the most popular products.

The Chinese imported food consumed by the residents would only represent a

limited selection of non-perishable foods. Kennedy (2016:159) suggest that the low

variety of imports limited Chinese food practices in America compared to those in China.

Kennedy (2016:159) also argues that the commodities shipped to the US would not

actually be commonly eaten within rural Chinese villages.

Additionally, unlike home-cooked meals, imported goods were a commodity that

would be accessible to anyone. As imports were also commodities, they were not

restricted to just Chinese migrant customers and could be shared or sold (Liu 2015:135).

Due to the Exclusion Act there were diminishing numbers of Chinese in America. The

types of goods imported to the Chinatown grocery stores would be tailored not just for

family consumption, but to what appealed to the popular tastes of the broader community

in SLO. As a result, how ABC conceptualized food from China would not actually

represent mainland Chinese diets. For example, ABC likely consumed more leong fun

than their Chinese counterparts as native Chinese had more access to other non- perishable Chinese goods.

121

Homeland Memory: What China Means to Chinese Americans

The emotional connection that Chinese migrants felt with their Chinese birth-

places was not consistent over time. It was customary for Chinese migrants to have their remains returned to China to be buried in their homeland during the late 19th to early 20th

Centuries (Farkas 1998:1). Ah Louis decided to follow this custom to return to China to

die in his homeland in 1933 at the age of 92 (Blackburn 2003:9). However, in his final

years, Ah Louis appeared to have a change of heart in his attitude towards China. China

was initially the place “Where [Ah Louis] had gone to die” (Hess 1934), however, it

wasn’t long before Ah Louis returned to SLO in 1934.

A newspaper interview with Ah Louis in 1934 detailed his reasons for returning

to the US (Hess 1934). Ah Louis stated:

I feel very homesick in China… My people learn almost nothing since I left. Farmer work hard all year, get few sacks of rice to eat. Very bad way to live. No time to enjoy… When I go my native village, I decide have big banquet for neighbors all around. We invite 1,200 people… Then we hire many men with guns to guard banquet from bandits. (Hess 1934) This quote reveals that after returning to China, Ah Louis no longer felt that China was

his home. Additionally, Ah Louis’ personal experiences emphasized how access to food

in China was a concern and he took great efforts to organize a banquet. Ah Louis was not

satisfied with how Chinese farmers worked hard for food and a meager living. Clearly, his return to San Luis Obispo from China emphasized that a life or death in China was no longer what he desired.

While Gin Sai Yuen’s attitude towards China was not recorded, he was mentioned

in the same interview with Ah Louis. The interviewer set the scene describing a passing

greeting from Gin Sai Yuen to Ah Louis:

122

Gin Sai Yon [Yuen], old, blind, and infirm, spoke a cheerful greeting and shuffled slowly on his way. Ah Louis had advised his friend only a few days before: “Do not go back to China. You will find only disappointment. End your days in California—here in San Luis Obispo.” (Hess 1934) Ah Louis had become attached to the life he made in San Luis Obispo. While it is unclear

if Gin Sai Yuen travelled between the US and China, he lived with his son Addison on

Palm Street for many years. Gin Sai Yuen eventually passed away in 1935 and was

buried next to his wife in San Luis Obispo (SLO Daily Telegram 1935:4).

Gin Sai Yuen’s son, Richard Chong, never went to China. Richard’s perception of

China was brought up during a newspaper interview:

Would he like to go to China and to Hong Kong to visit a sister he has never seen? “Might.” Is he thinking about it? “In a way.” It’s the only question the candy maker dodges. (Anderson 2010 [1974])

Even as an adult, Richard appeared conflicted about his family’s past. The nostalgia that

the ABC conveyed in their interviews did not focus on their Chinese heritage, but their

own lives in SLO. Richard Chong reminisced about candy stores and claimed “Kids

today were born in the wrong time… When I was a kid there was all kinds of candy

stores downtown,” (Anderson 2010 [1974]). Clearly, the fond memories Richard had of

his childhood in San Luis Obispo extended beyond the Palm Street Chinatown. Much of

the Louis family children donated papers and items relating to their father's store and

would relate their own stories and lives growing up in SLO and the wider community

(Wong 1987).

The ABC residents from the Palm Street Chinatown did not grow up with

homeland memories of China. Instead, the environment they were raised in represented a

constructed image of China that Chinese migrant parents built for their children. This

homeland memory was used by Chinese migrants to cultivate their own Chinese

123

community in America rather than replicate their past lives in China. In turn, ABC would

grow up reconciling their identities as Chinese Americans in a very different way from

their parents. Therefore, it is misleading to equate cultural materials from the SLO

Chinatown as a microcosm of traditional Chinese practices. Rather, these objects were

used as tools for negotiating a new ethnic identity in a multicultural society.

Conclusions The foodways analyzed in Feature 19 reflect a complex negotiation of ethnic

identity, material culture, and homeland memories. While Chinese migrants would have

homeland memories of China, their descendants were instead exposed to Chinese

foodways constructed within an American context. Instead of forming their own

memories of China, ABC inherited practices of Chinese Ways from their parents. Their exposure to the Chinese Ways was particularly limited during the Exclusion Era as the influx of new migrants fell and travel was restricted for American Chinese.

The Chinese residents of the Palm Street Chinatown either returned to China or stayed in America until they passed away. Some residents, such as Ah Louis, moved back to China only to realize they wanted to stay in the US until the end of their days. The changes in migrant identity and homeland memory is reflected in the food practices at the

Palm Street Chinatown. More than just maintaining traditions, foodways transform intangible culture into a consumable material laden with conscious and sub-conscious choices.

Reinforcing homeland memories through food became especially poignant for

Chinese Americans during the Exclusion Era because even in a transnational context

“Food transmits culture” (Liu 2015:116). Imported foods maintained a material connection for immigrants to China. The techniques used to prepare foods also served as

124

a transnational vessel for recreating Chinese foods in a foreign country. Whether real or

imagined, Chinese Ways of preparing food was meant to satisfy more than just physical

hunger, but to feed a sense of nostalgia.

Chinese Ways allowed for migrants to have flexibility in how they define and redefine cultural practices while maintain their sense of identity. Despite frequent portrayals of Chinese cooking and foods as a homogenous practice of fan and tsai

(Kennedy 2016:49), the archaeology and faunal analysis from Feature 19 reveals the

foodways of the Palm Street Chinatown were not consistent between mainland China and

American. Even among Chinese laborers and merchants in California, diets focused

much more on meats and imported foods, indicating that class was not the only impact on

dietary changes (Kennedy 2016:193). Reconciling the differences between mainland

Chinese and American Chinese definitions of Chinese Ways is critical because both groups can consider themselves Chinese despite using different practices.

Instead of emulating a static Chinese tradition, Chinese migrants maintained the practices that were important to them within a larger American society. Chinese migrant parents passed their cultural authority to their ABC children who created a new understanding of what was considered the Chinese Ways of food (Liu 2015:116).

Personal concepts of being Chinese American changed over time as ABC attitudes and relationship to their Chinese heritage changed. ABC during the Exclusion Era did not have the same ties to China as their parents and became their own distinctive sub-group

(Yin 2006:212). While not completely separated from their Chinese heritage, ABC fashioned their own concepts of multi-cultural identity. The history of the SLO

125

Chinatown residents demonstrates how even within the constraints of the Chinese

Exclusion Era, they continued to negotiate their place within the community.

There is no single ethnic marker in cultural material for Chinese Americans as

their concept of ethnic identity changes over time. Using Chinese foodways as a model

for ethnic identity is likely so popular with anthropological studies because Chinese

migrants and Chinese food restaurants continue to be prolific around the world. The

ability of Chinese foodways to proliferate was due more to the ability of Chinese

migrants to creatively incorporate local foodways rather than to an adherence to tradition

(Kennedy 2016:160). Popular restaurants like Panda Express and P.F. Chang’s

demonstrate how American society continues to be permeated by Chinese American

innovation (Liu 2015:69). Not only did Chinese Americans redefine their own foodways and Chinese Ways, but redefined what constitutes the American Way as well.

Future Research

Feature 19 represents a relatively small glimpse into Chinese migrant and ABC

lives. Very few archaeological studies have been conducted regarding Chinese American

households and the lives of ABC children growing up in the Exclusion Era (Voss

2008:37). Much of the same rhetoric Studies of ethnic identity and cultural authority

among migrant parents and first-generation children can be further explored within other

migrant communities.

The SLO Chinatown has the potential to contribute to archaeological studies

beyond that of just foodways and faunal analysis. The Chong family and the Louis family

present case studies of multi-generational migrant families who were subjected to exclusion laws as part of the longer history of discrimination towards migrants and ethnic

126

minorities such as Irish and Eastern Europeans (Orser 2007:1). Much of the current

political climate regarding Mexican migrants and migrant workers echoes the rhetoric demanding the expulsion of Chinese migrants. Gyory (2003:127) writes “More than a century after its passage, the Chinese Exclusion Act still haunts the nation’s treatment of immigrants and immigration.” Future research of migrant archaeology should look to contextualize the lives of their subjects within the greater framework of American exclusion.

There is also a lack of archaeological studies focusing on how non-

EuroAmericans were influenced by the Chinese (Sunseri 2015; Voss 2005:426). The relationships between Native Americans and the residents of the SLO Chinatown present an interesting case study in understanding how ethnic minorities outside of

EuroAmericans interacted with Chinese. Further research between ethnic communities in history can also help alleviate the perception of a Eurocentric America.

Much of the resources pertaining to the SLO Chinatown were based in American

studies. Due to the international nature of studying migrant groups, collaborations with

China-based archaeologists and historians would be beneficial in understanding the

Chinese diaspora as a whole. Various factors hinder China-based research, from funding

to language barriers, discouraging historical archaeologists from studying Chinese

migrants outside of their own nation. Researchers have been calling for more China based transnational studies for understanding the Chinese diaspora in an international context

(Voss 2015). Recently, the Chinese Railroad Workers of North America project has

encouraged travel to China and promoted studies at historically relevant Guangdong villages (Kennedy 2016:iv). Similarly, studies of migrant populations throughout the

127

world such as Australia, Canada and Southeast Asia also provide an opportunity to

understand how disparate groups of Chinese migrants negotiated their lives in different

international contexts (González-Tennant 2011; Rains 2003; Ross 2013).

In addition to exploring the history of the SLO Chinatown, the Palm Street

Parking Structure excavation exemplifies how the study of an orphaned collection can still contribute to a greater history of the community. Despite the challenges in establishing an archaeological context for Feature 19, previous efforts made by the local community and archaeologists to preserve the historical documents and oral histories from the Chinatown allowed for a greater understanding of the families who lived there.

Involving descendant communities is especially important in considering the future directions of studies of ethnicity and identity. Without the involvement of the SLO community and descendants throughout the decades in publishing their stories or being interviewed, many of the deeper insights to Feature 19 may have been obscured, such as the significance of skunk bones. It is important to recognize that collecting oral histories and stories from stakeholders and descendants can provide instrumental insight into archaeological interpretations of identity.

Today, the remains of the Palm Street Chinatown consist only of the Ah Louis store, Chong’s Candy Store, and the Mee Heng Low noodle house. The Chinatown was designated as a local historic district by the City of San Luis Obispo. Various public displays distributed throughout Palm Street and the parking structure serve as a reminder of the presence of the Chinese community through the decorative mural on the side of the structure facing the Ah Louis store and the display of artifacts and the open excavation unit preserved inside the garage. In my efforts to learn more about the SLO Chinatown, I

128 have encountered many people enthusiastic about my work and was provided with help and information. Members of the community are still involved in maintaining the heritage of the San Luis Obispo Chinatown almost three decades since the archaeological excavations first began. Future research of Chinese migrant archaeology would continue to benefit from community based research as well as a continued effort for public outreach.

129

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Faunal Analysis Overview

MAMMALS* REPRESENTED BY NISP AND MNI Common Name Scientific Name NISP MNI MW (lbs.) MAMMALS Major Meat Mammals Cow Bos taurus 635 5 765.89 Sheep Ovis aries 177 3 83.59 Pig Sus scrofa 1352 10 486.94

Minor Meat Animals Rabbit / Hare Leporidae 4 1 Black-tailed Jack rabbit Lepus Californicus 4 1

Unique Mammals Horse Equus 2 1 Skunk Mephitis 2 1

Incidental Mammals Whale Cetacea 1 1 Domestic cat Felis catus 18 1 Domestic Dog Canis Familiaris 17 2 Bat Chiroptera 1 1 Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 10 2 House mouse Mus musculus 2 1 Deer mouse Peromyscus 2 1 Rat Rattus 2 1 Squirrel / ground squirrel Sciuridae 18 3 Grey Squirrel Sciurus griseus 13 2 Ground squirrel Spermophilus undulatus 2 2 Pocket gopher Thomomys 1 1 Mustidea? 4 1

TOTAL MAMMALS 2267 41 1336.43 *Non-mammals including birds, fish and reptiles were not formally entered into the database as part of this thesis due to inconsistent data recovery methods during the original excavation.

130

MEAT WEIGHT DERIVED FROM STEAK EQUIVALENTS (listed in order of descending economic value within meat type)

BEEF Meat Weight (lbs.) Loin 103.41 Rib 135.23 Round 98.66 Chuck 322.37 Brisket 32.33 Hindshank 25.6 Foreshank 48.3 TOTAL 765.90

MUTTON Loin 4.48 Rib 13.47 Shoulder 36.58 Leg 21.27 Foreshank 1.91 Brisket 5.88 TOTAL 83.59

PORK Ham 171.27 Loin 74.15 Picnic 63.25 Shoulder 100.61 Belly 33.10 Jowl 33.73 Feet 10.84 TOTAL 486.94

GRAND TOTAL 1336.43

131

Percent Meat Weight by Retail Cut & Price Meat Type Meat Wt. Percent Percent Percent (lbs.) within within price of total meat type BEEF High 26.3% Porterhouse 84.51 11.0% Sirloin 18.90 2.5% Prime rib 98.04 12.8%

Moderate 53.9% Cross rib 37.19 4.9% Round 29.90 3.9% Rump 68.76 9.0% Blade 120.45 15.7% Roundbone 34.10 4.5% Chuck rib 122.10 15.9%

Low 19.8% Neck 45.72 6.0% Plate 12.45 1.6% Brisket 19.88 2.6% Hindshank 25.60 3.3% Foreshank 48.30 6.3%

Total 765.89 100.0% 57.3%

MUTTON High 30.3% Porterhouse 4.48 5.4% Sirloin 0.00 0.0% Rump 9.20 11.0% Round 11.66 13.9%

Moderate 51.0% Rib 9.43 11.3% Crossrib 4.04 4.8% Blade 15.56 18.6% Roundbone 6.63 7.9% Chuckrib 6.98 8.4%

Low 18.7% Neck 7.42 8.9% Plate 1.44 1.7% Brisket 4.44 5.3% Hindshank 0.42 0.5% Foreshank 1.91 2.3%

Total 83.59 100.0% 100.0% 6.3%

132

PORK High 17.6% Porterhouse 20.93 4.3% Sirloin 30.17 6.2% Rib 23.05 4.7% Round 11.72 2.4%

Moderate 49.3% Rump 94.85 19.5% Blade 37.52 7.7% Roundbone 63.25 13.0% Chuckrib 44.66 9.2%

Low 33.0% Neck 6.45 1.3% Crossrib 17.67 3.6% Brisket 7.94 1.6% Plate 7.49 1.5% Foreshank 11.98 2.5% Forefoot 5.94 1.2% Hindshank 64.70 13.3% Hindfoot 4.90 1.0% Head 24.99 5.1% Jowl 8.74 1.8%

Total 486.94 100.0% 100.0% 36.4%

GRAND TOTAL 1336.43 100.0%

Beef High 201.45 Beef Moderate 412.50 Beef Low 151.95

Mutton High 25.33 Mutton Moderate 42.63 Mutton Low 15.63

Pork High 85.87 Pork Moderate 240.28 Pork Low 160.79

Combined High 312.65 23.4% Combined Mod 695.41 52.0% Combined Low 328.37 24.6% 1336.43 100.0%

133

BUTCHERING MARKS ON MAJOR MEAT MAMMAL BONES

Cow Sheep Pig Ax 67 43 507 Cut 57 36 271 Handsaw 96 19 196 Impact fracture 39 5 15 Knife 34 32 183 TOTAL MARKS 293 135 1172 NISP 461 73 1157

PERCENT Cow Sheep Pig Ax/Cleaver 23% 32% 43% Unkwn. cut 19% 27% 23% Handsaw 33% 14% 17% Impact fracture 13% 4% 1% Knife 12% 24% 16% TOTAL PERCENT 100% 100% 100%

TAPHONOMY NISP % Weathered 108 9.61% Burned 24 2.14% Calcined 20 1.78% Gnawed* D 1 0.09% R 0 0.00% M 3 0.27%

*D=dog, R=rodent, M=Possible human tooth marks

134

Calculated Weight of Beef Cuts

Meat Cut # steak 240* wt. of STEQ #STEQ CALCWT equivalents lbs. per side (STEQ) per side side

Loin 40.8 Porterhouse (H) 12 21.6 1.8 46.95 84.51 Sirloin (H) 7 19.2 2.7 7 18.9

Round 57.6 Round (M) 14 36 2.6 11.5 29.9 Rump (M) 5 12 2.4 28.65 68.76 Shank (hind)(L) 10 9.6 1 25.6 25.6

Flank, kidney & 16.8 fat

Rib 22.8 Prime rib (rib)(H) 10 14.4 1.4 70.025 98.035 blade rib 4 8.4 2.1 17.71 37.19 (cross)(M)

Chuck 68.4 Clade (M) 10 21.6 2.2 54.75 120.45 Round bone 6 13.2 2.2 15.5 34.1 (arm)(M) Chuck rib (M) 5 12 2.4 50.875 122.1 Neck (L) 10 12 1.2 38.1 45.72 Shank (fore)(L) 10 9.6 1 48.3 48.3

Plate & Brisket 33.6 Plate or navel (L) 10 19.2 1.9 6.55 12.45 Brisket (L) 10 14.4 1.4 14.2 19.88

*based on 800 lb. live weight

Total Weights: 103.41 Loin Rib 135.23 Round 98.66 Chuck 322.37 Brisket 32.33 Total Weights: 201.45 High Hindshank 25.6 Medium 412.50 Foreshank 48.3 Low 151.95

Total Weight 765.89 Total Weight 765.89

135

Calculated Weight of Mutton Cuts

Meat Cut # steak Mutton wt. of #STEQ CALCWT equivalents 38* STEQ (STEQ) per side lbs. side per side

Hindsaddle 19

Loin 6 Loin (porterhouse)(H) 12 4.6 0.4 11.2 4.48

Leg 12.9 Sirloin (H) 4 1.9 0.5 0 0 Leg Rump(H) 16 10.1 0.63 14.6 9.20 Round(H) 0.63 18.5 11.66 Shank (hind)(L) 8 0.95 0.1 4.2 0.42

Foresaddle 19

Rack 4.6 Rib(M) 12 4.6 0.4 23.575 9.43 Crossrib(M) 0.4 10.1 4.04

Chuck 8.9 Shoulder Blade(M) 14 7.4 0.53 29.35 15.56 Roundbone(M) 0.53 12.5 6.63 Chuckrib(M) 0.53 13.175 6.98 Neck (L) 3 1.5 0.4 18.55 7.42

Breast 5.5 Breast Plate(L) 10 3.8 0.4 3.6 1.44 Brisket(L) 0.4 11.1 4.44 Shank (fore)(L) 20 1.7 0.09 21.2 1.91

*based on 75 lb. carcass weight, with carcass wt. 50% of live weight

MUTTON Loin 4.48 Rib 13.47 Shoulder 36.58 Leg 21.27 High 25.33 Brisket 5.88 Medium 42.63 Foreshank 1.91 Low 15.63

Total Weight 83.59 Total Weight 83.59

136

Calculated Weight of Pork Cuts

Meat Cut Carcass % Carcass % of 70* wt. of # Calc. of Retail Cuts lbs. side STEQ STEQ Wt. Retail Cuts (STEQ) per per side side

Ham 14 Rump/butt (M) 7 5 4.9 1 94.85 94.85 Ham steaks (round)(H) 5 8 3.5 0.4 29.3 11.72 Shank (hind)(L) 8 12 5.6 0.46 140.65 64.70 Loin 9.1 Loin butt (sirloin)(H) 4 4 2.8 0.7 43.1 30.17 Chops 9 18 6.3 0.35 59.8 20.93 porterhouse(H) 0.35 65.85 23.05 Rib(H) Shoulder 13.3 Shoulder butt 8.2 8 5.7 0.7 53.6 37.52 blade(M) Chuck rib(M) 0.7 63.8 44.66 Picnic (round bone)(M) 7.5 8 5.3 1 63.25 63.25 Hock (foreshank)(L) 1.43 11 1 0.1 119.75 11.98 Forefoot (L) 0.92 1 0.66 0.66 9 5.94 Neck (L) 0.95 8 0.67 0.08 80.65 6.45

Belly 16.8 Bacon/clear belly (L) 16.5 Spareribs/brisket(L) 3.98 10 2.8 0.28 28.35 7.94 0.28 63.1 17.67 Crossrib(L) 0.28 26.75 7.49 Plate(L) Leaf lard (L) 3.52 Head 7.7 Jowl (L) 4 6 2.8 0.47 18.6 8.74 Head (L) 7 1 4.9 4.9 5.1 24.99

Hindfoot (L) 1 1 0.7 0.7 7 4.9

Total Weights: Ham 171.27 Loin 74.15 Picnic 63.25 Shoulder 100.61 Total Weights: Belly 33.10 High 85.87 Jowl 33.73 Medium 240.28 Feet 10.84 Low 160.80

Total Weight 486.94 Total 486.95 Weight

137

Retail Chunk by NISP percentage.

Bos taurus Chunk* NISP % F 341 53.70% R 13 2.05% S 28 4.41% SB 253 39.84%

TOTAL 635 100.00%

Ovis aries Chunk NISP % F 94 53.11% R 12 6.78% S 9 5.08% SB 62 35.03%

TOTAL 177 100.00%

Sus scrofa Chunk NISP % F 469 34.69% R 22 1.63% S 48 3.55% SB 813 60.13%

TOTAL 1352 100.00%

* F= indeterminate, R= roast, S= steak, SB= soup bone

138

Appendix B. SLO Chinatown Family Tree * Please note that the birthdates will sometimes differ approximately a year depending on the Population Schedule. Chong Family (Gin/ Quong) [Partial Family Tree from 1910-1920 US Census,

Population Schedule]

Gin Sai Yuen (Quong Chong) (b. 1845 in China) – Family Head

Gip She Chong (b. 1866 in China) - Mother

George Chong (b. 1885) – Son

Hong Shi Chong (b.1891) – George’s Wife

Donald Chong (b.1913) – George’s Son

Arthur Chong (b. unknown) - Son

Gin “Nellie” Gin/Chong (b.1890) - Daughter

Fong Gin/Chong (b.1890) - Son

Addison Chong (b. 1901) – Son, Owner of Chong’s Chinese Restaurant

Maybelle Chong (b. 1902) - Daughter

Richard Chong (1905-1978) –Son, Owner of Chong’s Candy Store

Alice Chong (b. 1907) - Daughter

Elena Chong (b. 1911) – Daughter

139

Luis Family (Wong) [Partial Family Tree from H.K. Wong (1987) and 1910 Census

Population Schedule]

Ah Louis (Wong On) (1840-1936) – Family Head

En Gon Ying (1869 - 1909) - Wife

Lena Louis (1891-1975) - Daughter

Young Louis (b. 1893) - Son

- Stella Louis – Young’s wife

- Elsie Louis (1914) – Young’s Daughter

Mae Louis Watson (b. 1895) - Daughter

George Louis (b. 1899) - Son

Fred Louis (1907-1994) - Son

Howard Louis (1908-2008) – Son, Owner of the Ah Louis Store

140

Works Cited

Archaeological Resource Service (ARS) 1987 Field notes and summary documents relating to excavations at CA-SLO-64H. Manuscripts on file, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, California.

Anderson, Bob 2010 [1974] Chong’s Candy Store. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 28 November. Reprinted by David Middlecamp, San Luis Obispo Tribune 7 April. http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/slovault/2010/04/chongs-homemade-candies/ Accessed March 3, 2017.

Anderson, E.N. Jr. and Marja L. Anderson 1977 Modern China: South. In Food in Chinese Culture, edited by Kwan-chih Chang, pp. 317-382.Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Barth, Fredrik 1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by Frederik Barth, pp. 9- 38. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Baxter, R. Scott 2008 The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement. Historical Archaeology 42(3):29-36.

Baxter, R. Scott and Rebecca Allen 2002 Archaeological investigations of Life within the Woolen Mills Chinatown, San Jose. In The Chinese in America: A History from Gold Mountain to the New Millennium, edited by Susie Lan Cassel, pp. 381-398. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Blackburn, Daniel 2003 Here’s the rail story. New Times SLO, 16-23 January. San Luis Obispo, California.

Blott, Pierre 1863 What to Eat and How to Cook it; Containing Over One Thousand Recipes. D. Appleton & co., New York.

Cattaneo, Bill 1999 The Candy Man. SLO Magazine 18 August. San Luis Obispo, California.

Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association 1876 To His Excellency U.S. Grant, president of the United States: A Memorial from Representative Chinamen in America. Manuscript on File. San Francisco Public Library, California.

141

Chen, Yong 2006 Understanding Chinese American Transnationalism during the Early Twentieth Century: An Economic Perspective. In Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ideas between China and America during the Exclusion Era, edited by Sucheng Chan, pp. 156-173. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

2009 The American Dream and Dreams of China: A Transnational Approach to Chinese American History. In Trans-Pacific Interactions: The United States and China, 1880-1950, edited by Vanessa Künnemann, and Ruth Mayer, pp. 21-42. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

2017 The Rise of Chinese Food in the United States. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History. Accessed March 7, 2018.

Childs, Terry S. 1995 The Curation Crisis. Federal Archaeology Winter/Spring:11-15.

Childs, S. Terry, and Danielle M. Benden. 2017 A Checklist for Sustainable Management of Archaeological Collections. Advances in Archaeological Practice 5(1):12–25.

Clevenger, Elizabeth Noelani 2004 Reconstructing Context and Assessing Research Potential. Feature 20 from the San José Market Street Chinatown. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, California.

Conwell, Russell Herman 1871 Why and How: Why the Chinese Emigrate, and the Means They Adopt for the Purpose of Reaching America. Lee & Shepard, University Press, Cambridge.

Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1977 Chinatown: San Luis Obispo 1912. Central Coast Times 13 January:1, 7. Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo, California.

Diehl, Michael, Jennifer A. Waters and J. Homer Thiel 1998 Acculturation and the Composition of the Diet of Tucson’s Overseas Chinese Gardeners at the Turn of the Century. Historical Archaeology, 32(4):19-33.

Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1963 [1933] Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears. W. T. Genns, Santa Barbara, California.

142

Evans, William S. 1980 Food and Fantasy: Material Culture of Chinese in California and the West, Circa 1850-1900. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Afro- American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 89-95, Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

Farkas, Lani Ah Tye 1998 Bury My Bones in California: The Saga of a Chinese Family in California, 1852- 1996. Carl Mautz Publishing, Nevada City, California.

Felton, David L., Frank Lortie, and Peter D. Schulz 1984 The Chinese Laundry on Second Street: Papers on Archaeology at the Woodland Opera House Site. California Archaeological Reports No.24. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

Fetzer, Joel S. 2010 An Annotated Translation of Chinese Letter from the Ah Louis Family of San Luis Obispo, California. Manuscript on file. Pepperdine University, Malibu, California.

Food and Agriculture Organization 2014 Major Food and Agriculture commodities and Producers – Countries by Commodity. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC, accessed October 15, 2017. Fulks, Tom 1987 Archaeologist Dig Unearthing County’s Past. Times Press Recorder 17 July:C1. San Luis Obispo, California.

George, Henry 2003 [1869] The Chinese in California. New York Tribune 1 May. Reprinted. Edited by Lon Kurashige and Alice Yang Murray, pp. 97-99. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Gidney, C. M. 1917 History of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties, California, Vol I. Lewis Publishing Co, Chicago, Illinois.

González-Tennant, Edward 2011 Creating a Diasporic Archaeology of Chinese Migration: Tentative Steps Across Four Continents. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 15(3):509–532.

Goodman, John D. II 2006 An Overview of the Vertebrate Fauna from CA-SLO-1419H and CA-SLO2287, The Copelands Project, San Luis Obispo, California. In The Copelands Project: Neophytes, Shopkeepers, and the Soiled Doves of San Luis Obispo, edited by Wendy M. Nettles, pp. 1-41. Applied Earthworks, INC., Fresno, California.

143

Greenwood, Roberta S. 1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California. Edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.520–523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1980 The Chinese on Main Street. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp 113- 123. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale, New York.

1993 Old Approaches and New Directions: Implications for Future Research. In Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese, edited by Priscilla Wegars, pp. 375-403. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Amityville, New York.

Greenwood, Roberta S., and Alice Hale 2002 But Let's Keep Enough. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 36(4):22- 23.

Gust, Sherri M. 1993 Animal Bones from Historic Urban Chinese Sites: A Comparison of Sacramento, Woodland, Tucson, Ventura, and Lovelock. In Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese. Edited by Priscilla Wegars, pp. 177-212. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Amityville, New York.

2001 Guide to BABAS: Bone and Butchering Analysis System. Manuscript on file, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

2003 Victorian Household Meat Consumption in Downtown San Luis Obispo. In The Archaeology of the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project: A Glimpse of Victorian Life in San Luis Obispo, California, edited by Wendy M. Nettles, pp. A1- A6. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California.

Gyory, Andrew 2003 Closing the Gate: Race Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Reprint. In Major Problems in Asian American History, edited by Lon Kurashige and Alice Yang Murray, pp. 123-127. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Hamilton, M. Colleen, and Kholood Abdo Hintzman 2014 Archaeological Excavations for the Yung Building Demolition/Parking Lot Construction Project, San Luis Obispo, California. Applied Earthworks, San Luis Obispo, California. Document on file with the City of San Luis Obispo, California.

144

Harris, R.R. 1874 County of San Luis Obispo, California. Carefully Compiled From Actual Surveys and Published by R.R. Harris, County Surveyor, September 1874. Map on file at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.

Heffner, Sarah C. 2013 Exploring Healthcare Practices of the Lovelock Chinese: An Analysis and Interpretation of Medicinal Artifacts in the Lovelock Chinatown Collection. Nevada Archaeologist 26:25-36.

Henderson, Penny 2005 Vintage Wedding Cake Toppers. Schiffer Publishing, Pennsylvania.

Hess, Chester Newton 1934 What California Means to Its Oldest Living Chinese. Westways 26(3):26-27 & 40.

Howard, Constance 1974 Comparison of Food Practices and Customs of American-Born and Overseas- Born Chinese in Tucson. Master’s Thesis, School of Home Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Libraries.

Holtzman, Jon D. 2006 Food and Memory. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:361-378.

Ingles, Lloyd G, 1947 Mammals of California. Stanford University Press, California.

Janowski, Monica 2012 Introduction: Consuming Memories of Home in Constructing the Present and Imagining the Future. Food and Foodways 20(3-4):175-186.

Jones, Sian 2008 Ethnicity: Theoretical Approaches; Methodological Implications. In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, edited by R. Alexander Bentley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 321-333. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Kelly, Marsha C.S. and Roger E. Kelly 1980 Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical Archaeology. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp.133-143. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

145

Kennedy, Ryan J. 2016 Fan and Tsai: Food, Identity, and Connections in the Market Street Chinatown. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology. Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Konzak, Sandra and Adrian Praetzellis 2016 Archaeological Excavations at CA-SLO-64H, San Luis Obispo, California. The Palm Street Parking Garage Project. Manuscript on File. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Krieger, Daniel E. 1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom: San Luis Obispo County. Windsor Publications, Northridge, California.

2003 San Luis Obispo’s Chinatown once thrived. San Luis Obispo Tribune 9 February. San Luis Obispo, California.

2004 Chinese Community Outreach has Deep Roots. San Luis Obispo Tribune 18 January. San Luis Obispo, California.

2012 SLO County’s Chinese Heritage. San Luis Obispo Tribune 20 October. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/times- past/article39426672.html

Kung, Shien-woo. 1962 Chinese in American life: Some aspects of their history, status, problems, and contributions. Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.

Kwong, Peter 2005 Chinese in America: The Untold Story of America’s Oldest New Community. New Press, New York.

Lai, Him Mark 2006 Teaching Chinese Americans to be Chinese: Curriculum, Teachers, and Textbooks in Chinese Schools in America during the Exclusion Era. In Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ideas between China and America during the Exclusion Era, edited by Sucheng Chan, pp. 194- 210. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Langenwalter, Paul E. 1980 The Archaeology of 19th Century Chinese Subsistence at the Lower China Store, Madera County, California. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 102-112. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

146

Lantz, David E. 1923 Economic Value of North American Skunks. Reprinted. Originally published 1914, Bulletin No. 587, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin, Washington, DC.

Lee, Erika 2003 At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. The University of North Carolina Press.

Lees, William B., and Julia A. King 2007 What are we really learning through publicly funded historical archaeology (and is it worth the considerable expense?). Historical Archaeology 41(2):54-61.

Li, Shizhen 2003 [1593] Compendium of Materia Medica: Bencao Gangmu. Translated by Xiwen Luo. Foreign Languages Press, Beijing.

Lightfoot, Kent G, and Otis Parrish 2009 California Indians and their environment an introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Liu, Eric 2014 Why I Don’t Hyphenate Chinese American. Central News Network, July 11. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/11/opinion/liu-chinese-american/index.html

Liu, Haiming 2006 Chinese Herbalists in the United States. In Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ideas between China and America during the Exclusion Era, edited by Sucheng Chan, pp. 136-155. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

2015 From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express: A History of Chinese Food in the United States. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.

Lu, Shun and Gary Alan Fine 1995 The Presentation of Ethnic Authenticity: Chinese food as a Social Accomplishment. The Sociological Quarterly 36(3):535-555.

MacFarland, Kathryn, and Arthur W. Vokes. 2016 Dusting Off the Data: Curating and Rehabilitating Archaeological Legacy and Orphaned Collections. Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(2):161–175

147

McClellan, Whitney R. 2015 Tell Me What You Eat and I’ll Tell You Who You Are: The Zooarchaeological Analysis of Four Nineteenth-Century Maritime Households. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California.

Michaels, Gina 2005 Peck-Marked Vessels from the San José Market Street Chinatown: A Study of Distribution and Significance. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 9(2):123-134.

Milanich, Jerald T. 2005 Homeless Collections. Archaeology, November/December 58(6): https://archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/letter.html

Mullins, Paul R. 2008 “The Strange and Unusual”: Material and Social Dimensions of Chinese Identity. Historical Archaeology 42(3):152–157.

National Park Service 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register, 48FR44716-42. State of California.

1993 Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. State Historical Resources Commission, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California.

2009 NPS Archaeology Program: Managing Archaeological Collections. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/collections/intro_cur_pr.htm

Nettles, Wendy M. 2003 The Archaeology of the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project: A Glimpse of Victorian Life in San Luis Obispo, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California.

2006 The Copelands Project: Neophytes, Shopkeepers, and the Soiled Doves of San Luis Obispo. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for Department of Community Development, City of San Luis Obispo, California.

Ochs, Patricia Mary 1966 A History of Chinese Labor in San Luis Obispo County and A Comparison of Chinese Relations in this County with the Anti-Chinese Movement in California, 1869-1894. Manuscript on File. California State Polytechnic College, San Luis Obispo, California.

148

Olsen, John W. 1978 A Study of Chinese Ceramics Excavated in Tucson. Kiva 44(1): 1-50.

Orser, Charles E. Jr. 2007 The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic America. 1st edition. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Page, Jeremy 2013 Chinese Territorial Strife Hits Archaeology. Wall Street Journal, 2 December. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579164873258 159410

Perkins, Dorothy 2013 Encyclopedia of China: The Essential Reference to China, its History and Culture. Roundtable Press, New York.

Praetzellis, Adrian 2014 Memo to File: Palm Street Chinatown, San Luis Obispo Archaeological Collection. Letter on file. July 31. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Praetzellis, Mary 2004 Chinese Oaklanders: Overcoming the Odds. In Putting the “There” There: Historical Archaeologies of West Oakland, edited by Mary Praetzellis and Adrian Praetzellis, pp. 237-259. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Praetzellis, Adrian, and Julia G. Costello 2002 Don't Keep Everything: Historic Artifact Discard Policy. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 36(3): 30-33.

Praetzellis, Adrian and Mary Praetzellis 1997 Historical Archaeology of an Overseas Chinese Community in Sacramento, California. Manuscript on File, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc., Rohnert Park, California.

Praetzellis, Mary and Adrian Praetzellis 2011 Cultural Resource Management Archaeology and Heritage Values. Historical Archaeology 45(1):86-100.

2015 Commentary on the Archaeology of Chinese Railroad Workers in North America: Where Do We Go from Here? Historical Archaeology 49(1): 162-174.

149

Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt. 1999 The study of transnationalism: pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2):217-237.

Rains, Kevin 2003 Rice bowls and beer bottles: interpreting evidence of the overseas Chinese at a Cooktown dumpsite. Australasian Historical Archaeology 21:30-41.

Reichardt, Karen J. 2011 Dead Cat Alley: An Archaeological Analysis of the Overseas Chinese of Woodland, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Rohe, Randall E. 2001 After the Gold Rush: Chinese Mining in the Far West, 1850-1890. In Chinese on the American Frontier, edited by Arif Dirlik and Malcolm Yeung, pp. 3-26. Roman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Rigley, Colin 2014 The Long, Storied History of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Chinatown and the Artifacts Left Behind. New Times San Luis Obispo, 1 October. https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/the-long-storied-history-of-san-luis- obispos-historic-chinatown-and-the-artifacts-left-behind/Content?oid=2935874

Ritchie, Neville A. 2003 ‘In-Sites,’ Historical Archaeology in Australasia: Some Comparisons with the American Colonial Experience. Historical Archaeology 37(1):6-19.

Ross, Douglas E. 2012 Transnational artifacts: Grappling with Fluid Material Origins and Identities in Archaeological Interpretations of Culture Change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31:38-48.

2013 Archaeology of Asian Transnationalism. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Rossi, Vincent Nicholas 2004 All Dug up and Nowhere to go. San Diego Magazine October:31.

Safran, William 1991 Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 1(1):83–99.

150

Sando, Ruth Ann and David L. Felton 1993 Inventory Records of Ceramics and Opium from a Nineteenth Century Chinese Store in California. In Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese, edited by Priscilla Wegars, pp. 151-176. Baywood Publishing Company, Amityville, New York.

San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, California] 1873 European and Chinese Immigration. 1 February:2. San Francisco, California.

San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram [San Luis Obispo, California] 1935 Aged Chinese Pioneer Dies. 8 January. San Luis Obispo, California.

San Luis Obispo Tribune [SLOT] 1883 Meat Market. 7 December. San Luis Obispo California.

1896 Chinese New Year. 12 February. San Luis Obispo, California.

Schell, S. 1983 The Meat Board Guide to Identifying Meat Cuts. National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Illinois.

Schuyler, Robert L. 1980 Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Afro-American and Asian American Culture History. Baywood Monographs in Archaeology 1. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale, New York.

Shepperson, Wilbur S. and Francis X. Hartigan. 1989 History and Humanities: Essays in Honor of Wilbur S. Shepperson. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Silliman, Stephen W. 2001 Theoretical Perspectives on Labor and Colonialism: Reconsidering the California Missions. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:379-407.

Simoons, F. J. 1991 Food in China: A Cultural and Historical Inquiry. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Siu, Paul C. P. 1952 The Sojourner. American Journal of Sociology, 58(1): 34-44.

Smith, Lindsay M. 2003 Identifying Chinese Ethnicity through Material Culture: Archaeological Excavations at Kiandra, NSW. Australasian Historical Archaeology 21:18-29.

151

Society for California Historical Archaeology 2016 Orphaned Archaeological Collection Grant Available.https://scahome.org/sca- grants/orphaned-archaeological-collection-grant-available/, accessed December 9, 2015

Spence, Jonathan 1977 Ch’ing. In Food in Chinese Culture, edited by Kwan-chih Chang, pp. 259- 294. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut.

Stark, Linda 1998a Howard Louis visit with John Parker transcript. February, SLO Chinatown Archives Lab. Document on file at the Anthropological Studies Center Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

1998b Sam Gin visit with John Parker transcript. SLO Chinatown Archives Lab. Document on file at the Anthropological Studies Center.

Staski, Edward 1993 The Overseas Chinese in El Paso: Changing Goals, Changing Realities. In Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese. Edited by Priscilla Wegars, pp. 125-149. Baywood Publishing Company, Amityville, N.Y.

2009 Asian American Studies in Historical Archaeology. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 347-359. Springer Science + Business Media, New York.

Sung, Vivian 2002 Five-Fold Happiness: Chinese concepts of Luck, Prosperity, Longevity, Happiness and Wealth. Chronicle Books LLC, San Francisco, California.

Sunseri, Charlotte K. 2015 Food Politics of Alliance in a California Frontier Chinatown. In International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19: 416-431.

Takaki, Ronald 1998 Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Back Bay Books/Little, Brown, and Company, New York.

Tan, C. 2011 Cultural Reproduction, Local Invention and Globalization of Southeast Asian Chinese Food. In Chinese Food and Foodways in Southeast Asia and Beyond, edited by Tan C., pp. 23-46. National University of Singapore Press.

152

Tsai, Jeanne L., Yu-Wen Ying, and Peter A. Lee. 2000 The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being American” variation among Chinese American Young Adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(3): 302-332.

Twiss, Katheryn 2012 The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10814-012-9058-5, accessed March 14, 2016.

Vivian, Thomas Jondrie 1891 The Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Transportation and Other Interests of California: Being a Report on that State for 1890 Made to S.G. Brock, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department. United States. Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Voss, Barbara L. 2005 The Archaeology of Overseas Chinese Communities. World Archaeology 37(3):424-439.

2008 Between the Household and the World System: Social Collectivity and Community Agency in Overseas Chinese Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 42(3):37-52.

2012 Curation as Research. A case Study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues 19(2):145-169.

2015 Towards a Transpacific Archaeology of the Modern World. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 20(1):146-174.

Voss, Barbara L., and Rebecca Allen 2008 Overseas Chinese Archaeology: Historical Foundations, Current Reflections, and New Directions. Historical Archaeology 42(3): 5–28.

Wagner, Katherine R. 2014 An Osteological Analysis of 18th Century Dog Burials at the Williamsburg Public Amoury. Undergraduate Honors Theses, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Waite, E.G. 1893 California Blue Book, or State Roster. California Secretary of State. State Printing Office, Sacramento, California.

153

Wegars, Priscilla 2003 From Old Gold Mountain to New Gold Mountain: Chinese archaeological sites, Artefact repositories, and archives in western North America and Australasia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 21: 70–83.

Wong, H.K. 1987 Gum Sahn Yun: Gold Mountain Men. Fong Brothers Printing, Inc. USA.

Wu, D. Y.H. 2011 Global Encounter of Diasporic Chinese Restaurant Food. In Chinese Food and Foodways in Southeast Asia and Beyond, edited by Tan C., pp. 75-106. National University of Singapore Press.

Yan, Martin 2009 Forward. In A Tradition of Soup: Flavors from China's Pearl River Delta, edited by Teresa M. Chen, pp. ix. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California.

Yang, Jeannie Kristen 1999 Vanishing Sons: The Chinese Laundry Workers at 1813 Seventh Street, West Oakland, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California.

Yang, Phillip Q. 2000 The 'Sojourner Hypothesis' Revisited. Diaspora: A Journal Of Transnational Studies, 9(2): 235-258.

Yin, Xiao-Huang 2006 Writing a place in American Life: The Sensibilities of American-born Chinese as Reflected in Life Stories from the Exclusion Era. In Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ideas between China and America during the Exclusion Era, edited by Sucheng Chan pp. 211- 236. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.