A Multi-Racial Urban Region of Refuge in Boise, Idaho

The Archaeology of the River Street Neighborhood: A Multi-racial Urban Region of Refuge in Boise, Idaho

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors White, William Anderson

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 04/10/2021 13:41:07

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/624546

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RIVER STREET NEIGHBORHOOD: A MULTI-RACIAL URBAN REGION OF REFUGE IN BOISE, IDAHO

William Anderson White, III

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2017

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by William A. White, III, titled “The Archaeology of the River Street Neighborhood: A Multi- Racial, Urban Region of Refuge in Boise, Idaho” and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______Date: (April 10, 2017) Maria Nieves Zedeño

______Date: (April 10, 2017) Thomas J. Ferguson

______Date: (April 10, 2017) Eric Plemons

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

______Date: (April 10, 2017) Dissertation Director: Maria Nieves Zedeño

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: William Anderson White, III

Acknowledgements This dissertation was created from the diligent, committed efforts of such a large group of individuals that it would be nearly impossible to thank everyone who helped make this possible. Here is my best attempt. I want to thank my dissertation committee who guided me through this process with efficiency and wisdom. I have been strongly influenced by all of you but, my committee chair Maria Nieves Zedeño and T.J Ferguson have especially shaped the way I conduct myself as a scholar and what I believe archaeology can contribute to this world. Knowing you has made me better. I also owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mark Warner at the University of Idaho who has constantly helped my career move forward. Since 2001, Mark has been my teacher, mentor, and friend. I cannot thank you enough.

My dissertation focuses on a living place in Boise, Idaho that has played a formative role in the lives of so many. To all the residents of the River Street Neighborhood–past, present, and future–your lives have been my inspiration. I am especially indebted to the descendants who provided oral history interviews for this project: Warner Terrell, III, Dick Madry, John Bertram, Lee Rice, II, LaVaun Kennedy, Sharon Hill, Ken Thomas, Gigi Stevens and, Jack and Lois Wheeler. I only hope this dissertation judiciously commemorates your memories. I could never have accomplished this project without all of my collaborators in the City of Boise: Jill Gill and Todd Shallat at Boise State University, Nikki Gorrell at the College of Western Idaho, Marc Munch of the Idaho Department of Transportation, Shannon Vihlene and Mary Anne Davis at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Terri Schorzman and Amy Fackler at the Boise City Department of Arts and History, and John Bertram of Planmakers. The archaeology component would not have been a success without the support of Shellan Rodriguez at the Capital City Development Corporation and Maria Minicucci with Boise City Department of Parks and Recreation. I owe sincere thanks to all the volunteers and students who worked on the archaeological excavations but I am particularly indebted to the project staff, Renae Campbell, Lindsay Kiel, and Michelle Sing, who helped make this complicated archaeology project run seamlessly. You will never know how much your efforts mean to me.

Finally, this work is dedicated to my family who had to put up with this project and many others and selflessly continued to support me over the years. My mother, Lisa Jossis Williams, has encouraged me to pursue this dream since I was in kindergarten. My father, William Anderson White, Jr., believed in me for decades and constantly pushed me to succeed in school. It saddens me to I think about the fact that he did not live to see this achievement. My kids, Cyrus and Lydia White, are my inspiration. Continually striving to be an example for them is the reason why I do what I do. Finally, my wife Clarity White is the person to whom I owe the most gratitude. You were the one person who never doubted that this was the right thing to do. You have been my inspiration, foundation, and motivation since we first met. Thanks for never letting me quit.

Contents

Figures ...... 7 Tables ...... 8 Abstract ...... 9 Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho ...... 10 The River Street Neighborhood: A Case Study of Structural Racism in an American West City ...... 12 A Framework for Dismantling Structural Racism in Western History ...... 14 Documents, Historical Narratives, and Oral Histories ...... 16 How Digital Humanities and Public Heritage Can Combat Structural Racism ...... 19 Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience—A View from Boise, Idaho ...... 21 Rural Versus Urban West in African American and Racial Minority History ...... 21 A Brief Prehistory and Protohistory of Boise, Idaho ...... 24 Boise Becomes a Town ...... 27 A Neighborhood South of the Tracks ...... 31 River Street as a Multi-Racial Neighborhood ...... 37 Basque Immigrants in River Street ...... 38 River Street, African Americans, and Boise, Idaho ...... 40 Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology ...... 46 How Race has been Created in the United States ...... 46 The Creation of Whiteness and Racial Privilege in Boise ...... 51 Racialization, Whiteness, and Poor White Trash ...... 57 Regions of Refuge: Race and Urban Minorities ...... 66 Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape ...... 80 The Creation of Archaeological Landscapes ...... 80 Landscapes as Space ...... 81 Landscapes as Place ...... 83 Landscapes as Texts ...... 88 Reading Boise’s Landscape: River Street and “the Others” ...... 90 River Street and Urban Renewal ...... 92 Reading River Street’s Landscape ...... 99 Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street ...... 104 A History of African American Archaeology in the United States...... 105 African American Archaeology in the American West ...... 114

Historical Archaeology in Boise, Idaho ...... 119 Historic Preservation, Local Advocacy, and African American Historic Places ...... 129 Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project ...... 133 Movement Toward Increased Community Collaboration in Archaeology ...... 133 Motivations for Collaborative Projects ...... 134 Collaborative Archaeology Projects with Descendant Communities ...... 137 Collaborative Archaeology in Non-Native American Contexts ...... 141 Memoryscapes as Interpreted Through Social Memory ...... 144 River Street Archaeology Project Research Design...... 146 The River Street Archaeology Project ...... 148 Research Domains ...... 150 Site Formation ...... 152 Social and Economic Identity ...... 153 Household Foodway Strategies ...... 154 Gender Roles ...... 156 Medicine, Health, Sanitation, and the City of Boise ...... 157 Archaeological Field Methods ...... 159 Oral History Fieldwork Methods ...... 162 The Materiality of this Region of Refuge ...... 167 Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s ...... 169 Living in a Changing Landscape ...... 169 Who Lived in the River Street Neighborhood from 1909 to the 1970s? ...... 170 Excavation Results ...... 176 Artifact Summary ...... 183 Chapter 7: Unpacking the Research Domains ...... 190 Addressing the Research Domains ...... 190 Site Formation and Stratigraphy ...... 190 Social and Economic Identities ...... 192 Household Foodways ...... 201 Gender Roles ...... 206 Health, Medicine, Sanitation, and the City of Boise ...... 215 Deciphering the History of a Multi-Racial Urban Block ...... 218 Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together ...... 220 The Oral History of a Stigmatized Place ...... 221 Whiteness, Blackness, and Neighborliness…to a Certain Extent ...... 225

Persisting in a Changing Landscape ...... 228 Harnessing Auzolan for Historic Preservation ...... 232 Appendix A: Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006...... 236 Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary ...... 253 Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary ...... 264 Appendix D: Artifact Catalog ...... 279 References ...... 341

Figures

Figure 1: River Street Neighborhood Overview ...... 13 Figure 2:Birds Eye View of Boise, Idaho (1888) ...... 29 Figure 3: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of River Street Neighborhood (1903) ...... 34 Figure 4: River Street Neighborhood Boundary (1917) ...... 35 Figure 5: The Shines family before emigrating to River Street in the mid-twentieth century, n.d...... 41 Figure 6: Child from the Terrell family in River Street Neighborhood, n.d...... 42 Figure 7: Berenease and Lee Rice, n.d...... 43 Figure 8:Lee Rice, II and his mother Berenease in the River Street Neighborhood ...... 43 Figure 9: The Identity Formation Process ...... 47 Figure 10: The Archaeology Collaboration Continuum ...... 138 Figure 11: Property Ownership for River Street Archaeology Project Area, 2015 ...... 151 Figure 12: Volunteers processing artifacts and discussing project results with a site visitor, 2015 ...... 161 Figure 13: Archaeological unit locations in relation to historical buildings (1912) ...... 163 Figure 14: Archaeological unit locations in relation to historical buildings (1949) ...... 164 Figure 15: Buildings in project area (1912) ...... 171 Figure 16: Buildings in project area (1922) ...... 171 Figure 17: Buildings in project area (1949) ...... 172 Figure 18: Excavation Unit Locations, 2015 ...... 177 Figure 19:Demolition of 1114 Lee Street in 2006 ...... 178 Figure 20: Shovel probe stratigraphy along east edge of project area...... 180 Figure 22: West wall profile of TP 40 at 617 Ash Street, view west (2015) ...... 182 Figure 21: North Wall profile of TP 83 at 633 Ash Street, view north (2015) ...... 182 Figure 23: Undecorated ironstone bowl recovered from 633 Ash Street ...... 195 Figure 24: The remains of the first Basque handball court in Boise (Feature 125), View east...... 197 Figure 25: The remains of Boise's second fronton in the backlot of 512 W. Idaho Street (2015) ...... 198 Figure 26: The playing court at the Anduiza Fronton, Boise, Idaho (2015) ...... 199 Figure 27: The massive outdoor fronton in Jordan Valley, Oregon (2016) ...... 200 Figure 28: Long bones of a chicken skeleton (Art. No. 127) in TP 7 in Level 2. Trowel points north. ... 203 Figure 29: Remains of a cherry pitting tool recovered from 617 Ash Street ...... 205 Figure 30: Celadon porcelain fragments from 633 Ash Street ...... 208 Figure 31: Marbles recovered from 617 Ash Street ...... 210 Figure 32: Shirley President suspenders clasp recovered from 631 Lovers Lane ...... 213 Figure 33: The Dry Goods Reporter, September 4, 1915 ...... 214

Figure 34: An overview of the ghettoization process in the United States ...... 222

Tables

Table 1: Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within One Half Mile of the Erma Hayman House ...... 120 Table 2: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within One Half Mile of the Erma Hayman House 126 Table 3: Research Domains ...... 149 Table 4: Oral History Interviews used for this Project ...... 165 Table 5: Artifact Distribution from Controlled Excavation Units ...... 176 Table 6: Artifact Summary ...... 184 Table 7: Makers Marks Summary ...... 185 Table 8: Food Remains Summary ...... 202 Table 9: Clothing-Related Artifacts ...... 212

Abstract

Prior to the Civil Rights movement, most cities in the United States had at least one racially segregated neighborhood--a place where the "others" lived. This was typically a geographic location designated by the European American community as the area non-European Americans could reside. In Boise, Idaho, non-Whites lived in the River Street Neighborhood, a place where

African Americans, Basque, Japanese, Eastern Europeans, and poor Whites established homes and businesses. River Street existed as a segregated enclave where, out away from prying eyes, African

Americans, Basques, and other non-White people could escape overt segregation. This multi- disciplinary dissertation examines the River Street Neighborhood as a ‘region of refuge’—a geographic place where residents formed a subculture where many of the racial mores of the time could be subverted and, in many ways, exploited. The dissertation also addresses the ways material culture, oral histories, archival documents, and community based participatory research (CPBR) can coalesce for advocacy for the preservation of minority historic properties.

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and

Boise, Idaho

The American West is a geographic region that has been imbued with meaning by

American society. It plays a role in the American ethos that is unlike other parts of the country. It is a geographic region, a landscape, and an idea. The Western landscape is marked by aridity that forced human occupants to make technological and cultural adjustments in order to forge viable settlements. While the boundaries of this region have been easily drawn on a map, it has been said that “Geography did not determine the boundaries of the West … history created them” (White

1993:3). Geographically, the American West begins at the 98th meridian and includes all states straddling or west of that line (Flamming 2009:8).

The legend of the West is a continuation of the Eurocentric idea that the New World was an untouched, pristine wilderness–a frontier that was meant to be subdued by human beings

(Flamming 2009). In this worldview, once cities, farms, and communities had been firmly established, the surrounding region was no longer wild. The West was conquered by European fur trappers to the Lewis and Clark Expedition to emigrants on the Oregon Trail; it was civilized by non-Native peoples. Civilizing the western half of the United States took on deep meaning following the Civil War because memes of that day portrayed this as the last frontier, the last unsettled place in the country. It was our national destiny to transform this region as had been done in the eastern half (Limerick 1988; White 1991). After decades of non-Native emigration, historian

Frederick Jackson Turner declared the civilization process done in 1893 (Turner 1921). The West had been tamed. The frontier had been closed.

The nationalistic and racist idea that the American West was a wild frontier that had been, or could have been, civilized is only valid from the Eurocentric perspective from which this history

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho was forged. The Turnerian position described the West as a frontier that acted as “a unique independent agent, little influenced by outside forces and…a powerful environmental determinant in shaping human inhabitants to accord with its own requirements” because this narrative played into concepts of European American exceptionalism and dominance (Robbins 1994:186). Living in the West was difficult and bringing civilization could only be done by an exceptional people at the top of the social and physiological pyramid. From this perspective there was no room for the

Native Americans who had settled the region for millennia, nor for the Spanish colonists or

Mexicans who had been living in the Southwest and California for centuries prior to the Gadsden

Purchase. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century histories of westward migration also failed to mention the role played by a number of different nationalities and races including Asian and

European immigrants or African Americans (Limerick 1988; White 1991). Until after the 1960s, non-whites were nearly omitted from this history. Acknowledging the presence of non-white people is an important element of the New West History (Limerick 1991). By combining archival documents, archaeological data, and oral histories, historical archaeology with an anthropological bent can also add voice to those who have been overlooked.

Through a concerted effort at integrating documents, oral histories, historical narratives, and public archaeology, this dissertation tracks the development of a multi-ethnic, non-white community in Boise, Idaho’s River Street Neighborhood to help redress this historical omission by demonstrating how racism has played out in an urban western environment initially designed and built by European Americans. The River Street Digital History Project and its public archaeology component conducted in this urban community takes advantage of the legislative and practical tools afforded by the National Historic Preservation Act to demonstrate how preserving

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho the history of the River Street Neighborhood may be deployed as a peaceful but powerful weapon to dismantle structural racism in the American West.

The River Street Neighborhood: A Case Study of Structural Racism in an American West

City

The River Street Digital History Project embarked is a campaign to chronicle life in the

River Street Neighborhood in central Boise in hopes of filling in the missing history of this place.

It focuses on a bounded sector of the City of Boise that was established in the 1890s and remains a residential place today (Figure 1). The Project includes a digital humanities component designed to make archival documents, maps, and oral histories accessible to publics around the world via the internet (www.riverstreethistory.com). Former River Street Neighborhood residents were solicited to provide oral history interviews with the understanding they would be uploaded to the internet. This was a chance for their stories to be told and to contribute to the history of this place.

In an attempt to engage the largest number of individuals as possible, the Project synthesizes this information into videos, digital documents, and an interactive virtual tour that can be used by anyone with a digital device (tablet, smartphone, or computer). Content from the website has also been synthesized into a paperback book that can be ordered through a print-on-demand service or at local libraries (White 2016).

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho

Figure 1: River Street Neighborhood Overview

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho

In 2015, a public archaeology project was conducted in one area of the neighborhood. The archaeological component is the focus of this dissertation. Centered on the Erma Hayman House at 617 Ash Street, the River Street Archaeology Project was another opportunity for local residents and the descendant community to contribute to the history making process. Volunteers, university students, archaeology professionals, and historic preservationists were among those that participated in excavations in the neighborhood. The public archaeology component was a chance for those interested in archaeology but unfamiliar with the neighborhood to contribute while also learning about the role structural racism played in the creation and maintenance of the neighborhood. Select parts of the archaeology results will also be added to the website.

As River Street was the only non-white section of Boise, this place is a strong analytical case study for recontexutalizing the history of racial minorities in the American West because it was a bounded geographic area that was known by city residents as the place for “the others.”

Also, River Street was not defined by a single racial or ethnic group because it was inhabited by a mixture of African American, Asian, Basque, European immigrant, and poor white people. Finally, very little work has been done on non-white urban enclaves in the American West. This work fills a large void in our understanding of the West.

A Framework for Dismantling Structural Racism in Western History

This dissertation is an attempt to chronicle how structural racism created and maintained the River Street Neighborhood as a separate social and geographic region in the City of Boise and the way this place affected all who lived there. Chapter 1 of this dissertation outlines the history of African Americans, the Basque, and other non-white groups in the City of Boise. Western urban centers like Boise had non-white districts, but our understanding of life in these places, specifically how they were created and maintained through structural racism, has been understudied. The

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho process of dismantling structural racism in the West logically begins with a critical examination of structural racism as it developed in the United States and how it has become embedded

(wittingly or not) in our understanding of the past, specifically of urban places such as the River

Street Neighborhood is the topic of Chapter 2. Chapter 3 takes the next logical step of recasting the conventional historical context through the lens of contemporary notions of landscape, place, and emplacement that take into account cultural and ethnic identities and viewpoints of the River

Street Neighborhood residents as well as their past use of an urban space to construct community.

Chapter 4 places the archaeological work conducted at River Street within the larger framework of African American archaeology in the United States, most of which has been conducted in the southeast and eastern United States. This chapter also discusses how archaeology and historic preservation has not saved African American historic properties in the West at the same rate as it has for European American properties.

Chapter 5 discusses the oral history and archaeological methods used in the River Street

Archaeology Project, along with the research questions that guided the project and the interpretation of its results. The results of the archaeological excavations are discussed in Chapter

6. Artifacts and deposition near the Erma Hayman House show intact archaeological sediments exist in portions of the archaeology project area. The materials in these sediments provide a glimpse of what life was like for neighborhood residents between the 1890s and 1960s.

Chapter 7 synthesizes of the entire archaeology project. The combination of oral histories, archaeological data, the built environment and history come together to provide a rich narrative of life in the neighborhood that can be used to understand life for non-whites elsewhere in the

American West. This dissertation concludes with Chapter 8, which is a discussion of how public

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho archaeology in places like River Street can address structural racism and collect the data necessary to advocate for the preservation of African American-related historic properties.

Documents, Historical Narratives, and Oral Histories

The conceptual frameworks and methods conventionally used by European American historians and adopted by historical archaeologists need to be re-contextualized to more accurately reflect the cultural milieu within which the records of historical events originated. In addition to architectural and archaeological remains, the history of the River Street Neighborhood can be found in oral histories and archival documents. These two forms of data are central to the formation of historical narratives. Scholars are accustomed to overvaluing narrations of the past that are created by academicians and other professional historians; however, all people create historical narratives on a daily basis. When we tell stories of the past, we are acting out events as we recall them and are simultaneously crafting these memories into narratives for consumption by other people (Tonkin 1992; Trouillot 1995:2). Oral history has the capacity to inject first-hand accounts of past events as they are remembered by the individuals who experienced them. Human beings see the world based on remembrances of the past as they are interpreted through the social and cultural lenses inherited through the socialization process (Tonkin 1992). In many ways, we are the sum of our memories. Oral history is a means of recording lived experiences into narratives that can be used in the future.

Social actors, narrators, oral historians, and the publics that consume oral histories must be familiar with the cultural lens through which each narration is created in order to be able to comprehend the particular version of the past that is being conveyed. “History is always produced in a specific historical context,” and it is viewed through a culturally specific lens (Trouillot

1995:22). It is this culturally specific context of oral history creation and consumption that is

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho almost more important than the recorded narrative. Tonkin (1992:39) writes, “Academic historians must test the authority of oral tellers, but of course oral tellers are putting forward their own claims as well, fitted to the audience they know.” This is the principal reason why history has frequently neglected oral history in favor of archival documents and other written accounts, which are seen as more accurate. However, written texts are also aspects of, “social action, and as cultural production, indivisibly interrelated with other forms of symbolic processes” (Tonkin 1992). Both written documents and oral histories are produced in social and cultural contexts that influence the end product. Tonkin explains (1992:113–114); “Oral history– is not intrinsically more or less likely to be accurate than a written document…” because it is also rooted in culturally specific contexts in both time and space.

The subjectivity of oral histories and archival documents can be somewhat ameliorated by quantifiable, positivistic studies of the past. Historical archaeology seeks to provide another view of the past, a parallel narrative text, through the systematic recovery, recordation and analysis of material cultural deposits created in the past. Historical archaeology is both a science and a humanity, but it is the employment of processual method and theory—that is, an emphasis on scientific positivism based on hypothesis testing through quantifiable data—that sets it apart from other humanities (Hume 1968; Little 2007; Wylie 2002). Historical archaeology seeks to fill in the missing gaps between written texts and lived memories by using archival documents and historical maps to craft archaeological interpretations (Beaudry 1993; Deetz 1996). The combination of texts and archaeology creates yet another narrative of the past. Thus, the archaeologist becomes a different kind of narrator.

Relying on historical documents without analyzing the cultural, social, and historical milieu in which they were created is the principal shortcoming in historical archaeology. This is

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho especially salient for African American archaeology because the scholars interpreting sites, the methods they use, and the principal audience of intended consumption are not African American.

This is slowly changing. Historical archaeologists today realize the multivalence of archaeological sites and the materials within them. Many are also aware of the fact that race, history, and memory have been used to bolster European American hegemony in the United States.

In short, in order to examine African American and other ethnic minority contributions to western history, it is important to understand both the actors and narrators that create historical narratives. African Americans and other non-white peoples are rarely emphasized in seminal works in American West history because: each narrative is constructed in time and place by an author who thinks about the past through a culturally specific lens; non-whites are rarely the architects of these historical texts, and; archival documents, which are the foundation of histories, were created by a Eurocentric society. American West historical narratives also emphasize extractive industries like logging, mining, petroleum extraction, and farming, while overlooking the urban character of western life. The power of asking untraditional questions to investigate inequity in the past and present is a major strength of building African American western history on archaeology. In addition to the ability to offer untraditional but readily accessible avenues for learning about and understanding African American, western history from an archaeological standpoint can serve to dismantle historical racism by virtue of inclusion (Perry and Paynter 1999).

The digital history project presented in this dissertation is an example of this strategy.

Exposing the creation, existence, operations, and legacy of race-based discrimination to local residents unfamiliar with the history of enclaves like River Street helps dispel structural racism because it provides a comparatively non-confrontational space where visitors can confront a difficult aspect of American life. This is, perhaps, one of the most enduring aspects of the River

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho

Street Project because it will remain in the minds of visitors, participants, and local communities long after the archaeology has ceased.

How Digital Humanities and Public Heritage Can Combat Structural Racism

Public heritage projects, especially those with an archaeology component, like the one conducted at River Street can do much to address some of the negative aspects of modern society like structural racism. These projects attract not only members of the descendant community but also those who are interested in history, heritage, and archaeology. This project was conceived, guided, and reported with inclusiveness in mind. Descendants were given an opportunity to contribute, participate, and interact with the project however they liked. Research questions and goals were created in collaboration with local residents. They were given a chance to take ownership of the results.

While descendants and local residents are provided an opportunity to participate in crafting historical narratives, others who are not affiliated with these places come for a variety of other reasons. Interest in archaeology, desire to conserve historic properties, or an interest in local history brings unaffiliated individuals to the project area. In their quest to answer personal questions, these people are confronted with difficult aspects of living in the past like segregation, discrimination, racism, and poverty. When it comes to structural racism, being exposed to the existence of race- based discrimination and how it played out in a portion of their community’s past exposes

European Americans to the legacy of these activities.

Transforming archaeological data to digital format allows the results and message of this project to be spread worldwide. Other communities in the United States and elsewhere in the

Western Hemisphere were created and maintained through the same forces that built River Street

Introduction: Ethnic Minorities in American West History, River Street, and Boise, Idaho as the racialization process is central to historical life in places forged from the colonization process. This project is unique because it used oral history and archaeological methods to collect data that was digitized and made available to other publics through the internet. This is rarely done for anthropological projects. The scale and diversity of delivery methods (i.e., videos, digital document, and interactive maps) provide a range of ways individuals can interact with the data in their own way. Using the internet to spread understanding of structural racism as seen in Boise,

Idaho gives the archaeology project a greater reach and makes its message available to a much larger audience. In this way, the River Street Project has potential to impact communities throughout the English-speaking world. It is hoped the methods and theories used in this project be applied in other communities, in other languages, and through other cultural lenses.

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience—A

View from Boise, Idaho

In order to examine African American contributions to American West history, it is important to understand both the actors and narrators that create historical narratives. African

Americans and other non-white peoples are rarely emphasized in seminal works in American West history because: each narrative is constructed in time and place by an author who thinks about the past through a culturally specific lens; non-whites are rarely the architects of these historical texts, and; archival documents, which are the foundation of histories, were created by a Eurocentric society. American West historical narratives also emphasize extractive industries like logging, mining, petroleum extraction, and farming, while overlooking the urban character of western life.

Rural Versus Urban West in African American and Racial Minority History

While historical narratives of the Black West emphasize African American cowboys,

Buffalo Soldiers, and black homesteaders, most of the African American experience in the West was urban, as it was for the majority of other emigrants regardless of race. The urban western experience is not part of the romantic narrative of the western frontier, so it does not coincide with the popular vision of the West. Allmendinger (2005:xiii) explains; “Since the West is not urban, in the minds of people who cling to the notion of a mythic frontier, the concept of modern multicultural West is not very popular.” Urban settlements in the West were important to African

Americans; they were crucibles for today’s African American communities. Cities helped black

Westerners generate a sense of cooperation and shared destiny that was absent in rural contexts

(Taylor 1998:196).

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

In the West, Black populations outside Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas remained small during the nineteenth century, and large-scale African American migration did not begin until the twentieth century (Taylor 1998:135). While all emigrants moved to the American West in search of economic opportunities, these opportunities were sought through different means. Black people were denied access to land under the Homestead Act through a number of different discriminatory actions, although some African Americans were able to secure homesteads through preemption or purchase. The settlers at Nicodemus, Kansas were possibly the most noteworthy African American homesteaders; however, most black homesteaders lived in Oklahoma. Blacks also went west to escape the seething racism that held them back in the eastern United States. They did not always find equality in western cities, but their small numbers did not threaten European Americans so racial violence against blacks was less common in the West (Katz 1996; Flamming 2009; Taylor

1998; Taylor and Moore 2003).

Most African Americans worked as laborers or operated small businesses in cities. Few attempted the hardscrabble homesteading life that characterized much of the European American experience. African American enclaves and interracial neighborhoods were how blacks and other minorities in the West shielded themselves from racism. Because they primarily lived in cities, blacks in the West had an urbane existence not experienced by rural westerners. African American women were found almost entirely in cities. While black women comprised less than one percent of the females living in the American West, they played a central role in the creation and maintenance of the numerous African American communities in this part of the country (DeGraaf

1980:286). Despite the socioeconomic side effects caused by racism, African Americans had access to a range of goods from around the world. Their children attended school and blacks were able to build fraternal lodges and women’s societies. These institutions instilled a sense of pride

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience in the community and a duty to self-betterment (Dickson 1997; Flamming 2009; Taylor 2012;

Taylor and Moore 2003). Blacks and other minorities were integral parts of the urban west, especially when their segregating effect on communities is taken into account. The presence of

African Americans, in particular, was a polarizing factor that divided western cities into districts based on race. This fragmentation was a powerful force in the development of western cities.

The urban black experience is largely overlooked in African American historical narratives. Until the late twentieth century, African Americans were only noted obliquely in western histories as aberrances–oddities in an otherwise European American story. The recent

African American histories of the West have done much to craft a narrative of the black experience in this region but these too have emphasized discovery, exploration, and cowboys rather than focusing on the way life was experienced on a daily basis for westerners in the past (Flamming

2009). African American literature has done more to describe the everyday black experience in the

West, including the urban black experience, than history (Glasrud and Champion 2000).

Using the urban West as a starting point for evaluating the role of African Americans and other minorities in western history is important because it places them in an environment with a much more complicated cultural milieu than remote work camps or homesteads. Population density allows for more complex social interactions and provides a space where social systems, including the mores and history that underlies the racialization process, may be expressed more completely. There is more of a need to solidify racial boundaries in urban spaces because racial categories are more necessary for maintaining the labor structure at the heart of capitalism. In the city, there is more pressure to solidify group boundaries and justify the hierarchical differentiations that allow elites to maintain their status and privilege.

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

A Brief Prehistory and Protohistory of Boise, Idaho

The area that would become Boise, Idaho had long been occupied by Paleoindian and

Native Americans for over 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. Over time, early Great Basin-

Columbia Plateau cultural groups evolved to become direct ancestors of the Northern Shoshone and the Bannock, both of whom occupied the Boise area at the time of European Contact.

Europeans started creating records of the Native American way of life in southern Idaho very recently in comparison to other areas of the country. When Lewis and Clark arrived into the West they found native groups that had been living there for hundreds of generations and had adapted to various environments. The Northern Shoshone lived in an area that extended from eastern

Oregon into Wyoming and south into Nevada. Combining both Great Basin and Columbia Plateau cultural characteristics, the Shoshone lived in small bands subsisting on seeds, pine nuts, wild wheat, bitterroot, and camas. They also fished for salmon, conducted communal rabbit, sage hen, and antelope drives, and hunted for other game as it was available. Their mobility was greatly increased after obtaining horses in the late sixteenth century and the Shoshone people began to explore the northern Great Plains (Butler 1966, 1986: Murphy and Murphy 1986; Wells and Hart

2000:18–20).

Life changed dramatically with the arrival of the horse and European Americans along the

Boise River. Horses provided additional options for the Shoshone with regard to their subsistence cycles. In the Boise River drainage proper, Shoshone groups continued to rely on local camas and salmon supplies while using the horse to trade with buffalo hunting groups to the east (Walker

1978; Wells and Hart 2000:18–20). The horse also boosted the size of seasonal ceremonial celebrations. The site of present-day Boise was the location of a seasonal Native American gathering. Located at the base of Table Rock, which is adjacent to the northern edge of the City of

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Boise, this gathering was where Native groups in the northern Great Basin, northwestern Great

Plains, and Plateau regions congregated to trade goods and conduct ceremonies. The horse allowed the gathering to expand and tribes from further away to participate. By the early nineteenth century, fur traders knew this gathering as the Sheewoki Fair and recognized its cultural significance. The fair lasted two months and included: “Northern Paiute from Oregon and Nevada, Umatilla, Cayuse,

Nez Perce from farther north, Cheyanne and Arapaho from Colorado, and Crows from Wyoming

[who] joined Northern and western Shoshoni” (Wells and Hart 2000:12–13).

The landscape that would become the City of Boise was an important location on the east- west transportation and communication corridor that extended across southern Idaho. It was a locus of trade between Columbia River, northern Great Basin, and western Great Plains groups.

As a result, the Boise area was targeted by fur trappers in the early nineteenth century (Wells and

Hart 2000:13). These were among the earliest European Americans to visit the region. Historians believe the origins of Boise’s name came from early French trappers who called the drainage

“Wood River” (Rivière bois). French Canadian trappers called it “Boise” after 1836 but most

Hudson’s Bay maps still show it as the Wood River (Wells and Hart 2000:13). The Shoshone were first encountered by Lewis and Clark in the Lemhi Valley in 1805, but fur trappers were the first to establish a light but sustained presence in the area from the 1810s and 1830s (Wells and Hart

2000:24–25).

Fur traders capitalized on the existing trading network that traversed southern Idaho along the Snake River Plain. The first Fort Boise was established in 1834 by the Hudson’s Bay Company near the confluence of the Boise and Snake Rivers and the present-day town of Parma, Idaho, approximately 41 miles northwest of the area that would become the River Street Neighborhood

(Wells and Hart 2000:24–25). Fur trapping in the Snake River Plain was contested between British

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience interests led by the Hudson’s Bay Company and various American trapping organizations. Fort

Boise was built to compete with Fort Hall, which was built in 1834 on the Snake River about 300 miles southeast of the Boise/Snake River Confluence near present-day Pocatello, Idaho by

Nathaniel J. Wyeth of the American Trading Company. The first Fort Boise was plagued by attacks by Native Americans and it was moved to a second location about five miles north of present-day

Parma, Idaho in 1838 (Wells and Hart 2000:15).

During the 1840s, these fur trading forts were the only places where emigrants on the

Oregon Trail could obtain supplies and assistance. The Oregon Trail traversed Idaho and brought thousands of European Americans into Shoshone territory. This encroachment sparked conflict as the emigrants allowed their stock animals to graze on Shoshone lands. Emigrants also appropriated water, timber, and other resources without permission or paying for their use. Intermittent attacks on emigrants brought calls for the United States government to intervene (Madsen 2000:27–29).

On August 20, 1854, an attack nearly destroyed an emigrant party near what is now Middleton,

Idaho. Army reprisals against this attack weakened European American forces in the area and left

Fort Boise vulnerable. The Fort had to be abandoned. From 1854 until 1860, there was very little

European American presence in southwestern Idaho (Wells and Hart 2000:15).

A gold strike in the Boise Basin, approximately 20 miles north of what is now the City of

Boise, sparked an influx of non-Native Americans into south-central Idaho. In 1862, a small party of European Americans made the arduous trek from the site of the second Fort Boise into the

Grimes Creek drainage which is northeast of Boise. Along Mores Creek, they found what they were looking for on August 2, 1862. The discovery of gold in the Boise Basin, a region centered around present-day Idaho City, Centerville, Pioneerville, and Placerville, Idaho, sparked a rush that brought people surging into the area (Wells and Hart 2000:17). Mining camps popped up

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience throughout the area in 1862–1863; an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 non-Native people had arrived by the summer of 1863 (Bird 1934; Wells and Hart 2000). The Idaho Territory was established on

March 4, 1863 (Wells and Hart 2000:17).

Boise Becomes a Town

The area of present-day Boise City was developed to supply the mining camps.

Agricultural fields and small farms were established along the river; by 1864, all easily irrigated land had been put into production (Wells and Hart 2000:18). The Boise Basin gold rush increased hostilities from Shoshone who struck back against trespassing and from the horrible conditions they faced due to by the loss of their most productive lands at the hands of European Americans.

Settlers clamored for a military presence to defend both miners and farmers from the Shoshone.

The 1863 Organic Act that created the Idaho Territory also brought the first Indian Agents to southern Idaho and ushered in an era of treaties. In 1863, a third Fort Boise was established along the Boise River in the same place as present-day Boise City. All Shoshone lands within 30 miles of the Boise River in the area that would become Boise City were ceded in the Treaty of Fort Boise signed on October 4, 1864 (Madsen 2000:43; Wells and Hart 2000:22). The unratified Bruneau

Treaty of April 12, 1866 with the Bannock Shoshone sought to force the relinquishment of additional lands south of Boise (Wells and Hart 2000:30). The Shoshone continued to fight back despite these treaties. The Snake War of 1866–1867 saw Fort Boise serve as the operating base for engagements in Owyhee County, Idaho and southeastern Oregon that ended in the ultimate suppression of Shoshone in the area (Wells and Hart 2000:30). After thousands of years living along the Boise River, the Shoshone in the Boise area were relocated to the Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho in 1869 (Madsen 2000:43–54).

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Towns sprang up in the Boise Basin. Roads connected these mining towns to the agricultural settlement at Boise. The mining boom surged throughout the 1860s. Idaho City was founded in 1862 and its population briefly surpassed that of Portland, Oregon–becoming the largest town in the Pacific Northwest for a short time (Wells and Hart 2000:17). Despite this surge, the Boise Basin gold fields were not open to all. While Chinese were among the early surge of prospectors into the area, Boise County passed a law in 1863 excluding African Americans and

Chinese from prospecting. Chinese entrepreneurs started other service businesses like restaurants and laundries. Most African Americans were deterred, but some still entered the gold fields occasionally during the 1860s and 1870s (Bird 1934:119; Mercier and Simon-Smolinski 1990:4–

6). Boise became the administrative center of southwestern Idaho. An assay office was built in

Boise City to count all the gold pouring down from the hills, and a small town was platted between

Fort Boise and a riverside farm in the location of present-day Julia Davis Park (Bird 1934; Wells and Hart 2000:19). Through long deliberation, Boise became the territorial capital in 1864. At the time, it had about 60 buildings including those made with sod or adobe (Wells and Hart 2000:19).

By the 1870s, the Boise Basin was panning out. Cities that provided supplies to the miners like Boise and Walla Walla fared much better than towns founded in the gold fields (Bird

1934:175). Boise City continued to grow during the 1860s and 1870s as land was cleared, irrigation ditches constructed, and agricultural fields planted. Log cabins gave way to frame buildings.

Churches, schools, and substantial brick buildings were slowly built. By 1868, Boise was a settlement of 400 buildings, 250 private dwellings, 20 saloons, two churches, and four elementary schools with 200 students (Wells and Hart 2000:35).

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Figure 2:Birds Eye View of Boise, Idaho (1888). River Street is marked in red (courtesy of the Idaho State Archives, Boise)

Boise’s economic livelihood during the late nineteenth century revolved around irrigated farming (Figure 2). The Boise River was a reliable water source but its frequent floods destroyed farmsteads. By 1876, over 50 individuals and ditch companies had filed claims on the Boise River.

Diversion dams were used to bring water to crops. A large flood in 1876 destroyed these diversion dams, levees, and ditches, flooding farms and homes along the Boise River. Chinese farmers were quick to build dams to protect their farms south of Boise but other farmers were not as lucky (Stacy

1993:3–5). Boise farmers remained undaunted by these floods and irrigated land expansion continued as planned. A major, $60,000 dollar canal expansion was launched in 1878 that hoped to expand local irrigation canals by more than 50 miles and connect several existing canals into a

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience larger network. Named the Ridenbaugh Canal, the system started with a seven-mile long canal and was eventually expanded to 53 total miles (Wells and Hart 2000:39). In 1882, another plan to irrigate between 300,000 and 500,000 miles below the City of Boise was initiated. This joint agricultural-mining venture called the New York Canal stalled until 1909 (Wells and Hart

2000:56,58). Another flood in 1896 was even more destructive. Most of the truck farms on the floodplain that provided vegetables to the city were destroyed. Lumbermills, warehouses, and utilities near the river were flooded. The River Street Neighborhood, which had only recently been platted, was spared the brunt of the flood damage; nevertheless, a major bridge and other infrastructure nearby were destroyed (Stacy 1993:6–8).

Arrangements to enlarge the Boise Valley’s irrigation during the twentieth century could not continue expanding until flood control was improved. This was made possible in 1906 through government funding and technical expertise through the United States Reclamation Service. Work on the New York Canal was restarted in 1906 and a series of flood control dams were built soon after. Completed in 1909, the Diversion Dam just upstream from the City of Boise provided hydroelectric power as well as flood control and irrigation water. The Arrowrock Dam, completed in 1910, provided additional control and irrigation water. These developments caused irrigation farming to surge. By 1916, the Boise vicinity had made 223,866 irrigable agricultural acres available for farming (Stacy 1993:8–12; Wells and Hart 2000:78–79,85). Floods were controlled by these dams and became much less destructive.

As a regional commercial center, the founders of Boise sought a connection to larger opportunities and, at the time, railroads were at the core of the nation’s transportation and communication network. Whispers of a railroad arriving in Boise began as early as 1868 and numerous schemes were proposed in 1870s: Puget Sound–La Grande–Boise–Green River Union

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Pacific Extension (1869); Portland, Dalles, and Salt Lake (1871); and Winnemucca as a Central

Pacific alternative (1872) (Wells and Hart 2000:38). Advocacy reached a crescendo during the late

1880s. With a population of 1,900 in 1880, Boise was large enough to justify the construction of a railroad connection. Construction crews on the Oregon Short Line (OSL) Railroad entered southern Idaho on June 16, 1883 and, despite the fact Boise was on the Oregon Trail and connected to mines to the north, was not chosen to be a town on the main line. Grade requirements for trains were different than they were for horse-drawn wagons, so the OSL chose a route down Indian

Creek, south of Boise City (Wells and Hart 2000:43,45).

Boise residents remained hopeful. They moved to prevent another town from becoming the rail terminus in the local region by proposing the construction of a 15-mile-long branch line, surveying the alignment, and purchasing all the land along this route (Wells and Hart 2000:46–

49). A 1885 Boise City map depicts a “Railroad Reserve” along the southern edge of downtown

Boise. Rail access became a reality when the Idaho Central Railway completed the branch line from the OSL terminus near present-day Kuna, Idaho to Boise on September 4, 1887 (Wells and

Hart 2000:50–51). The Oregon Short Line mainline would not reach the city until 1925, but the spur track did foster growth in downtown Boise until then (Bird 1934:252–253; Waite nd:6).

A Neighborhood South of the Tracks

The 1890s brought real estate speculation and development schemes to the area that would become the River Street Neighborhood. John McClellan started this process when he platted his property in 1890. During the 1890s, the Riverside, Miller, and City Park Additions were platted in anticipation of the arrival of the Oregon Short Line Railroad. The River Street area was subdivided to provide parcels for warehouses and housing. It was envisioned that this would become a home

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience for the workers employed at the various warehouses that flanked the railroad and businesses in downtown Boise. In fact, few opulent houses were built in the area (Demo 2006; Stacy 1995).

By the early 1900s, the River Street Neighborhood had evolved into a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Idaho had become a state in 1890 and Boise was poised for growth. The town had nearly 6,000 residents and irrigation canal construction provided an infusion of people and money (Stacy 1995:7). Flood control made agricultural land on the floodplain open for development. Most houses in River Street were built between 1900 and 1930 (Demo 2006).

Historical maps show that the completion of the Ridenbaugh Canal (1878) and Diversion and

Arrowrock Dams for the New York Canal had greatly diminished the Boise River’s flow near

River Street, but seasonal floods were still common and the land adjacent to the river would remain undeveloped for decades to come (Stacy 1993).

The River Street Neighborhood was carved from the agricultural fields and orchards that had previously flanked the Boise River. Before it was redeveloped into a mixed-use residential and commercial space, Boise residents used this open space for recreation (Figure 3). Riverside

Park opened in 1902 and was an attractive, convenient place for Boiseans to relax and enjoy the amusements (Demo 2006:17–18; Hart 1989:143). The park was located near the present-day intersection of River Street and Capitol Boulevard, and it had a bandstand, dance pavilion, theater and baseball field. The baseball field and theater housed memorable events while the frequent dances at the park brought visitors throughout the year. The San Francisco Opera Company performed at Riverside Park following the 1906 earthquake as the group waited to secure a new venue back in San Francisco (Hart 1989). The baseball field hosted several Boise teams that played organizations from across the Pacific Northwest. Riverside Park remained open until 1912 when most of this location was filled with railroad warehouses. Portions of the park also became part of

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience a Girl Scout camp and a Forest Service office that used to occupy the land between River Street and the Boise River west of Capitol Boulevard during the mid-twentieth century. Former residents recall playing at the Girl Scout grounds, which featured a softball field, into the 1960s (Madry

2014; Terrell, III 2014).

The earliest houses in the River Street Neighborhood were constructed during the 1900s,

1910s, and 1920s (Demo 2006). Most of these residences were built as rental properties and consisted of a range of “ready-built” houses–standard dwellings that were made in factories and shipped on railroad cars to a town where they were assembled based on enclosed instructions.

Demo (2006:32) explains:

“By the early 1900s, the grandiose architectural plans for “cottage” and “bungalow”

were scaled down by enterprising home-building companies as they responded to

huge demands for affordable, quality housing from a growing American working-

class that was more than willing to settle for small, uncomplicated, and unadorned

homes.”

During the first decades of the twentieth century, companies compiled plan books where potential home buyers could select home plans for the homes and select which home they would like to buy.

The house materials were delivered to the lot where it was to be erected and workmen or the home owner assembled the house (Demo 2006; Massey and Maxwell 1999; McAlester 2013). Early houses in River Street were primarily one- or two-bedroom dwellings with outbuildings including outhouses, sheds, stables, and garages at the rear of the lot. City directories and Sanborn Fire

Insurance Maps indicate these outbuildings were frequently converted into smaller dwellings. In addition to these ready-built homes, a smaller number of vernacular houses of differing styles were built (Demo 2006).

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Figure 3: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of River Street Neighborhood (1903) (Courtesy Idaho State Historical Society Archives, Boise)

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Figure 4: River Street Neighborhood Boundary (1917) (Courtesy Idaho State Historical Society Archives, Boise)

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Neighborhood residents from the 1900s and 1920s included middle and working class

European Americans. At this time, all of the platted lots had not yet been filled with buildings and the neighborhood was a convenient place for individuals that worked in downtown Boise which was just across the railroad tracks to the north (Figure 4). Prominent Boise resident Charles

Hummel recalls that his father, Frederick Charles Hummel, lived on 14th Street in the River Street neighborhood as a youth. Charles Hummel believes River Street is iconic of the walkable neighborhoods of the early twentieth century: “This is old Boise…This area was laid out before the automobile. You have big houses next to little houses, porches and small front yards. Its walkable. People could sit on their porches and talk to people on the sidewalk.” (Hummel and

Woodward 2010:29). Buildings sat on a floodplain and, thus, were designed with higher foundations in case of a flood. Hummel also noted the proximity of the neighborhood to downtown

Boise and its high-density of jobs and remarked that, as of 2010, it still retained much of this desirable character: “It’s accessible. It encourages human interaction. Its evolution has largely respected its history and its identity remains intact” (Hummel and Woodward 2010:29). These desirable characteristics are what made the neighborhood attractive during the early twentieth century, but other development casted a shadow that reduced its desirability.

At the same time when residential buildings were being added to the neighborhood, warehouses and commercial buildings were also being built nearby. In 1928, the neighborhood was rezoned as “unrestricted,” which meant existing residential buildings would remain while commercial and industrial buildings could be erected on all sides (Osa 1982:2; Stacy 1995:9). This change in zoning immediately diminished the desirability of the neighborhood as a residential space because it meant that polluting warehouses and factories could be built in this area at any

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience time. Many homeowners living in the neighborhood began to leave, either renting out their homes or selling them outright.

Nevertheless, by the 1920s the River Street Neighborhood was a conveniently located place for working class Boiseans. Its relatively new housing stock and the large number of warehouses, factories, and businesses along the rail line meant the neighborhood was in close proximity to jobs and commerce for the city. The population of Boise was rapidly growing. Between 1900 and 1920,

Boise had grown from approximately 6,000 residents to over 21,000 (Wells and Hart 2000). A number of owner-occupied residences became rentals and River Street became a solidly working- class neighborhood occupied by European Americans alongside multi- ethnic minorities. By the

1930s, about 65 African Americans called this place home (Hummel and Woodward 2010:67).

River Street as a Multi-Racial Neighborhood

During the 1930s and 1940s, River Street’s reputation as a space for non-white Boiseans had solidified. While most of the neighborhood’s residents were European Americans, immigrants from Eastern Europe, the Basque Country, and Japan as well as African Americans made their homes there and formed a tightly woven community (Bertram 2014; Demo 2006; Hummel and

Woodward 2010). Yet, River Street traversed a turbulent period during the mid-twentieth century and, by the 1980s, much of what once was had been lost. Houses had been demolished. Businesses shuttered. New, large condominiums and apartments were built on top of the previous small, detached, single-family dwellings. Attempts at historic preservation had failed. The future of the

River Street Neighborhood was not clear, but one thing remained constant throughout all those changes: community. The history of the River Street Neighborhood is intrinsically linked with the histories of Boise’s Basque and African American communities. It is these two non-white groups that made River Street the home of “the others.”

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Basque Immigrants in River Street

The River Street Neighborhood is significant for the understanding of the Basque experience in the American West and Boise because it was important for the survival of their community during its formative years. As a place for the “others”, River Street was a safe harbor from overt discrimination. It was also a place where the Basque could practice their customs and language without fear of persecution (Demo 2006; Totoricagüena 2004). The archaeological remains of Basque activities in the neighborhood of the past solidify their connection with this landscape and secure their place in its history.

By the 1920s, River Street was known for its non-European American occupants. The first

Basques arrived in the neighborhood in 1902 and were followed by more Basque families and sheepherders during the 1910s. Most of the Basque congregated around Lee and Ash Streets and on Lover’s Lane (Demo 2006:105–106). Basque residents did their best to maintain their traditions. A handball court was built circa 1906 based on traditional Basque L-shaped design.

This feature allowed the Basque to play traditional games they had known in Spain while also socializing amongst themselves in their traditional language (Alegria 1987; Totoricagüena 2004).

As immigrants, the Basque faced discrimination outside the neighborhood; however, River Street was a space where they could continue many of the practices they brought over from Spain.

Traditional Basque customs in Spain mandated family property pass to the eldest son, forcing younger sons to make their living off the farm. This custom prompted many Basque men to travel to the Americas in search of economic opportunities (Totoricagüena 2004). The first wave of single Basque men came to Idaho during the late nineteenth century, paving the way for their brothers, uncles, and cousins who followed. By the twentieth century, these men were joined by wives, sisters, and other women who helped solidify a Basque diasporic community in Boise.

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Boardinghouses in downtown Boise housed most single men and entrepreneurial families servicing the Basque community. A second enclave in River Street near Lee and Ash Streets became home to extended families that shared homes or lived nearby (Alegria 1987; Demo 2006).

The Basque suffered because of their unique language and customs. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European Americans in Boise did not consider Basque immigrants white people. They faced difficulties finding work and housing. At school, their children were ridiculed because of their language and the way they dressed. Basque children were not allowed to speak their traditional language in Boise schools (Totoricagüena 2004). One way they could overcome this discrimination was by suppressing their traditions–dance, language, and dress–and by adopting European American customs. The Basque also distanced themselves from other non- white communities. As the African American population rose in the River Street Neighborhood,

Basque families moved away to escape the stigmatization of living in “the black neighborhood”

(Demo 2006).

European immigrants and non-European Americans moved to the neighborhood at this time. The first Basques arrived in the neighborhood in 1902 and were followed by a few more

Basque families and sheepherders during the 1910s. Most of the Basque congregated around Lee and Ash Streets and on Lover’s Lane (Demo 2006:105–106). European immigrants from other countries also arrived during the first decades of the twentieth century: most notably Greek and

Croatian individuals and families (Demo 2006:108–109). Immigrants faced discrimination outside the neighborhood and were increasingly forced to live in the River Street area; however, within the neighborhood, people were friendly, helpful, and neighborly.

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

River Street, African Americans, and Boise, Idaho

Boise has always been primarily occupied by people of European descent; its African

American population has always been small. Most blacks settled on the geographic peripheries of what is considered the American West in states like Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. African

Americans avoided places that were seen as having low economic prospects such as the Dakotas and Idaho for a good reason: racism permeated American society and individual blacks were in danger in predominately white communities. The American West was no different (Oliver 1995:5;

Taylor 1998:104–105). As a result, these states have historically had very small African American populations. Idaho Territory had only 60 African Americans in 1870 even though over 284,000 blacks lived in the sixteen states and territories of the American West (Taylor 1998:104). Ten years later, the Idaho Territory only had 53 blacks. The African American population of the State of

Idaho had grown to 201 by 1890. Idaho’s black population stood at 293 in 1900 even though over

765,000 African Americans lived in the American West (Taylor 1998:135).

During the nineteenth century, Fort Boise had a contingent of African American soldiers who lived outside of town and helped protect the settlement. African American soldiers at Fort

Boise spent most of their time in the high desert outside of town searching for hostile Native

Americans (Mercier and Simon-Smolinsk 1990). After the cessation of hostilities between the

United States Government and Idaho Native Americans, African American soldiers were used to break union strikes in Idaho mining communities (Taylor 1998). A small number of African

Americans also moved through the area as part of the Oregon Trail migration and through employment on the Union Pacific Railroad after 1894 but few stayed in Idaho for long (Etlinger

1987; Mercier 1990; Mercier and Simon-Smolinski 1990).

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

Figure 5: The Shines family before emigrating to River Street in the mid-twentieth century, n.d. (Courtesy Lee Rice, II)

The majority of blacks in Idaho congregated in urban centers like Boise and Pocatello where they could find work in the service industry and as entrepreneurs (Mercier and Simon-

Smolinsk 1990; Oliver 1988) (Figure 5). While racism existed in Boise, Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth century were directed more at the Chinese than they were at African Americans (Oliver

1995:5). The small African American community in Boise coalesced in the early 1900s. In 1910, there were 47 black people in Boise and they lived throughout the city. The church was at the heart of black life in Boise, but early African Americans had no official church to attend prior to 1921.

While an African American pastor arrived in 1904, Reverend William Riley Hardy, sermons were held in different homes and businesses at that time, including a blacksmith’s shop in the commercial district (Oliver 1995:7–9). Saint Paul Baptist Church was the first African American-

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience owned building in the City of Boise. Erected in 1921 at 124 Broadway Avenue on donated land purchased by a white woman, the church became a meeting place for Boise’s African Americans and was an anchor to the community. By the 1970s, one fifth of the black population of Boise was affiliated with St. Paul Church (Oliver 1995:9).

Living in such a remote location, the African

Americans in Boise built a network of reciprocal

relationships based on an intense need for

assistance. Relatives—both real and adopted—were

interdependent upon each other when it came to

food, shelter, clothing, and employment. As was the

Figure 6: Child from the Terrell family in River Street case with urban blacks elsewhere in the United Neighborhood, n.d. (Courtesy Idaho State Historical Archives, Boise) States, Boise’s African Americans helped each other in times of need and could expect to receive the same consideration in the future (Oliver 1995:10–

11). Oliver writes (1995:10); “…very few African Americans could hope to acquire a surplus of goods or money in any degree because of the needs of the entire community were so great.” The most noteworthy feature of this system was its ability to include persons of all ages, genders, and employment status into these established kin networks to benefit the greatest number of people.

Children were fed, housed, and clothed regardless of whether or not they were actually family members (Figure 6). This willingness to help and communal reciprocity was extended to all black folk around the community. Additionally, black people watched out for each other’s children and freely disciplined them. A child was corrected when acting inappropriately even if the adult had no blood kinship to the child. In this way, African Americans could keep their children out of trouble and within the boundary of acceptable behavior. The actions of African Americans in Boise

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

were a continuation of survival mechanisms

originating from the Jim Crow of the eastern and

Midwestern United States (Oliver 1995:10).

The River Street Neighborhood became

known as “the black neighborhood” during World

War II when a large number of African American

soldiers were stationed at the military bases near

Boise, particularly Gowen Field which is adjacent

to the City of Boise and Mountain Home Air Force

Base located approximately 20 miles east of town. Figure 7: Berenease and Lee Rice, n.d. The Rice family lived in the neighborhood for decades, raising their Many of these black soldiers were allowed to bring children there (Courtesy Lee Rice, II) their families, but faced few housing options in

Boise. River Street was the one place they were

allowed to rent homes (Osa 1982:5; Stewart 1980)

(Figure 7). It was also the only place where African

Americans could buy homes because it had

previously been associated with European

immigrants and the Basque during the 1920s and

1930s. The ability for African Americans to

purchase property in River Street contrasted with Figure 8:Lee Rice, II and his mother Berenease in front of their house in the River Street Neighborhood (Courtesy other parts of the country where blacks were not Lee Rice, II) allowed to buy property at all. Owner-occupied

African American properties in River Street were also investments. Long-time African American

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience

River Street resident Bessie Stewart recalls convincing her husband to purchase a house in the neighborhood during the war. They immediately rented it out to black soldiers with families and did not move into the home until after World War II (Stewart 1980). The Stewarts were not alone.

A number of other black Boiseans were able to purchase homes in the River Street Neighborhood.

Many of these individuals lived in River Street for decades (Figure 8).

After World War II, the surge of black renters in the River Street Neighborhood subsided but it remained a predominately rental neighborhood. The neighborhood demographics changed sharply following the war and accelerated after the 1960s when African Americans in Boise began pushing for their civil rights. African American activist Dorothy Buckner recalls that the push for civil rights was spearheaded by a small segment of Boise’s black community. Most blacks were against upsetting the status quo even though they were excluded from living in most of the city.

There was discrimination in Boise, but it was not anywhere close to the way things were in other parts of the United States (Buckner 1981). Boise’s schools had always been integrated. African

Americans were allowed to own businesses and homes even though this was possible in a limited area. Race-based violence was rare. For most blacks, Boise was not perfect but it was better than life in other parts of the country.

During the mid-twentieth century, the River Street Neighborhood also became known for illicit activity. It is not clear if this new activity corresponded with the fact that the neighborhood was becoming increasingly low-income or if it was the result of a real increase in crime. It is known, however, that certain parts of the neighborhood earned a reputation for gambling and prostitution businesses. Residents continually say that this type of activity was concentrated on

Pioneer Street (today’s Pioneer Walkway) (Madry 2014; Terrell 2014). Nevertheless, Boiseans began to view the entire neighborhood as a place of vice. Interviews with former residents have

Chapter 1: Contextualizing the African American Western Experience acknowledged the presence of illicit activity on Pioneer Street (Buckner 1981, Madry 2014, Terrell

2014). Several of the businesses on Pioneer had legitimate business street fronts while the back of the shop housed gambling and other activities. One example is Blackjack’s Barbeque Restaurant that used to operate at 500 S. Ash Street. Today, this is a neighborhood center but, according to

Dorothy Buckner (1981), it doubled as a gambling hall. Blackjack’s was operated by African

American entrepreneur “Pistol” Johnson. In addition to operating the barbeque restaurant, Johnson also repaired houses in the neighborhood and acted as a rental agent for absentee property owners in River Street (Buckner 1981). The tales of Pioneer Street as a red light and gambling district are widely known in Boise lore, but the descendant community has always stressed that River Street was much more than a place to have a good time. It was a close-knit community where residents tended to overlook skin color and judged each other based on the content of their character.

These negative stories about what happened along Pioneer Street were used to help build a negative view of the River Street Neighborhood in the eyes of other Boiseans. The fact that they took place in a geographic area associated with non-whiteness built upon existing racial and ethnic stigmatization of the neighborhood’s residents and was used to further cast this place as beyond upstanding European Americanness. To live in River Street was to be not white; to be not white was associated with illicit activities, marginalization, and stigmatization. This identity built upon long-standing negative connotations of non-whiteness that are at the heart of the social systems undergirding American society. Discrimination and racism is systemic in the United States. As explained in the next chapter, this process is played out not only in our culture but also on the landscape.

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

Anthropologists understand that racial categories–the phenotypic variations that have been categorized as “races”– are more related to learned behaviors than genetic variation. The American

Anthropological Association’s Statement on Race (1998) acknowledges that approximately 94 percent of genetic variation in Homo sapiens sapiens is found within racial groups, which means there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them. The Statement continues to explain that “race”, as it is understood today, was a social mechanism developed in European colonies to aid the exploitation of indigenous people, slaves, and the lower classes. As explained in this chapter, the racialization process was derived from Darwinian evolutionary thoughts, colonialism, and capitalism.

How Race has been Created in the United States

Racial identities are formed by people through the same mechanisms that are used to craft all identities. Building upon Frederick Barth’s work regarding the creation of ethnic identities

(1969) and Jones’ investigation of the complex, entangled nature of ethnic identities (1997), research in River Street uses race and other social identities as a form of identification that can be understood by persons familiar with American society and those who research that society. Social identities like race are simultaneously created by individuals as a means of signifying who they are as individuals and by other people who reify aspects of this projected identity. Additionally, individuals use a similar process to as a means of crafting group affiliations. This complicated, subjective process is constantly happening in real-time and is found in all human cultures. Race is just one of many identities forged by people in the United States (Figure 9).

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

Figure 9: The Identity Formation Process

Addressing the role racial identities have played in the historical, social, political, and economic landscape of the United States is important for understanding how racialization maintains the European American identity. Most importantly for the analysis of racial identities in

River Street, anthropologists must remember that racial identities are fluid and context specific.

Racial identities are purely ideological concepts that are a means of separating human populations and are principally created by those who play a role in the formation of social hierarchies. Central to the racialization process is the use of real or perceived physiological differences to strategically create a hierarchy in which some races are judged to be superior to others (Orser 2007, 2004:115–

118). In the United States, this hierarchy has been structured to define and maintain social relations between various racial groups, most prominently European Americans versus “the other”; and to control access to goods, political power, economic strength, and overall life opportunities

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

(Hartmann et al. 2009; Orser 2007). European Americans are created through the same structural systems that have established other racial categories.

Attempts to decolonize the social sciences has led to the investigation of whiteness as a form of academic discourse. In the last few decades, an interdisciplinary field of whiteness studies arose from critical race theory as a means of revealing the critical power of whiteness in American society and the muddled effect of whiteness as a race in anthropological and sociological study

(Hartigan 2005:187–189; McDermott and Samson 2005). Whiteness as a racial category depends heavily on defining non-whites. “Othering” ethnic and racial groups like African Americans,

Native Americans, and European and Asian immigrants creates a space where whiteness can coalesce as a distinct racial identity (Hartigan 2005:188). Like blackness, whiteness is a state of mind, an ideological construct that becomes perpetuated through discourse, practice, and daily behaviors of which most people are unaware but which nonetheless perpetuate racial identity

(Hartmann et al. 2009). Ruth Frankenberg (1997:1) argues that white studies in the social sciences focus on three core theoretical positions and hypotheses: 1) whiteness is a location of structural advantage of race privilege; 2) it is a standpoint from where white people look at themselves, others, and society, and; 3) whiteness refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed (Hartmann et al. 2009:406).

Early whiteness studies scholars portrayed whiteness as a default identity, the backdrop against which other races are compared. This suggests whiteness is benign or “invisible,” but this characterization depends upon the perspective from which you view whiteness as a racial category.

Whiteness and European American identity is associated with European heritage, but other terms have been used to describe white people. Also, European Americans have traditionally not considered European immigrants white until they had internalized and started expressing certain

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology attributes that are considered part of the performance of white culture (McDermott and Stimson

2005; Orser 2007, 2004). Whiteness as a racial category is very subjective (Hartmann et al. 2009).

Researchers have had difficulties defining European Americans because “whiteness has been identified as a core set of racial interests often obscured by seemingly race-neutral words”

(Hartigan 1997:496). Whiteness is associated with unmarked, normative practices that have been used to characterize what it means to be an American. Practicing white culture involves living within a system designed to perpetuate the material relations and social structures that reproduce white privilege and racism in the United States (Hartigan 1997:496–497). The default status of whiteness as a racial category is integral to the maintenance of structural racism because any racial group that deviates from this norm is considered “other,” which makes their presence and position within wider society an unnormal state.

Whiteness has a different meaning for individuals that consider themselves white based on education, region, and belief in progressive ideals like equality and diversity (Croll 2007;

Hartmann et al. 2009). Whiteness has also changed throughout history (Isenberg 2016). This makes whiteness difficult to study archaeologically without contextualizing it within space and time. Meg Gorsline (2015) has proposed a useful rubric for investigating whiteness in historical archaeology that builds upon work conducted by other social scientists among European American populations over the last 20 years. Gorsline proposes five key points that historical archaeologists can use to contemplate the historical construction of whiteness: 1) whiteness is a constantly shifting social construction that changes throughout time, 2) whiteness interconnects with other axes of identity including gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion, and sexuality; 3) it is rooted in the global history of colonization and imperialism; 4) engaging with whiteness is to recognize

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology that racism is also a white problem, and; 5) whiteness has a material dimension. While race may be constructed, racism is real and it has material effects (Gorsline 2015:295–296).

Issues of power inherent in capitalist societies was also observed by Eric Wolf and other

World Systems theorists. Throughout his Introduction, Wolf frequently mentions the trans-

Atlantic slave trade– an activity that forcibly moved Africans to the Western Hemisphere and transformed them into enslaved workers. Wolf (1997:21) notes that understandings of the growth of world economic systems must relate history and theory in order to reveal the processes that effected populations around the world. The resulting historically informed theory must be able to account for outcomes of processes that affected populations in a specifiable time and space.

African Americans in Boise are descendants of African slaves brought to the United States; however, the racialization of both European Americans and African Americans is predicated upon racial mores developed during the period of American slavery (1619–1865). Following the abolition of slavery in the United States, African American identity continued to be plagued by negative connotations and were placed in a permanent working class status within the American social hierarchy. This proletariat status was a necessary element of American capitalist society that requires workers to perform all manner of tasks. White discrimination kept blacks in a proletariat caste and this social position was replicated in Boise’s social and geographic landscape (Demo

2006).

In his 1988 Radcliffe-Brown Lecture, Sahlins builds upon the World Systems Theory outlined by Wallerstein and furthered by Wolf. Sahlins notes that social systems and their associated economic conditions are shaped by the historical backgrounds that lead to the manifestation of these systems in a given society. With regard to systems of production, Sahlins remarks; “A system of production is the relative form of an absolute necessity, a particular

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology historical way of meeting human requirements” (1988:4). He continues to explain that the material products of capitalism find their way into the myriad social systems that exist in society. “Western capitalism has loosed upon the world enormous forces of production, coercion, and destruction…the relations of goods of the larger system take on meaningful places in the local scheme of things” (Sahlins 1988:4).

Like blackness, whiteness is also situational. It draws upon group identities that change depending upon time, space, and place. While racial categories depended upon physiological differences, the interpretations of these differences is rooted in group ideologies. European descent is one element of whiteness. Throughout history, immigrants to the United States were racialized based on their physiological, religious, national, and ethnic characteristics. For example, regardless of ethnicity or religion, Chinese and Japanese immigrants had physiological characteristics that easily placed in racial categories that were difficult to escape (Orser 2007). Immigrants from

European countries, however, were placed in groups based on pseudoscientific nineteenth century racial classificatory schemes. In the post-Civil War United States, Jim Crow laws shaped legal and economic achievement for all residents including immigrants. These laws were designed to disproportionately benefit European Americans, so immigrants from Europe had a strong incentive to become European American (i.e., white) rather than remain hyphenated Americans. In order to access the full rewards of the American economy and legal system, European immigrants underwent an assimilation process where their ethnic and national heritage was suppressed or stunted and the trappings and behaviors of whiteness embraced (Paynter 2001; Roediger 2005).

The Creation of Whiteness and Racial Privilege in Boise

The dialectic between African Americans and European Americans can fittingly be examined by positioning Boise within a larger, worldwide capitalist system. Like capitalism,

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology systemic racism is enmeshed with issues of economic, political, and cultural power. The status of social groups in hierarchical capitalist systems is situational and highly entangled because the means of acquiring the resources necessary for daily life can only be obtained with money that results from wage labor. Money becomes not only the means of providing food, shelter, clothing, but also a medium through which the material symbols of social status can be attained. In capitalism, social systems support wealth accumulation while also drawing boundaries between those that benefit from wage labor and those who supply this labor. This is important. The systems that support capitalism simultaneously maintain the boundaries between social groups.

Social scientists and historians remain inconsistent when it comes to theoretical treatments of race. Recent synthesis of anthropological literature associated with race, racialization, and racism suggests that anthropologists agree that racial categories are based on physiological or cultural attributes; however, there is much less consensus on what constitutes racism, that is race- based discrimination, and its effects. Leith Mullings (2005:670) states that historians generally agree on the facts that racism is: a) inextricably enmeshed with the emergence of nation-states, b) builds upon earlier conflicts, and c) emerges from contestation. This agreement among historians is also situated amongst differing perspectives on how racism is perpetuated. Prejudicial treatment towards social groups considered “other” existed before European expansion to the Western

Hemisphere, but the modern manifestation of racism is the product of economic and social systems derived from European colonial expansion (Mullings 2005:671–672). A generalized concept of racialized social systems has been proposed by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (1997:469) that is designed to investigate societies with economic, political, social, and ideological systems that are “partially structured by the placement of actors in racial categories or races.” Emphasizing the role of social systems in the creation, maintenance and perpetuation of racial constructs is particularly useful for

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology studying landscapes created through segregation like the River Street Neighborhood. Since urban landscapes are created through a variety of political, social, and economic forces, situating segregated neighborhoods through this lens allows for a more complete discussion of how these forces coalesced historically to establish the racialized spaces of today. Approaching racism within social systems also allows researchers to approach the subject without having to concentrate on the individual as individual social actors can be capricious. The relationship individuals have with regard to race and racism changes situationally and throughout time, whereas the social systems that perpetuate racism and racialization are slower to change.

Structural racism relies on the establishment of institutional values that selectively benefit members of the dominant racial group. In the United States, European Americans cultivated several key memes that served to benefit white elites over other social groups. First, European

American elites perpetuated the idea of competitive individualism which has infused our society with the idea that success is derived from individual prowess. If an individual is not economically or socially successful, it is because that person is flawed or has shortcomings. Americans are supposed to compete against other individuals as well as the natural environment. Those with the best skills, greatest knowledge, or are most capable are the ones that will enjoy economic success.

Those without the proper skills are defective, deserving of their lower social status (Isenberg 2016;

Hartigan 2005). The concept of scarcity also bolsters structural racism. Hypothetically, everyone is competing for a limited number of resources so a narrative has been crafted that some will not have what they need to maintain a fruitful existence. In a world of limited resources, there will be winners and losers. Rather than working for the common good, individuals are encouraged to struggle for scarce resources in capitalist societies where structural racism exists.

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

Both of these previous concepts, competitive individualism and the scarcity mentality, leads to a widespread belief that racial groups can only succeed by outcompeting others. If there are winners, there are also losers and it is up to each racial group to do what they can to uplift their own race, even if that comes at the detriment of other races. This concept was given a scientific façade as Darwinian evolution and early anthropological thought spread during the second half of the nineteenth century. Darwinian evolution, anthropology, and eugenics were all born from the

European colonial endeavor during the nineteenth century (Darwin 1858, 1871; Morgan 1877;

Spencer 1860). Nineteenth century science only served to prove the validity of concepts born hundreds of years previously in animal husbandry–the concept of pedigree and selective breeding.

Charles Darwin’s work The Origin of Species (1858) and The Descent of Man (1871) promoted the concept of “Survival of the Fittest” that was used as a scientific justification for social inequality. At the close of the nineteenth century, anthropologists were central to the idea that human societies progress from simple to more complex along a continuum. As these hierarchies were created by European and American anthropologists, European American cultures were placed at the top of the hierarchy. It was argued that Western Civilization demonstrated the highest level of complexity in human history. Evolutionarily, it was the pinnacle of human achievement.

Other cultures were placed in lower levels on the hierarchy (Morgan 1877).

The hierarchical classification of peoples continued through the creation of eugenics—a science that used physiological variation in human populations to place people into categories and justify white supremacy over non-whites. Simultaneously, eugenics explained why so many

European Americans were unable to rise in society (Isenberg 2016:175–176; Hartigan 2005).

Eugenics distorted the evolutionary concept of descent with modification highlighted in

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology evolutionary biology literature with the concept of pedigree that was central to animal husbandry in an attempt to explain and justify social inequality (Isenberg 2016).

Finally, an aspect of secrecy has been used to infuse structural racism into American institutions. Overt discrimination against non-whites and women was common among government officials, educators, and religious figures prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; but discrimination against poor whites was less overt. Social elites in the United States were primarily those with economic wealth who used their social networks with other elites and government officials to improve their own social and economic situation. While an “up-from-the-bootstraps” message was told to non-whites and the poor, elites knew that most political and economic decisions were made behind closed doors between different elites, in social circles that omitted the poor, women, and non-whites (Isenberg 2016). The entire racialization process in the United States was designed to force non-whites and poor whites to economically compete against each other.

Structural racism was cultivated to keep non-whites in a subordinate position, but this same system also prevented poor white people down. Non-white people were scientifically classified in a subordinate status. Legal, educational, scientific, and religious institutions perpetuated the idea that this inequality was natural and should be accepted by Americans.

In European capitalist colonialism, race became central to the creation and maintenance of social power structures. Structural racism is the use and misuse of the power of systems and institutions to further race-based prejudice. In this case, power is defined as the ability to control and apply the power of social systems like the government, religious institutions, education, and economics to further the gain of the dominant race in relation to other races (Bonilla-Silva

1997:470). Structural racism does not mean all members of the dominant race benefit from social hierarchies and it does not mean all members of subjugated races do not rise in society because

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology structural racism must also articulate with other social structures like gender and class. However, social differences like gender and class contain a racial component because both of those groups have been racialized (Bonilla-Silva 1997:471,473). In a racialized society, social groups are divided into categories that are “normalized” through memes that are perpetuated and internalized throughout that society. Dominant groups gain control by projecting negative attributes upon the groups they intend to dominate by crafting narratives of the different races they seek to dominate.

For example, African Americans were widely described as inferior to Europeans.

Anthropologists can only analyze social groups, including races, while also simultaneously considering neighboring groups in society because no social group lives and operates in isolation.

Eric Wolf writes in the introduction to his landmark book Europe and the People without History,

“…there can be no ‘Black history’ apart from ‘White history’, only a component of common history suppressed or omitted from conventional studies for economic, political, or ideological reasons.” (1997:19). This statement comes on the heels of a seven page section where Wolf excoriates twentieth century anthropologists for focusing on individual case studies at the expense of cross-cultural comparisons that include societies with clear hegemonic groups at work. Wolf understood the way social structures form networks that bind communities together in such a way that individual social groups cannot be easily separated from each other. In the case of River Street,

White Boiseans needed non-whites in order to establish themselves as a distinct social group. This distinction was created in part by the racialization process which uses real or perceived physiological characteristics to create social groups or subgroups. These differences are also used to place distinct social groups within the wider hierarchy that exists in that culture. For European

Americans, the goal of racialization was to place themselves in a privileged position in order to aggrandize social and economic power (Hartmann et al. 2009). However, racial hegemony did not

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology equally benefit all white people. The majority of whites did not economically benefit from their preferential racial status, while they did benefit legally and socially.

Racialization, Whiteness, and Poor White Trash

It took time for European immigrants to become White and, in some instances, European

Americans appear to have overlooked racial categories for non-whites that behaved like European

Americans. For example, Orser (2004, 2007) explains how immigrants from Ireland were not considered equals upon their arrival to the United States. They had difficulties obtaining employment and adequate living conditions. Sequestered in ethnic neighborhoods, Irish immigrants in the eastern United States fought for political and economic power. Discrimination against the Irish was common well into the twentieth century.

In the Spanish Colonies of North America, a fluid racial classificatory scheme was developed based on religion, ethnicity, and origin of birth. It was possible for individuals to change racial classifications during their lifetimes because race was determined by heritage as much as cultural and religious practice. Non-Christians were considered the lowest form of humanity while

European-born Christian Spaniards were at the top of this hierarchy. Between these extremes was a graduation of racial combinations of Native American, European and African ancestry. A number of these categories included persons with African ancestry that we would consider African

American today (Voss 2008:84–91). These new creole identities, over time, became new ways of indigenismo and characterized life in the New World (Trouillot 1995:122).

In certain contexts, even blackness could be transformed to whiteness for ideological reasons. One example is the African American fur trader and frontiersman James Beckwourth.

Although he was clearly an African American, he is characterized as a white person in historical

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology accounts by largely omitting his blackness. His autobiography, The Life and Adventures of James

P. Beckwourth, fails to mention that his mother was a slave or that he was the son of a slave

(Allmendinger 2005:1–2). It is possible Beckwourth passed as white but it is equally likely that the European Americans documenting his achievements wanted readers to believe he was

European American. Other black fur trappers were also called “white” because they were considered the vanguard of civilization, which at that time was synonymous with whiteness.

Literally black trappers were African Americans, but figuratively they were considered honorary whites in order to indicate they were aligned with European American “civilization” as opposed to Native American “savagery” (Allmendinger 2005:4).

Racial designations in the United States developed from the global expansion of capitalism.

The racialization process (i.e., exploiting divisions between different social groups based on physiological differentiations) was used and perpetuated in order to hierarchically place social groups within the greater society. In Boise, the social hierarchy was dedicated toward preserving

European American preeminence which allowed this group to claim an inordinate proportion of political, social, and economic power; however, as evidenced in Wolf’s introduction, the relationships between social groups and motivations for action are tightly entangled. European

American real estate speculators intended on using River Street for financial gain, but they were also able to use the neighborhood to maintain social structures that game them privileges because of their racial affiliation. As noted by Sahlins (1988), the materiality of these activities is intrinsically linked to the manifestation and maintenance of a hierarchy of social groups. River

Street and racialization in Boise can be viewed as a single case study in the complicated ways race- based hegemony played out in the United States.

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

It is important to note that, despite the fact that structural racism was inscribed in institutions and society in the New World, the fruits of capitalism and racism did not improve the lives for every segment of the large European immigrant population in the Western Hemisphere.

The American colonies were viewed by European elites as a receptacle for the poor, landless segment of their societies. This is exemplified by early English attempts to settle North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. English colonies in North America were established as capitalist ventures designed to extract resources from land viewed as undeveloped and unsettled.

The English and other European nations knew North America was home to Native Americans, but, since Native populations had been decimated by disease and had few large, organized settlement designed in the same manner as Old World cities, Europeans did not believe Native societies were using the land in a productive manner. Europeans believed North America should be occupied in a similar manner as it was in Europe, although these colonies should exist to economically benefit the European home nation (Isenberg 2016:18–20).

English elites understood the transforming North America into an image of Europe would require labor. The process would also be perilous with a high likelihood that many colonists would die from disease, deprivation, or aggression from Native Americans that were trying to keep their ancestral lands. While English elites saw economic gain in colonizing North America, they knew it would be difficult to convince people from their own country to travel to the Americas to establish the colonies. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the mortality rate for colonists and slaves in North America mirrored the rate seen in England only during disease epidemics (Hoyt 2010:65). Religious strife between the Protestant English public and English

Catholics in the aristocracy created a social atmosphere where religious separatists saw the potential to create their own communities in the New World. These separatists were among the

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology few willing English immigrants to North America (Isenberg 2016:29–30). A much larger proportion of English colonists came from the lower classes. During the 1600s, poor people were considered a drag on English society. Poor, landless English vagrants were swelling urban places and comprised a significant criminal element in English society. They were drawn upon to fight as soldiers in the perpetual wars, but, upon disbandment, discharged soldiers looted towns along their way home. Upon their return, these soldiers mixed with other urban poor to create slums, gangs, and unemployed beggars (Isenberg 2016:20–24). England was strongly divided along class lines at the time and elites and government officials considered the poor human waste–refuse that could redeem themselves through hard work in the colonies (Isenberg 2016:22). It was through the colonization of North America that these expendable, vagrant people that could improve their social standing while also building the English economy.

The idea behind using poor English people to build North American colonies was simple:

Gather up as many individuals as possible; train them to be soldiers, sailors, or artisans; and send them to North America to build plantations, towns, and dispossess Native people of their land.

This was believed to be a solution to urban crime and population density in England. Even children were not spared as it was assumed that the children of the poor would only grow up to be as shiftless as their parents. The children of the poor were often kidnapped and sent to the colonies as indentured servants. “Brutal exploitation was the modus operandi of English projectors who conceived the American colonial system at the end of the sixteenth century–before there were colonies” (Isenberg 2016:24). This project became a reality in the seventeenth century.

In the Americas, a racial schema was created that was designed to keep English and other

European immigrants working towards the goal of economically benefitting England through her colonies while simultaneously preventing them from politically joining forces with African slaves

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology or dispossessed Native Americans that were also being subjugated. English ancestry was used to split people in North America into social groups, but by the eighteenth century many indentured

European servants, landless whites, and urban poor realized they had more in common with

African slaves and freedmen and Native Americans than they did with white elites. David R.

Roediger explains (1991:25), by the eighteenth century:

“The many gradations of unfreedom among whites made it difficult to draw lines

between any idealized free white worker and a pitied or scorned servile black

worker. Indentured servitude, impressment, apprenticeship, convict labor, farm

tenancy, wage labor, and combinations of wage labor and free farming made for a

continuum of oppression among whites.”

English and European American elites used language and societal memes to prevent poor white laborers from joining forces with African Americans and other oppressed peoples and overthrowing the labor regime. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, white laborers were given certain titles like mechanic, artisan, tradesman, or workingman that were used in opposition with terms like servant, laborer, and slave, which were reserved primarily for African

Americans (Roediger 1991:50). Additionally, labor unions and voting franchisement omitted

African Americans. Other laws were created to give white people, regardless of their economic or social status, legal benefits not afforded to blacks. For example, laws were established that allowed whites to testify in court and own firearms while these rights were stripped from African

Americans in many states (Roediger 1991; Hoyt 2010). When used in conjunction with concept of pedigree from animal husbandry and, later, eugenics, these events furthered the idea that white people were freer than African Americans or Native Americans (Hartigan 2005; Isenberg 2016).

This went far in strengthening support of the existing social and economic system among poor

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology whites, even though few of them enjoyed the economic benefit their racial categorization was supposed to provide.

Racism was inscribed upon a social and economic system that was not intended to benefit all people. Despite their legal and social advantages, a large proportion of the European American population did not economically benefit from structural racism. The large population of landless white American colonists during the eighteenth century fell in a social and economic morass.

Thousands of homeless roamed the streets of cities like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia while other landless, called squatters, crackers or worse, lived in rural areas and along the frontier. Urban poor frequently found themselves in poor houses while squatters fought against being ran off the land. Land owners attempted to forcibly remove squatters from land they did not own, prompting armed uprisings and rebellions. The propensity of squatters for violence and armed defense of illegal takings categorized them as bandits or outlaws. Land owners considered them worse than

Indians, a scourge that were difficult to handle (Isenberg 2016:108–111; Roediger 1999).

The Civil War was a conflict to end slavery but it was also class warfare rooted in structural racism. The war pitted poor urban whites against poor rural whites and, to convince these populations to kill each other in a conflict where they would not clearly benefit, the Union and

Confederacy mobilized propaganda that characterized both sides as the enemy of the poor whites of their region. For Union soldiers, the south was demonized for slavery but also as a backward, ignorant region that had not been enlightened by the righteousness of free labor (Isenberg

2016:160). Confederate propagandists portrayed the North as a land of unwashed immigrants and greasy-haired mechanics. Northerners had no understanding of the enlightening force whites had on ignorant black slaves; nor did they recognize the fact that blacks were naturally meant to be subservient to whites (Isenberg 2016:158–160). As the war raged on, poor white men were

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology rounded up in both the North and South and impressed into military service. White dissidence against the war in the form of protests and riots were severely suppressed (Isenberg 2016). The

Civil War settled the issue of slavery but it did little to end structural racism; in fact, racial tensions following the war reached their zenith.

Poor whites in the former Confederacy quickly moved to maintain supremacy during the

Reconstruction era. The white supremacy movement galvanized in the early twentieth century as terrorist groups like the Klu Klux Klan worked to prevent black people from exercising their rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Jim Crow laws established a legal framework that further subjugated blacks across the United States (Isenberg 2016; Hoyt 2010). Tenets of white supremacy followed European American settlers as they expanded across the country into the

American West. Oftentimes, Jim Crow followed. Neither white supremacy nor Jim Crow laws created an atmosphere for all European Americans to thrive because the inequality at the core of capitalism, pseudoscientific fields like eugenics, and belief in Darwinian evolution spread the idea that inferior people like poor whites were not worthy of enjoying the benefits of the post-Civil War society. Poor whites comprised the bulk of homesteaders and laborers in the American West.

Extractive industries like mining, logging, fishing and industrial agriculture created an unfair playing field for smallholding farmers and laborers. Eugenics studies of poor whites during the early twentieth century portrayed them as inferior people that should not be allowed to pollute the white pedigree. Laws were made to prevent whites from marrying blacks or Native Americans.

Concurrently, legal cases were made to prevent poor whites from having children by sterilizing poor white women (Isenberg 2016:200–205).

Poor white suffering increased during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl eras as thousands of families lost their farms to erosion and economic hardship. These people were not

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology welcomed when they arrived to the American West in search of work because decades of negative narratives associated with poor whites had permanently marked them as inferior, degenerative people. University sociologists sponsored by the Federal government started studying poor whites in the 1930s. It was believed that, through proper government assistance, poor whites could be taught the virtues of European American middle class values, improve their economic and social standing, and improve the overall status of whites in the United States. The inequality at the core of capitalism was not seen as the reason for their low economic status. Rather it was argued that their values, morals, and behaviors were the cause of their suffering (Isenberg 2016). These studies revealed that the same terminology used to describe African Americans–shiftless, lazy, unambitious, ignorant, purposeless, and other terms–were also used to describe poor white people

(Hartigan 2005:83; Isenberg 2016:225–226). Both poor whites and blacks lived in close proximity and “it was virtually impossible to distinguish their dwellings” to the uninformed observer. Many middle-class whites believed, “the slight elevation in status of poor whites over poor blacks was but an empty courtesy” (Isenberg 2016:226). The same economic and social system used to oppress African Americans was being used to maintain a large European American underclass, but few researchers at that time were willing to acknowledge this.

The period between the 1930s and 1960s saw a cultural shift in the way Americans viewed poor white people, but a concomitant improvement in economic status or public image remained forthcoming. This image change was largely fueled by a change in the way they were portrayed in popular culture. While most government studies of poor whites were designed to create more effective assistance programs, a few research publications shed new light on the inner machinations of the world of poor whites. Researchers of the 1920s and 1930s believed poor whites were not hapless pawns of capitalism. To improve their economic status, poor whites needed better

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology access to education, an element that was supposed to allow them to become self-sufficient.

Additionally, it was recognized that the “folkways” of poor whites was a source of resilience that could be drawn upon to bring them closer to the middle class, European American mainstream

(Isenberg 2016:226–227). Other narrative works like Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (Agee and

Evans 1941), Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck 1937, 1939), and Dorothea

Lange’s work during the Great Depression put a human face on white poverty. Rejecting “Survival of the Fittest,” middle class whites could pity poor whites and empathize with them.

Twentieth-century media has portrayed poor whites as folk people, the foundation of

European American heritage, but they were still seen as inferior to upstanding, middle and upper class whites. They could still be blamed for their personal failure while also lionized for their simplicity and perseverance in an adverse world. Lionization in literature and research gave way to the promotion of poor whites as simple hillbillies during the 1950s. The popularity of artists like

Elvis Presley and television shows like The Andy Griffith Show, Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., Pettycoat

Junction, and The Beverly Hillbillies cultivated a favorable image of poor whites as honest, rural, country folk whose values were relevant to the rest of white America. This “Cult of the Country

Boy” as historian Nancy Isenberg calls it (2016) helped European Americans trivialize the

Southern white backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, school integration, and continued rural white poverty. The violent backlash against black rights was portrayed in news media and popular culture as the rantings of ignorant, inbred, degenerate, rednecks. Their demands need not be heeded because they were illogical and antiquated. In addition to media portrayals of poor whites, shows like Green Acres and Hee Haw made it acceptable to laugh at poor whites while placing their subculture on a wider stage. Rather than being an American problem without a solution, white poverty became a source of entertainment for the rest of the nation. This process

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology continues today as seen through the popularity of country music and television shows like Here

Comes Honey Boo Boo (Isenberg 2016).

The complicated history of poor whites in the United States is firmly rooted in the same capitalist system founded on structural inequality and racism. In capitalism, the resources necessary for daily survival can only be obtained with money for most people. Few are truly self- sufficient. Money can only be obtained as the proceeds of investments or through labor. Poverty prevents many African Americans and European Americans from living from the interest of their investments. Wage labor is their only legal alternative. However, a number of factors prevent the poor from fully participating in the capitalist system. For poor whites and blacks, lack of quality education, stable incomes, affordable loans, and social marginalization prevented many families from fully participating in mainstream society. Their economic struggle was worsened by discriminatory forces embedded in our social institutions since the conception of European colonies in North America.

Regions of Refuge: Race and Urban Minorities

Economic development, or the lack thereof, has been a central element of the ways social scientists analyze urban ethnic sub-groups in industrial societies. An acknowledgement has been made that those living in ethnic enclaves reside in economically stagnant communities defined by poverty, a dearth of social mobility, and a lack of integration into the wider economy (Hall 1983).

While they are frequently located in urban cores, these social, political, and economic peripheries are stigmatized because of the subaltern status of the individuals that reside there (Gramsci, 1972;

Wacquant 2010).

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

At the same time, segregated landscapes like River Street created spaces where African

Americans and other non-whites could be free from the discerning eye of European American society. These neighborhoods were stigmatized and, therefore, were rarely visited by white people who did not live there. The avoidance of River Street by European Americans allowed a parallel community to develop in the neighborhood that centered upon cooperation and collaboration as a means of economic and social survival. The neighborhood became a close-knit refuge for non- white and working class European Americans who had been relegated to this place. Gonzalo

Aguirre Beltrán notes the way economic forces in regions of refuge cause the creation of a dual economy in the case of natives in Mexico. He explains that, “When two different economic systems with different orientations come into contact, the conflicting forces produce a new system”

(Beltrán 1979:71). Beltrán adds that these parallel economies contain ingredients of the modern economy to differing degrees, but the economy in the region of refuge is the result of

“unpardonable exploitation” from the dominant social group (Beltrán 1979:71).

Beltrán’s unpacking of the dual economy found in regions of refuge is based on work in the developing world and he states that the dual economy system he describes is an economic model specific to underdeveloped regions. His work emphasized the legacy of colonialism in northwestern Mexico and the southwestern United States. Additionally, the socioeconomic syntheses coming from this work stated that social stratification originated from cultural differences based on historical capitalist order. These cultural differences are used as the basis for continuing domination of minorities. The acceptance of these differences by minority groups makes them normative. These syntheses fail to discuss the ways race–that is, social divisions based on real or perceived physiological differences–are also associated with maintaining inequity

(Beltrán 1979; Vélez-Ibáñez 2004).

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

Scholars since Beltrán have described similar conditions while researching informal economies in places like African American neighborhoods in the United States. Work by the sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh (1994) describes how the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United

States severely affected minority and working class communities in Chicago, Illinois. The loss of outlets for legitimate work that pays livable wages forces adults in this community to use public assistance programs supplemented by jobs in the formal economy as well as to generate income from the informal economy through “under-the-table” work. Many individuals also supplement both of these revenue streams with illegal activities like selling drugs, gambling, and prostitution

(Venkatesh 1994:158). Life in these neighborhoods is marked by poverty and stigmatization placing residents at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Upward mobility is difficult because few businesses operate in these neighborhoods; residents have difficulties gaining the education and credentials necessary; menial labor does not provide enough income to improve their standard of living, and; employers discriminate against residents because of the reputation of their neighborhood (Venkatesh 1994; Wacquant 2010; Wacquant and Wilson 1989).

Anthropological discussions of regions of refuge are associated with the treatment of ethnic societies that had been absorbed into nation-states within the framework of world-systems theory.

Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán (1979) described regions of refuge as places buffered from full integration into national and supranational economies to the point that their development remains frozen. Social scientists have since recognized that structural inequality, specifically the systems that create ethnic and racial differences, play an integral role in the economic stratification that helps create and maintain regions of refuge. The cultural, ethnic, and racial definitions that create minority groups aid the creation of spatially segregated enclaves that can be defined as regions of refuge. Because they are inhabited by minorities not considered part of the mainstream society,

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology residents of these places are denied the full participation in national society that could improve their economic and political status (Vélez-Ibáñez 2004).

The economic benefits of living in mainstream society bypass ethnic neighborhoods, creating dichotomies that are important to maintaining social power hierarchies. Ethnic neighborhoods create areas where the “others” live in contrast to the rest of the urban landscape where members of the dominant demographic reside. In the case of River Street, European

American residents of Boise, Idaho used political and economic power to cast the neighborhood as the home of non-whites. Property ownership and rental restrictions from the 1890s until the

1960s made River Street the place where African Americans, Japanese, eastern European, and

Basque immigrants were forced to live and create businesses (Demo 2006). This multi-racial and multi-ethnic neighborhood was considered an undesirable place to live, work, or visit by European

Americans. It also, inadvertently, created a refuge where non-European American Boiseans could escape discrimination.

Prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, racist rental and home ownership restrictions prevented minorities from living outside certain areas. These mobility restrictions prevented minorities from leaving stigmatized neighborhoods and concentrated minority poverty

(Wiese 2004). Despite the negative consequences, discrimination allowed a communal character to develop in these neighborhoods and the creation of a parallel social, economic, and political system to emerge. Minority entrepreneurs, scholars, and leaders established an organizational structure that helped these communities to function alongside the national systems dominated by

European Americans (Venkatesh 1994; Wacquant and Wilson 1989). The same racism that kept

European Americans out of minority neighborhoods, physically and economically, helped these

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology ostracized members of society cultivate close-knit communities where they could raise their children.

During the twentieth century, suburbanization etched racial landscapes into metropolitan areas across the United States. Few real estate developers prior to the 1950s constructed more than a dozen homes. Building entire subdivisions at once was rare (Rome 2001). Nevertheless, the 1909 inaugural meeting of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, colloquially known as the

Realtors, promoted restrictive real estate covenants and deed restrictions that prohibited home purchases for non-whites. In 1914, the Realtors’ code of ethics prohibited them from introducing any non-white homeowner into predominately European American neighborhoods because this might bring home prices down. Racial segregation had become standard practice throughout the real estate industry by 1920 (Weise 2004:41). African Americans and other non-white peoples were increasingly concentrated in existing ethnic neighborhoods as there were fewer places for them to live. This was exacerbated by the Great Migration of the early twentieth century where millions of African Americans left southeastern states in search of work in the Midwest, American

West, and Northeast (Weise 2004).

New home loan options following World War II dramatically increased the number of potential home owners in the United States. Suburban neighborhoods were hastily built across the country. As suburbanization spread across the nation, European Americans with the economic ability left urban areas that were becoming increasingly overcrowded with African Americans, other non-whites, and working class whites that could not afford moving to the suburbs. Urban blacks had few housing options. The effect on African American communities is succinctly told by historian Andrew Weise (2004:66):

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

“Discrimination in the real estate market, backed by legal and extralegal

restrictions, blocked African American access to most suburban areas. Instead,

migrants moved to a few suburbs where the availability of employment, the

presence of an earlier African American community, or the lack of land-use

controls opened a door to settlement…Often they were isolated, physically and

socially, from the rest of town, a process that was exacerbated by the spread of

segregation and exclusion in public facilities. The result was a racial hierarchy of

separate and unequal suburban territory–racialized space–that reinforced racial and

economic inequality in social life.”

To maintain this racial segregation, European Americans came together to prevent non- white encroachment on their landscapes. White suburban officials worked to eliminate black neighborhoods through redevelopment or to establish a geographic “quarantine” through social narratives that stigmatized black neighborhoods (Weise 2004:117). European American officials also tended to decrease investments in African American neighborhoods. Infrastructure, schools, and other public goods were increasingly transferred away from existing urban neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods occupied by non-whites, to the suburbs.

For many white homeowners, the arrival of black homeowners in to their neighborhoods was seen as a cause to relocate. “White Flight,” which is the exodus of European American homeowners from a neighborhood following the arrival of African Americans or other non-whites, was the common result of the war African Americans constantly waged to improve their living situation. African Americans were seen as a curse on European American neighborhoods and the time between the arrival of the first black homeowners and the last white ones was short (Weise

2004:254). The presence of African Americans, who had been stigmatized in order to maintain

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology social and economic hierarchies, became a self-fulfilling prophesy for European Americans that saw them as a drain on communities. Not wanting to take a loss on their biggest family investment,

European American homeowners were willing to sell at lower prices which lowered local home prices as well as tax receipts. Lower taxes meant a reduction in the quality of public amenities like parks, schools, fire suppression, utilities, and policing. These lower housing prices enticed low income residents and absentee landlords that had little incentive in investing in their properties.

A combination of social stigmatization, racism, and economic forces created conditions that prompted thousands of European American homeowners to relocate further and further from non-white neighborhoods. White Flight fueled racial segregation and suburban expansion as both

European Americans and affluent non-whites continued to move away from low income neighborhoods and local government divestment. The process was repeated across the United

States primarily between the 1940s and 1970s but it continues today in some communities. As a result, suburban America has become increasingly white, affluent, and segregated whereas urban spaces remained diverse but neglected (Weise 2004; Wiley 2004:35–36).

In Boise, the most visible material manifestation of racialization is the urban landscape of the River Street Neighborhood. While porous and constantly subject to change, the preeminence of European American identity had long been intact in American society by the time Boise was created and, certainly, by the time African Americans moved to River Street (Hartigan 2005;

Jacobson 1998:31–38; Roediger 1991). The inscription of race on urban landscapes entails the segregation of space along racial categories; spaces where racially homogeneous groups construct their own places through social pressure or of their own volition. Simultaneously, this process allows for the development of a sense of place that can be used to fulfill social and cultural needs and obligations. In Boise, River Street served to reinforce racial segregation, which, in turn, helped

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology maintain European American hegemony by creating a place of contrast– the geographic home of the others. This geographic segregation also played an important role in the economy of Boise, especially with regard to real estate values. Structural racism strongly influenced the character and perceived value of real estate. Neighborhoods with African American and other non-European

American residents were considered less desirable places to live and properties in these places were valued at a lower price. European American homeowners in the rest of Boise had a strong motivation to keep African Americans in a discrete geographic area in order to prevent the racist devaluation of their own homes due to the presence of African American neighbors (Demo 2006;

Stewart 1980).

In addition to creating a place where African Americans could be “contained”, European

American real estate speculators were also creating a neighborhood dedicated to speculation.

Archival documents explain that the area that became the River Street Neighborhood was once a farmstead that was sold to real estate speculators in advance of the arrival of the railroad. From the

1890s–1920s, these investors and a small number of private property owners built prefabricated, single-family houses with the intention of renting the dwellings out to working-class employees of the nearby railroad warehouses and in downtown Boise. The neighborhood’s location south of the tracks geographically separated River Street from the rest of Boise and quickly became known for its African American residents who arrived as railroad employees (Demo 2006). From its inception, River Street was considered a place for financial gain but, due to its geographic location and black residents, it became a lynchpin in maintaining white hegemony in Boise.

Oral history interviews with neighborhood residents describe the same discrimination that kept non-whites and poor whites in the neighborhood simultaneously established a community that, in many ways, transcended racial and ethnic mores valued by outsiders. This phenomenon of

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology working across racial boundaries is told by both African American and European American neighborhood residents in interviews taken in the 1980s and 2010s respectively. Oral histories indicate structural racism supported by popular narratives of the inadequacies of poor whites,

African Americans, European immigrants, and other non-white people solidified the boundaries of the River Street neighborhood. By the 1920s, these boundaries were known by all Boiseans.

Oral histories also explain the neighborhood’s boundaries remained constant and, after World War

II, it became known as “the black neighborhood” (Demo 2006; Madry 2014; Osa 1981; Terrell,

III 2014). With this moniker, River Street became a space where respectable European Americans did not frequent. Its identity enabled illicit activities like prostitution, gambling, and, during

Prohibition, alcohol production and consumption to take place away from the gaze of moralists.

The growth of vice in this small geographic area during the 1950s and 1960s added to the negative stigma, something that would make River Street a target of urban renewal efforts after the 1970s.

Residents actively combatted the negative stigma of their neighborhood. Oral histories explain illegal activities were confined to a segment of Pioneer Street, an east-west trending alley that passed behind the Erma Hayman House. Illegal activity along Pioneer peaked in the 1970s, prior to the recording of oral histories with neighborhood residents. However, memories of this area remained in the memories of long-time residents. One African American resident clarified that, despite the presence of illicit activities along Pioneer Street, the neighborhood was not a ghetto; “Don’t call this a ghetto over here because we don’t like it. It’s not a ghetto. Now when

Pioneer was over there, it was horrible…. Everything went on over there on Pioneer. You couldn’t even drive through there, which I didn’t want to” (Stewart 1980:32). Interviews with European

American residents firmly state River Street was a working-class neighborhood, but many also acknowledged crime existed along Pioneer Street.

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology

Stigmatization removed the neighborhood from the ever-vigilant eye of European

Americans, which created a space where racial mores could be bent or broken. Oral histories with former residents, both European American and African American, recall this was a place where racial categories that prevailed throughout the rest of Boise and American society could be overlooked. Familiarity and knowledge of their place in the social hierarchy allowed residents to judge each other based on individual characteristics more readily than racial identity (Hayman

1980; Thomas 1981). A European American descendant recalled that each resident recognized their identity was closely related with living in the neighborhood, living on the South Side of the

Tracks, more readily than being a resident of Boise or Idaho. Length of residency in the neighborhood outweighed ethnicity and race in determining to whom she should consider affinity.

Being from “the neighborhood” was enough to overlook skin color when operating within the neighborhood’s boundaries. Discrimination came from the outside and was projected upon the neighborhood (Loralee Badgett, personal communication, 2013). In 11 oral histories with former

African American residents in the 1980s and 2014, similar sentiments were expressed. It was understood that the neighborhood was a social, cultural, economic, and political boundary. “They weren’t the ones that come from the outside. Those from the outside were different. They’re the ones you had the trouble with” (Thomas 1981:8; Demo 2006:99).

Cooperation between neighborhood residents of all races helped them overcome tough times (Demo 2006:97–109; Hayman 1980; Thomas 1981). For example, Ellen Perkins Stevens lived in the neighborhood from the 1930s until 1965 and she was matriarch of the only black family on her block. Despite being the only African Americans, she recalls cordial relations with her neighbors. Food, clothing, and labor was shared in times of need. When her husband died, Perkins said, "The neighbors right straight across over there, came to me and said, 'We are not just your

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology neighbors, we are your friends. If you need anything or want anything or anything comes up that you can't take care of, call us.' And they have proved to be my friends" (Perkins 1980). Similar instances were recorded in other interviews, which gives an image that African American and

European American relations in the neighborhood were cordial and marked by equanimity.

Structural racism in the rest of Boise made sure neighborhood residents never forgot their place in the racial and social hierarchy. African American descendant Warner Terrell, III lived in the neighborhood between the 1940s and 1970s. In his interview, he stated that open discrimination against Boise’s small African Americans was not as bad as parts of the United States with larger black populations because the few blacks in Boise were well-known. The small number of non- whites meant Boise schools were never segregated. Terrell, III became class president at North

Junior High School and he never recalls being refused service in any store including those outside the neighborhood. At that time, however, African Americans were not allowed to live outside the neighborhood and were only allowed to have menial labor and service jobs.

While subversively accepted within the neighborhood, interracial dating was strictly taboo outside River Street. In his interview, Warner Terrell, III conveyed a story about an interaction between a female schoolmate and a Boise police officer when he was in middle school. While walking in downtown Boise, Terrell saw a white girl he knew from school and started up a casual conversation. A police officer that was passing by noticed the young black boy talking to the white girl. The officer forced the girl to get into the police car, took her to the station, and made her call her parents and explain what she was doing in public (Terrell, III, 2014). Tales of discrimination like this demonstrate how African Americans, no matter how accepted outside the neighborhood, were always reminded of their situation. African Americans had no choice but to live in River

Street, but interactions like these with European American residents were rare and were not

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology chronicled in oral histories. Instead, oral history narratives explain personal relationships built from years of familiarity with each other and the rest of the neighborhood made it a refuge–a place where an internalized understanding of common condition helped neighborhood residents withstand economic and racial discrimination that pervaded greater Boise (Demo 2006; personal communication, 2013; Hayman 1980).

When subtle reminders like Terrell, III’s story failed to “keep them in their place,” the racial hierarchy in Boise was maintained through violence. The burning of a cross in the yard of an African American family is a widely-remembered event that scars the memory of the first

African American family to leave the River Street Neighborhood. This event was recalled in several oral histories (Buckner 1981; Madry 2014, Rice 2014, Terrell, III 2014). While police records of the even have yet to be found, several Boise residents recall that Aurelius and Dorothy

Buckner sold their home in the River Street Neighborhood in the 1950s and moved to the all-white

North End Neighborhood. Shocked by arrival of this black family, the Buckner’s neighbors burned a cross in their front yard. The message was clear: African Americans that attempted to subvert white supremacy would be punished. The Buckners also wanted to send a message: They would not be cowed by racism. Dorothy Buckner brought the burned cross into her house and used it as a centerpiece over her mantle. It remained prominently displayed for years afterward. After a while, racial tensions subsided but European Americans sent a clear message that blacks were unwelcome outside River Street (Buckner 1981). The Buckners remained the only black family outside the neighborhood until the 1960s.

African Americans are responsible for the negative identity of the River Street

Neighborhood, but it has always been occupied primarily with working-class white families. In oral histories, European American River Street former residents recall how they were

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology discriminated against because they lived in the neighborhood. This discrimination against poor whites was not recalled by African American residents, but several European Americans recall ill treatment outside the neighborhood by other white Boiseans. To the rest of the European American community, whites in River Street were branded as a lesser type of white–a subcategory that was not deserving of mainstream white status. One European American former resident recalls she had difficulties making friends or finding boyfriends in school because other whites knew she lived in

River Street (Loralee Badgett, personal communication, 2013). Other whites were harassed in school and got into fights with other white students because they were ‘South Side of the Tracks

Kids.’ This intra-white discrimination may have gone unnoticed by blacks but it was a real aspect of everyday life for the neighborhood’s white residents who most likely measured discrimination differently. It was not the same as the virulent anti-black racism taking place elsewhere in the

United States, but aggressions against stigmatized European American River Street residents was common enough that it has been documented in oral history interviews and conversations with white former residents.

Structural racism, stigmatization, a perceived lack of economic value all prevented

Boiseans from investing in the River Street Neighborhood, which created an economically depressed zone. Neighborhood residents understood their economic position in Boise’s society and it was pervasive poverty that forced neighborhood residents to pool resources and knowledge in such a way that they were able to overcome the strong racial mores of the early twentieth century. River Street residents knew they were at an economic disadvantage. Collective reciprocity was one of the most important ways neighborhood residents could help each other find employment and housing. The fact residents owed each other a debt of gratitude for previous assistance cultivated a shared sense of neighborliness that crossed racial boundaries. Segregation

Chapter 2: Racialization and Regions of Refuge in Historical Archaeology and discrimination led to the establishment of River Street as a region of refuge where European

American and non-white residents bonded with each other through reciprocity, a phenomenon that was uncommon for that time.

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

The River Street Neighborhood was a landscape created through segregation that played a formative role in the development of the local African American and Basque communities. It was also a major factor in the coalescence and maintenance of the European American racial identity, which shaped economic, social, and power relationships in Boise. Viewing the neighborhood as a landscape allows investigations of the “dynamic, interdependent relationships that people maintain with the physical, social, and cultural dimensions of their environments across space and over time” (Anschuetz et al. 2001:159). Landscape theory also aids archaeological interpretations for places like the River Street Neighborhood (Anschuetz et al. 2001; Zedeño and Anderson 2010;

Zedeño 1997). As a landscape, the neighborhood has a history that can be read like a text. Its story is the tale of how a geographic space became an important material and abstract place for both its residents and the rest of the citizens of Boise.

The Creation of Archaeological Landscapes

Landscapes are created by human beings. While the physical attributes of landscapes, topography, plants, animals, and to a certain extent, people, exist independently from the human mind, these physiological and biological features are organized based on human perspectives deeply rooted in society and culture. The societies in which we live help us make sense of the world. The creation of landscapes is one way we organize and interpret the three-dimensional world we inhabit and this interpretation is colored by the lens of our cultural heritage.

For decades, archaeologists have been aware of the role culture plays in landscape creation and maintenance. As human creations, landscapes are filtered through the lens of culture

(Longstreth 2008:1; Nassauer 1995; Stewart et al. 2004:202). This filtering process has many

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape layers, but for archaeological considerations, landscapes are spaces, places, and texts. These three types of categories overlap when encountered in everyday parlance, which means they are difficult to articulate unless it is done through nuanced investigation rooted in cultural mores. All three are intrinsically linked to the ways human beings move throughout the three-dimensional geographies we inhabit.

Geographer Carl Sauer (1925) is credited with formulating the first formal definition of landscape in geography and, from its conception, landscapes were stated to be culture-specific creations of human beings. It was understood that landscapes were distilled from the natural environment and interpreted through a cultural lens. As creations, landscapes had a use life that could change along with its parent culture, which meant landscapes were a form of cultural palimpsest where new cultural interpretations could be superimposed upon previous ones

(Anschuetz et al. 2001). Additionally, different landscapes can exist at the same time because of the way the subject-object dialectic is governed through a cultural lens. The creation, cultivation, and maintenance of landscapes is entangled with aspects of space, place, and interpretation. These concepts are discussed below.

Landscapes as Space

Human beings inhabit a three-dimensional space that exists separately from ourselves.

Without people, the universe would continue to exist; however, humans would not be there to observe and interpret it. Three-dimensional space has an abstract and transcendent quality that lends itself to theoretical evaluation through fields like theology, mathematics, and physics. It also has a concrete quality that can be observed and evaluated on an everyday basis by all living organisms including human beings. Our bodies have mass and occupy space, which is the principal dimension of our material existence (Lefebvre 1991:170). The concrete quality of space has been

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape central to the field of archaeology because archaeologists attempt to interpret material remains of the past, an emphasis that centers upon the three-dimensional aspect of tangible objects.

Late twentieth-century archaeology has been a story of how archaeologists can use objects and observations originating in concrete space to address concepts that exist in abstract space.

American processual archaeology coalesced in the 1960s from a paradigm that stressed scientific positivism and generalizable theories. This tradition built upon the historical particularism pioneered by Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber, and Clark Wissler, the idea that material culture was an extension of human culture and could be used to examine past behavior throughout space and time

(Hegmon 2003; Hodder and Hutson 1991; Raab and Goodyear 1984). Processual archaeology’s central mode of analysis centers on human interactions within this concrete space because the recovery of artifacts, observation of soil characteristics, building inventories, and interpretation of archival documents are all activities that occur in concrete space with concrete objects and are undertaken by material organisms. By the 1980s, archaeologists influenced by of European theorists addressing aspects of human activities in abstract space like Jean Baudrillard (1981),

Michael Foucault (1980), Anthony Giddens (1979), and Daniel Miller (1987) influenced a new school of archaeological practice: postprocessualism. Postprocessual archaeology emphasized the situational nature of archaeological interpretations and acknowledged that there were multiple ways of knowing the past (Hegmon 2003; Wylie 2002). This school of archaeology built upon the qualitative work of processualists while acknowledging the presence and reality of abstract space.

Postprocessualism was an attempt to connect human activities in both concrete and abstract space to craft a more complete understanding of human pasts.

Scholars understand human conceptualization of space as an outgrowth of a rational mind that seeks to distinguish between material objects of the self and those outside our material bodies.

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

The structure of our brains lends us to become calculating, visual, and symbolic beings. Our perception allows us to segment elements of the natural environment, both man-made and organic, into categories that help us rationalize our actions on the Earth. Interpretation of space requires an understanding of ethnocentric knowledge; thus, making sense of the material world is rooted in the same traits that help us navigate the world of our creation (Tuan 1974:14–15) Spaces are transformed into places based upon the values superimposed upon them by local cultures and those that seek to understand cultural geographies. The resulting product has a syntax and symbolism of its own that can be read, interpreted, and understood by those with the proper cultural knowledge

(Smith 2011).

Landscapes as Place

While human beings inhabit a three dimensional, concrete space of material objects, we also formulate social spaces that are derived from the abstract space residing within the mind as well as from everyday practice. Culture manifestly exists and the activities that perpetuate it occur in spaces that exist both outside and inside the mind. Culture takes place in three-dimensional space. That space is identified as somewhere—a place (Casey 1996:33). Place-making is used to embody spaces with the identity necessary to perpetuate everyday activities called habitus by

Bourdieu (1977). Habitus activities include those that keep a human being alive, but are also meaningful, culturally specific activities that enculturate individuals into a given society. Local knowledge, including understandings of places, includes knowledge that helps people know how to move within a community (Casey 1996:34–35). Local knowledge involves an understanding of

“what is generally true in the locally obvious; it concerns what is true about place in general as manifested in this place” (emphasis in original) (Casey 1996:45).

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

The foundation of social places is nature, which includes all elements of the observable universe. Place is manufactured from our orientation, observation, and understanding of materials in concrete space. Places are social spaces that include both cultural elements like religion, government, kinship, and commerce, but also elements of the natural and social environment like renewable and nonrenewable resources, topographic features, roads, markets, plazas, parks, and undeveloped areas or wilderness. These created spaces are all part of tangled networks that enable social interaction. Lefebvre explains (1991:402–403) humans create, “…successive stratified and tangled networks which, though always in material form, nevertheless have an existence beyond their own materiality…” Each of these spaces is produced, serves a purpose, has meaning, and is consumed by societies (Lefebvre 1991:403; also entanglement as discussed in Hodder [2012] and perceptions of the environment by [Ingold 2000]). The process of conceiving, manifesting, and delineating social spaces forces us to imbue these creations with an identity. This is the heart of making places out of spaces.

These are the places where the activities of everyday life are conducted. According to Clack

(2009:116), human existence is experienced in spaces and these spaces are rendered meaningful through personal experience. Transforming space into place is also embedded in cultural ontologies that help us relate to the land. Landscapes are places that have been interpreted through cultural lenses to orient ourselves as individuals within our world, position individuals within the wider culture, and connect cultures to the land (Clack 2009:116; Hood 2009:124). Landscapes are given names that help explain and define their role in local culture (Basso 1996; Stewart et al.

2004). To the various cultural groups residing in River Street, this location was a source of cultural and emotional support. River Street was a multi-racial community where families were made and sustained in relative freedom from the discrimination faced outside the neighborhood. It was also

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape a place where social relations were inscribed on the land in such a manner that persons of power, specifically European Americans outside the neighborhood, could craft landscapes that better suit their needs (Hood 2009).

As spaces where everyday life is conducted, places and landscapes are part of human practice. Introduced by Bourdieu (1977), practice theory suggests people enact, embody, represent, and interpret traditions in such a way that these traditions are continually altered. Everyday practice does not always intend to alter traditions but, nevertheless, traditions change over time because they are never practiced in the exact same manner. Simultaneously, some traditional behaviors are intentionally altered for as part of the continuing battle for power between social groups. This philosophical and teleological battle, in conjunction with unconscious and imperfect execution of traditional behaviors, are major forces in the way people understand, interpret, embody, and practice life in landscapes (Pauketat 2001). Daily practices are also part of historical processes in that they are conducted as a continuation of events that have come before and contribute to activities yet to come. Understanding the way cultural knowledge becomes enmeshed with historical events requires archaeologists to acknowledge that cultural practices are generative; they are not simply the result of processes but, rather, are the processes (Pauketat 2001:74; Sassaman

2005; Smith 2011). The practice of crafting places like the River Street Neighborhood involves continual negotiations of meaning that were conducted consciously and unconsciously. The history of this process is written in the built environment as well as archival documents and oral histories that chronicle historical life in the neighborhood.

Places are also where the struggle between groups for resources, money, labor, and power– take place. This struggle occurs not only in three-dimensional space but also in abstract space; intangible places that are also social and cultural constructs. The geographic landscapes and

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape networks created through capitalism depend on constructs like gender, class, race, age, and markets as much as they do on natural resources (Harvey 1996; Tilley 2006). Capitalism depends on the dynamics between these cultural constructs, exploitation of natural resources, and movement of capital. As sentient actors, people are aware of this constantly moving interplay, but they are also aware of their rootedness in three-dimensional places (Harvey1996:295–299). To a certain extent, people are also aware of the fact that engaging in the capitalist world involves engaging with “the mediating power of money” (Harvey 1996:319). People in capitalist societies are mindful of the places in which they live. As capital, which is a key tool for daily survival, moves from place to place seeking to capitalize on opportunities that are not equally distributed, people migrate in search of the advantages that come along with being close to sources of capital. This movement affects culturally created places. Demographic changes are accompanied by changes in the understanding of culturally derived places (Harvey 1996). This movement and migration is a source of placemaking as new residents lay new meaning on existing places. Capitalism plays a role because, in its never-ending quest for opportunity, capital moves human populations around the world.

Cultural landscapes are also places that exist in the mind and memory. Previous cultural meanings may be replaced or changed, but an echo of past meanings remain in the mind of descendant communities and archival documents. These memories color what is known about a geographic space. Places like the River Street Neighborhood are established and maintained through a meshwork of culture, emotion, identity, knowledge, and memory writ in three- dimensional space (Clack 2009). Michael Kenney (1999:420–421) notes: “Memory is a major theme in contemporary life, a key to personal, social, and cultural identity. Philosophers have long

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape regarded continuity of memory as an essential quality of personhood.” The author continues to explain the anthropological interest in memory and how it manifests in the natural world:

“All experience is individual in that collectivities do not have minds, or memories

either, though we often speak as if they did. Yet it is also true that individuals are

nothing without the prior existence of the collectivities that sustain them, the

cultural traditions and the communicative practices that position the self in relation

to the social and natural worlds” (Kenny 1999:421).

Building upon this interpretation of memory, it can be posited that memories are also used to interpret and create cultural landscapes that reside both in individual and social memory (Mills and Walker 2008). It is a means of contextualizing memory and connecting cultural narratives to the land.

The River Street Neighborhood was an ethnic landscape that fortified geographic segregation through its designation as an ethnically non-white urban setting. Anschuetz et al.

(2001:179) state: “Ethnic landscapes are spatial and temporal constructs defined by communities whose members create and manipulate material culture and symbols to signify ethnic or cultural boundaries based on customs and shared modes of thought and expression.” Segregation in twentieth century America depended on dividing up the urban landscape into ethnic and racial enclaves because it created places that existed in opposition to whiteness. Geographic domains for white and non-white were created through ethnic landscapes. Ethnic landscapes aided the social benefits bestowed upon whites, but the battle for white supremacy was always being waged because many persons of European descent were not considered white. This was particularly true for European immigrants and poor whites (Hartigan 2005; Roediger 2005). Larsen explains

(2003:120):

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

“There are clearly two established sides to the conflict: those who are among those

who belong and those designated as the "other." It is a system rife with inequity. Its

goal was to maintain a special status for whiteness, and yet it never reached

resolution. The status quo was always under threat, and segregation was always an

unfinished product.”

In the case of River Street, European Americans in Boise inscribed their superiority on the landscape. This neighborhood was essential for the aggregation of white racial identity because of the important role it played in delineating the social niche of ‘other’. This ‘other’ identity was conferred on anyone living in River Street, regardless of race, and was the basis against which white society contrasted itself. The boundaries of the River Street Neighborhood were uncontested, long-lived, and known by all Boiseans. These boundaries remained constant throughout time, which allowed the place’s identity as ‘the black neighborhood’ to coalesce while marking the rest of town as part of the European American ideological domain.

Landscapes as Texts

For those with the proper cultural knowledge, landscapes can be read and interpreted like texts. Although the concept of landscape originated among geographers, meaningful interpretation of landscapes has drawn heavily on anthropology. Clifford Geertz (1973) is commonly cited as the first to discuss how human actors interpret meaningful symbols and codes on the landscape.

Deciphering these codes is akin to reading them like texts, an activity social scientists and geographers use to study landscapes as symbols of social, ideological and cultural change

(Morehouse 1990:28). Geographers, landscape architects, and environmental designers have come to consider landscapes not as a single construct but as a multiplicity of texts coexisting at the same time in a particular location. They note that material elements of landscapes may remain

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape unchanged for long periods of time but the interpretation of these places can undergo dramatic change. Landscape archaeologists follow upon this tradition of reading landscapes as texts in an attempt to interpret observations made about the spatial and temporal variability of material traces

(Anschuetz et al. 2001:165).

The phenomenon of interpreting landscapes as texts has been documented by archaeologists; most of this work has been conducted among Native peoples. For example, among the Harvaqtuurmiut, an Inuit people from northern Canada, the landscape is known in culturally familiar ways and is largely understood as a “picture” or “text.” Elements on the landscape like caches, dwellings, and caribou bone refuse contain meaning for native people. These meanings also chronicle events, much like texts, and are considered recollections of people, events, and their way of life (Stewart 2004:190–191). Ethnographers among Native Americans have also noted the way spoken language, when documented, results in the creation of texts that not only provide insight into the meaning of geographic places but also document how place is understood through a cultural lens. Work done by Keith Basso among the Western Apache is among the best-known documentation of landscape and its relationship to language in anthropological literature. Basso describes how sense of place is conveyed through the Apache spoken language, a phenomenon that interanimates physical landscapes into something meaningful, significant, and valuable. Part of an ethnographer’s job is to translate this cultural meaning into academic prose; transforming cultural knowledge into a different type of text meant for a different audience (Basso 1996:55–

57). Both culturally specific and foreign minds are invited to investigate sense of place through this qualitative work.

The symbolism of landscapes is also interpreted by urban folk using the same faculties and motivations as those of Native people. Urban architecture, especially monuments, are designed to

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape send a message to individuals familiar with the cultures for which they are constructed. In urban landscapes, collections of monuments can be used to produce a desired image for a city. A message is conveyed that can only be read by individuals familiar with the means of communication. When mixed with vernacular styles and inscribed geographic networks like roads, districts, counties, and political divisions, urban architecture becomes a text that can be used to guide individuals across the landscape, shape their activities, and convey messages to other citizens. In the city, the places where a person dwells is keenly associated with architectural elements of that place (Tuan 1974).

Being able to read these signs was essential to the creation and maintenance of the River Street

Neighborhood for Boiseans.

Reading Boise’s Landscape: River Street and “the Others”

By the 1910s, the River Street Neighborhood was viewed as a separate entity from the

European American sphere of greater Boise City. It was geographically separated from the rest of the town by the Oregon Short Line’s spur track into the city on the north and the Boise River on the south. Industrial warehouses and a power plant flanked the western and eastern edges of the neighborhood. Geographically isolated and on undesirable property, the residents of this neighborhood could see that they were visibly separated from the rest of town. These dwellings were conveniently located next to downtown Boise, the commercial hub of the community, but its vicinity to industry and the flood-prone floodplain deterred most European Americans that could afford to live elsewhere. European immigrants at this time, most specifically the Basque, did not yet express the cultural attributes necessary to claim whiteness. By the 1940s, African American

Boiseans were forced by structural racism to make their homes there, which further increased the undesirability of this district for “upstanding” European Americans. While the Basque and Eastern

Europeans residents could become white by leaving the neighborhood, giving up their language,

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape beliefs, and traditional ways, African Americans did not have this luxury. Poor whites were relegated to this area because of their lack of financial resources; however, their white status could also be improved by leaving the neighborhood.

River Street was a known place for Boiseans. As a geographical space, the neighborhood was separated from the landscape intended to embody whiteness, both materially and abstractly.

This geographic separation was important for the formation of whiteness because it was a separate landscape that embodied the opposite of whiteness. As a material and abstract place, the neighborhood’s identity was inscribed on the physical and social landscape of Boise, Idaho. Its buildings came to represent poverty, misfortune, and “otherness.” Its inhabitants were living representatives of these characteristics. Oral histories with the descendant community contradict the negative conception of this place, but, aside from European Americans that lived in the neighborhood, River Street was viewed negatively. This image as a negative place—a ghetto—is one of the motivating factors behind the movement to eliminate it from the landscape through development.

Beginning in the 1950s, the urban renewal movement gripped urban areas of the United

States. Boise was no different. European American developers, politicians, and citizens attempted to eliminate stigmatized places like River Street from the landscape by demolishing its buildings and replacing them with new construction that aligned with their image of what the city should be.

Urban renewal was part of an effort to remove stigmatized places from American cities and spaces like the River Street Neighborhood were regularly targeted. The story of how River Street escaped urban renewal in the 1970s and the redevelopment projects took place in the neighborhood during the 1980s are a testament to the European American community’s resolve to rewrite the meaning of an urban landscape and the ability of minorities to resist. While neighborhood residents could

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape save their homes in the 1970s, the continued pressure to rewrite this place has destroyed its historical integrity, making historic preservation difficult.

River Street and Urban Renewal

City governments across the United States found reasons to embrace “urban renewal” during the mid-twentieth century. The roots of urban renewal can be found in the Housing Act of

1949, which provided an unprecedented public funds commitment to the physical and economic restructuring of American cities. During the 1950s and 1960s, as much as $10 billion in tax dollars were used to fund over 2,100 renewal projects. Renewal focused on “blighted” neighborhoods that, oftentimes, were occupied by non-European Americans—especially African Americans. The huge swaths of the urban landscape that were demolished to make way for new urban construction quickly caused a public uproar. Boise, Idaho was no different than hundreds of other towns in their zeal for removing blight with a wrecking ball. Renewal in Boise also focused on the town’s only

African American neighborhood (Demo 2006). By the 1970s, African Americans and preservation-minded, middle-class Americans had joined forces to stop the demolition (Reichl

1997).

Urban renewal was as much about reconfiguring urban spaces as much as it was reconfiguring the urban social fabric. Urban Renewal severely damaged black neighborhoods across the country and many of these were permanently destroyed, as was the case in Boise. Other researchers have covered the effects of renewal (Fullilove 2009) and gentrification (Hyra 2008) on black neighborhoods in other parts of the country. The 1960s African American uprising against discrimination that was called the Civil Rights Movement had its roots in urban African American population centers. Designed and executed by governments that were overwhelmingly European

American, urban renewal focused on poor non-White neighborhoods and prioritized the creation

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape of a highway system that allowed an escape from urban life while simultaneously destroying the fabric of non-White neighborhoods (Cashin 2008:57). This was certainly the case in Boise.

Boise boomed economically for the first half of the twentieth century and the River Street

Neighborhood benefitted in some ways. Jobs were plentiful, especially during World War II, and

River Street residents prospered through steady income. Following the war, growth in Boise slowed during the 1950s and 1960s but remained steady. In 1940, almost 40,000 people lived in

Boise. The population increased to 50,000 by 1950 and reached 70,000 in 1960 The city limits expanded slowly in 1930, 1940, and 1950 and stayed stable in the 1960s even though the population grew (Wells and Hart 2000:115). City boundary expansion planning in 1962 was undertaken to make Boise qualify as a metropolitan area and this planning was accompanied by new zoning in the downtown area that allowed for the construction of high-rise buildings. The

Chamber of Commerce lead a campaign to bring new business to the downtown district (Wells and Hart 2000:19–20). These new zones were designed to deal with the derelict warehouses and factories that had been abandoned when Interstate 84 was completed parallel to the Oregon Short

Line mainline, then operated by the Union Pacific Railroad, which moved the bulk of transportation miles away from the downtown district. The interstate was soon flanked with warehouses designed to facilitate semi-truck freighting. Downtown Boise’s empty warehouses were viewed as blight by urban administrators (Demo 2006; Wells and Hart 2000).

Several different ideas were proposed in the 1960s and 1970s to bring commerce back to the downtown district. Studies conducted in 1962 and 1963 explored the potential for industrial and commercial expansion in the greater metropolitan area. It was determined that increasing industrial capacity could bring another 30,000 residents to Boise (Wells and Hart 2000:120). A professional public works administration that served a new state Permanent Building Fund

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

Advisory Council planned for the development of an eight-block Capitol Mall office complex to be constructed over several decades (Wells and Hart 2000:120). In 1964, civic leaders decided rehabilitating the downtown business district would create an environment that would benefit existing businesses while also attracting new commerce. Eliminating blighted buildings through urban renewal was also proposed to open new parcels to redevelopment. On August 23, 1964, the

Boise Redevelopment Agency (BRA) was created to administer urban renewal in the downtown district. Initially a volunteer corps, the BRA received a federal planning grant in 1966 to support their efforts. The first urban renewal proposal was accepted by the Boise City Council on

December 30, 1968 (Wells and Hart 2000:120–121).

Renewal was administered by the BRA but development corporations were tasked with attracting construction proposals with the private companies that would construct new buildings in downtown Boise. The firm Urban Properties, Inc. initially supervised development until 1969 when Boise Cascade replaced them in 1970. Several corporate offices relocated to downtown

Boise including H.J. Heinz, Boise Cascade, and Simplot, Inc.; each of these companies built new high-rise buildings in the downtown area. In addition to these new corporate offices, the BRA and

Boise Cascade were supposed to introduce a downtown regional shopping mall and conference center to match the rapid growth and increase downtown vitality (Wells and Hart 2000:121).

Wrecking balls started to make way for the planned shopping mall and conference center during the early 1970s. By 1978, dozens of early Boise buildings had been destroyed but the mall and convention center had yet to be built. Mall developer Winmar Company, Inc. and architect Charles

Kober Associates made an agreement with the BRA to build a large mall encompassing eight city blocks in downtown Boise, but, by 1979, the original plan had been scaled down (Idaho Statesman

1979a). Despite the potential traffic problems, redevelopment had many proponents among the

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape citizenry. Demolished buildings had created many bare lots awaiting new occupants. The potential for growth exited many. It was believed that a new shopping mall could lure other tenants to the downtown district (Idaho Statesman 1979b).

Boise’s growth during the 1970s was fueled by suburban expansion across open steppe and former farmland away from the city center, a reality that complicated the urban renewal process because there was no central freeway connecting residents in the new suburbs to the redevelopment district. The construction of a freeway connecting downtown to Interstate 84, which had been built in the 1960s and was far from the downtown core, had been long anticipated by 1979 (Idaho

Statesman 1979a, 1979b). Additionally, older houses in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown

Boise were in disrepair, including many in River Street that were owned by absentee landlords who had let their properties decline. Former residents recall crime slipped into the neighborhood at this time, especially after the 1970s (Madry 2014; Terrell, III 2014). It was proposed in the

1970s that the Oregon Short Line spur track be removed and a freeway built within this alignment to facilitate automobile traffic into downtown. Other projects were also proposed to deal with blighted urban spaces in the redevelopment area.

The combination of historical stigmatization, crime, buildings in disrepair, and an active redevelopment agency led to the addition of the River Street Neighborhood within the original boundaries of the urban renewal district in 1968. A preliminary survey noted that several residential structures had deteriorated beyond practical repair. These buildings were considered blighted (Zarkin 1968) Neighborhood residents were quick to note that the entire neighborhood was not blighted. A number of well-maintained dwellings could be found in River Street and residents stressed their pride of ownership. County records indicated about 30 percent of the neighborhood was owner-occupied dwellings, while the remainder were owned by absentee

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape landlords (Bertram and Walsh 1973; Zarkin 1968). The northern margin of the neighborhood had been zoned for industrial development in the early twentieth century, which made it unattractive to residential construction. This part of Boise had been lacking in infrastructure investments for decades. Only half of the streets had curbs, the pavement was in disrepair, and several streets remained unpaved gravel roads (Zarkin 1968).

A redevelopment plan for the River Street Neighborhood was proposed in October, 1971.

Local government officials met with Seattle representatives of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) and River Street residents to discuss how to deal with the neighborhood. By this time, residents had formed a tenants’ union and were already confronting city officials about the planned treatment of their homes (Cameron 1971). It was concluded that the previous plan to demolish housing in River Street would be less productive than rehabilitating owner-occupied homes and selectively destroying decayed buildings. Officials from the HUD remarked that “forcing people from their homes” after the city had invested $50 million dollars in improving the downtown core did not make economic sense as the additional commercial parcels would be in direct competition with those that had just been created (Cameron 1971). Maintaining

River Street as a residential space became a priority, but development plans still included additions that would alter the neighborhood’s character. One study proposed building higher density, multi- family residential buildings south of River Street proper along the river bank while rehabilitating detached, single family homes north of the street. The proposed apartment complexes were designed to blend in with riparian growth along the river while providing additional housing units

(McCarter 1975). Officials concluded that the neighborhood would be allowed to remain but changes would be made and “blight” would still be removed.

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

Boise City officials remained unconvinced that the neighborhood could be rehabilitated, but River Street sponsored their own neighborhood survey to propose a different development plan. Published in 1973, the River Street Neighborhood Plan made several recommendations:

• The neighborhood should remain residential and industrial use discouraged;

• Landscaping and infrastructure should be improved;

• A pedestrian Greenbelt park be constructed along the banks of the Boise River at southern

edge of the neighborhood; Pioneer Park should be expanded and improved;

• Commercial development should take place along arterial roads at the edges of the

neighborhood, and;

• The planned freeway connector should pass along the northern edge of the neighborhood

(Bertram and Walsh 1973:2–3).

This plan also recommended rehabilitation and repurposing nearby abandoned railroad warehouses into multi-use commercial properties, which would provide jobs for nearby residents

(Bertram and Walsh 1973:2–3). The author of this report noted that, although the neighborhood was mainly occupied by European Americans, it had negatively been viewed because of its African

American population and this had contributed to its neglect by the city (Bertram and Walsh

1973:5). Acknowledging River Street’s history as a residential place and its excellent location in the city, the River Street Neighborhood Plan said: “…the River Street project area is a scarce and unique commodity to the city of Boise and it should be conserved, primarily as inner-city residential land. Consideration should also be given to the area for special purpose potentials that would serve the central city” (Bertram and Walsh 1973:14). In addition to sponsoring development studies, neighborhood residents secured HUD community block grants to pay for home improvements for owner-occupied dwellings. Several homes were repaired through this program.

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

Finally, River Street residents enticed the city to build a greenbelt park along the Boise River by volunteering to remove garbage and debris from the riverbank and improving existing pedestrian trails along the north bank (Bertram 2014).

The River Street Neighborhood was not destroyed by urban renewal in the 1970s, but the architectural landscape was dramatically altered during the 1980s and 1990s. Several commercial towers were constructed in downtown Boise outside the neighborhood during the 1980s along with a regional conference center. A new arterial freeway was built in the same location as the Oregon

Short Line alignment during the 1990s, providing a traffic outlet between Interstate 84 and the downtown core. The Greenbelt park system was built adjacent to the River Street Neighborhood during the 1970s and commercial properties were developed at the margins of the neighborhood, including on the floodplain south of River Street proper. These developments made multi-family dwellings a more profitable venture in the neighborhood. River Street could become an urban enclave for Boiseans working downtown. Dwellings previously classified as “blight” were slowly demolished and multi-family residential buildings took their place (Bertram 2014).

The BRA met its demise because of two main factors: the fact that it oversaw the demolition of dozens of potentially historic properties and its inability to attract a regional shopping mall. In 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act called for the identification of historic properties for any project with a federal nexus. This meant the BRA was supposed to identify any historic properties in its redevelopment area because its HUD funding; furthermore, the BRA was supposed to mitigate any adverse effects caused by its projects. Preservationists in the City of Boise were keenly aware that, to that point, the BRA had not properly identified historic properties or mitigated effects for most of the demolitions. After years of proscribed demolitions, the BRA was told to make more of an effort to preserve older buildings by local architects and

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape federal historic preservation administrators. A study conducted by architects indicated it would be more cost effective to rehabilitate many of the structures slated for removal, which suggested renewal was economically inefficient (Ripley 1978). By 1979, a citizen-based preservation coalition petitioned the HUD to withdraw $13.5 million in federal funding because of the lack of interest in historic preservation the BRA and the Winmar Company had demonstrated in its renewal efforts. Federal preservation officials chastised both organizations for demolishing potentially historic properties that did not fit into their development plans (Grote 1979).

The new push for preservation curtailed demolitions in downtown Boise and boosted efforts to conserve or rehabilitate older buildings in the redevelopment district. The new emphasis on preservation prevented the Winmar Company from executing its grand scheme in the downtown district. Unable to provide the immense real estate required for a large shopping mall, Winmar ended its relationship with the BRA in the 1980s. Enmity between preservationists and the BRA, along with its inability to make good on its primary development goal, the construction of a shopping mall, made the BRA an unpopular entity in the City of Boise. It was disbanded in 1989 in an attempt to dispel the vitriol Boiseans had regarding the organization. Not to be deterred, city officials, developers, and planners replaced the BRA with the Capital City Development

Corporation (CCDC) that same year. The CCDC administers development in central Boise today

(Wells and Hart 2000:154).

Reading River Street’s Landscape

Built on the Boise Riverbank, the River Street Neighborhood occupies a geographic space that has been transformed into a significant place by social groups in Boise that all had different agendas. From its conception, the neighborhood has been a space where buildings could be constructed. It was pieced together in the 1890s through several subdivisions and additions. These

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape parcels were subdivided even further to make a space where residential dwellings could be constructed. The act of carving this geographic space into parcels transformed it from rural farmland into urban space. Additional layers of meaning were transposed on this space because of its new urbanness.

As an urban space, the geography that would become a neighborhood became a new place.

What had previously been orchards and agricultural fields that supplied mining camps in the Boise

Foothills now became a neighborhood, a district, and a home. Those that called it home understood that this was where their everyday habitus was practiced; the backdrop against which they raised children, grew gardens, and grew old. These activities were imbued with meaning and the internalized interpretation of this place by residents is one way they made sense of their place in

Boise. For residents, it was the everyday activities conducted in this space that differentiated “the

South Side of the Tracks” from the rest of town. The neighborhood became an anchor, a refuge.

River Street was a material place of homes, streets, fences, trees, and gardens but, on a more abstract level, the neighborhood was an escape, safety, and a source of identity.

The River Street Neighborhood was also an investment, especially to those that did not live there. As a place for investment and economic growth, the neighborhood was viewed more like a resource. It was space where material wealth could grow, aggrandizing the power, wealth and status of those with the capital to spare. Owner-occupied dwellings in River Street were both an investment and a home; whereas, to absentee landlords, properties in the neighborhood were part of a portfolio that could be bought and sold for personal gain. While residents saw a homeplace, investors and development advocates saw a chance to eliminate another source of “blight.” City officials with the Boise Redevelopment Administration and their allies wanted to change the neighborhood from a place for the others into a beacon of economic investment. Initially, their

100

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape tactics centered around physically destroying the material manifestation of the neighborhood while understanding this was likely to change the place’s demographics. City officials only changed their approach after residents banded together to secure funding to rehabilitate several houses and conduct their own independent study that showed the economic benefit derived from keeping this a residential place. This collective action prevented the wholesale destruction of the neighborhood’s architecture, but investment-minded officials and developers did not give up on their efforts to transform the neighborhood into a different kind of place–a place where investment profits could increase. Since the 1970s, multi-family dwellings have replaced many of the

“blighted” single-family homes. The architectural fabric from the earliest period of River Street has been compromised.

For an informed viewer, the history of River Street can be read in its architectural fabric.

The few remaining single-family homes built in the early twentieth century are a beacon of times when this place was a close-knit community at the heart of a subculture forged from discrimination.

The wide lanes of the spur freeway Interstate-184 that mirrors the Oregon Short Line tracks represents the latest transportation form that brings commerce, customers, and a few residents to downtown Boise. Manicured and loved by today’s Boiseans, the Greenbelt is a 25-mile long tree- lined pedestrian pathway administered by the Boise City Department of Parks and Recreation that traverses the entire width of the City of Boise. It is considered “a major asset that makes the City of Boise the most livable city in the country” and features a 10-mile long historical scavenger hunt that commemorates 14 historical locations along the path. The path begins at milepost S 0.0, the site of McClellan’s Ferry. George McClellan was the original homesteader of the land that would be platted into the River Street Neighborhood, so this location is part of the neighborhood’s origins.

While McClellan’s contribution is important, there is no mention of the volunteerism of African

101

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape

American and European American neighborhood residents that cleaned up the river in this region, which did much to encourage the city to build the Greenbelt (City of Boise, Idaho 2017).

Vibrant commercial development on all sides of the River Street Neighborhood resulted both from redevelopment schemes and historic preservation. Outside the neighborhood, historic properties in the Boise Historic District were added to the National Register of Historic Places in

1977 (Hart 1977). Today, it houses many popular restaurants, cafes, and bars. The historic Basque

Block in downtown Boise commemorate Basque heritage and history in the city. Drawing upon the Basque concept of Auzolan, Basque descendants have taken it upon themselves to build businesses in their historic district as well as the rest of the city. Auzolan means “neighborhood work” in the Basque native language and is associated with group work dedicated to repairing and building infrastructure elements that benefit the entire community (The Basque Block 2017). The

Basque community in Boise has used this concept on heritage properties associated with their history in the city with great results. A number of Basque-related historic properties house Basque businesses and a museum that tells their story while also providing economic venues for the

Basque community. Both historical districts are considered unique amenities that contribute to the vibrancy of downtown Boise. They only exist because of advocacy that came in the wake of urban renewal.

African Americans in Boise have not yet begun their Auzolan campaign. There are no intact historic properties to commemorate their heritage. Development in the River Street Neighborhood has nearly removed all material trace of the African American, Basque, European immigrant, or working class European American heritage of that place. To the informed observer, River Street is a patchwork of different development projects with an echo of a pedestrian residential neighborhood and the potential for contributing archaeological remains of its origins,

102

Chapter 3: River Street as an Archaeological Landscape development, and identity(ies). To the uninformed observer, it is a place without history that has made no contributions and is simply awaiting further development. The River Street Archaeology project was designed to position Boise’s African Americans within the wider field of historical archaeology, as explained in Chapter 4, and to commemorate their history in the city.

103

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

Most African American archaeology has been conducted in the eastern portion of the

United States. In the southeast, archaeologists have focused on the effects of slavery on African diasporic peoples. In the northeast and, to a lesser extent the Midwest, African American archaeology has emphasized the marginality of black communities (Matthews and McGovern

2016; Singleton 1985, 1999). Many of the African Americans in the East and Midwest were never enslaved by chains, but legal, social, and cultural racism has prevented them from full participation in society. Very little African American archaeology has been conducted west of the Mississippi

River. Black populations were much smaller in the West and it is difficult to detect African

Americanness solely based on archaeological remains. Oral histories and archival documents are important links in evaluating and investigating black sites in the United States; this is even more important in the West where the small black population oftentimes went unrecorded.

The bulk of American archaeology today is conducted under the context of historic preservation regulations–a legal construct developed in the 1960s when processual archaeology was popular (King 2012). In the decade following the first national preservation laws, African

American sites became a subject in historical archaeology. A split between American archaeologists who studied prehistory and historical archaeologists, who focused on the period after 1492, also occurred around that time with the formation of the Society for Historical

Archaeology in 1967. The schism between historical and prehistoric archaeology and the codification of processual archaeology in preservation law has strongly impacted African

American archaeology. African diaspora archaeology in the United States became synonymous with the study of literate cultures in the New World. To this day, African American archaeology has few connections with illiterate or semi-literate Native American groups or Arabic-speaking

104

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street historical African communities–peoples who both played major roles in the origins of African

America.

With its processual roots, historic preservation has not succeeded in protecting African

American historic properties or addressing relevant questions in African diaspora heritage studies because of the emphasis on quantifiable data associated with bounded “properties.” American archaeology over the last 30 years has become more aligned with postprocessual archaeology, which advocates a greater range of voice for peoples of the past. Recent African American archaeology reflects this movement towards investigations of the abstract aspects of black pasts.

As most archaeology in the United States is conducted under the rubrics of historic preservation, which is very structured and prescribed in its treatment of archaeological sites as properties that can be owned and managed, there is little room for addressing the intangible aspects of heritage that cannot be defined within a rubric and are difficult to preserve. Finally, the way historic properties are valued, recorded and preserved is rooted in a field that systemically privileges other site types over African American sites. In the American West, this has meant few African

American sites have been investigated or preserved when compared to prehistoric or European

American historical sites.

A History of African American Archaeology in the United States

Early African American archaeological literature is overtly processual, fixated upon identifying material culture patterns that could be connected to black people. The earliest works also make efforts to espouse the validity of text-aided archaeology as a supplement to archaeological data. Initially, African American archaeology focused on slave contexts for two reasons: 1) slave sites are unquestionably associated with African Americans, presumably making

105

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street it easier to identify patterns in black assemblages, and, 2) the material realities of slave life in the

United States were largely unknown. African American archaeology sought to fill this data gap.

Prior to the 1970s, references to “slave quarters” were ancillary to the study of plantations in the southeastern United States at that time, but they soon became the focus of archaeological investigations. Perhaps the first mention of slave quarters was made in James A. Ford’s 1934 work at Elizafield Plantation in South Carolina. In these excavations, slaves were considered an unfortunate component of plantation life but not a worthy focus of archaeological study. The artifacts collected from the slave quarters were mentioned as the residues of one planter’s solution to the labor problem that plagued the plantation system (Singleton 1985). In 1971, Asher and

Fairbanks published one of the earliest journal articles focused on an African American site in their excavation of a slave cabin on Cumberland Island, Georgia (Asher and Fairbanks 1971). Race was not a focal point of this work; however, it sought to connect archaeological data with the life of enslaved black people as described in slave narratives and other written sources. Charles

Fairbanks would become known as a pioneer in plantation archaeology through his 1968 work at

Kingsley Plantation in Florida and 1969 work at Rayfield Plantation in Georgia (Otto 1984;

Singleton 1985). Fairbanks used problem-oriented archaeology in accordance with processual archaeology but also as a means of dispelling the myths of the inferiority of African Americans

(Singleton 1985). Archaeology was used by Fairbanks to demonstrate agency and practice among enslaved by connecting them with historical documents and through rigorous archaeological analysis (Asher and Fairbanks 1971).

John Otto, one of Fairbanks’ graduate students who worked on the slave cabin excavations, would come to publish another canonical work in the early history of African American archaeology based on his 1974 excavations at Cannon’s Point Plantation in Georgia. The problem-

106

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street oriented approach to historical archaeology pioneered by Fairbanks was continued by Otto who sought to evaluate the economic difference between slave owners, white overseers, and enslaved

African Americans (Orser 2007; Otto 1984). Otto realized African American identity was inextricably linked to class and race. His work at Cannon’s Point sought to use material culture, particularly refined white-bodied earthenware vessels, as a basis for demonstrating class differentiations. Otto’s research design was dependent upon a tripartite race-based social system with an unstated Marxist tinge where white plantation owners sat at the top of the social pyramid above landless white laborers. It is known that both of these groups were above African Americans in this social hierarchy, but Otto wanted to see if the racial benefits afforded white laborers translated into higher economic status.

At the same time, Otto was attempting to identify an archaeological signature for African

American slaves. In the end, Otto concluded that both white overseers and black slaves lived similar lifestyles based on archaeological evidence but there was evidence suggesting white overseers enjoyed some benefits, particularly in the form of housing. Furthermore, he was unable to identify a discrete African American identity that could be easily differentiated from European

Americans of the same class (Otto 1980, 1984). This work foreshadowed the difficulties of separating class from race that continue to plague African American archaeology.

The 1980s were a formative period in African American archaeology. The subfield produced a number of influential publications that would help position African American history within the field of archaeology. The edited volumes Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in

America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History (1980) and The Archaeology of

Slavery and Plantation Life (1985) were landmark publications that typified African American archaeology at that time. These texts were among the first collections of African American

107

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street archaeology to summarize what was known to that date. Archaeology was doing its best to scientifically document the uniqueness of African American life though material culture. These books also exemplify the philosophical wrangling among the archaeological community with regard to archaeologically addressing race. Separating race, ethnicity, class, and power in African

American pasts remains a quandary in the subfield.

The quest to identify truly African American cultural traits in the archaeological record–

Africanisms–would continue in the 1980s and 1990s, despite the initial failures archaeologists had in differentiating race from class. Archaeology of the 1980s drew upon the desire to define an archaeological signature that could be specifically attributed to black people. The search for

Africanisms on plantations in the southeastern United States in the 1980s is most clearly seen through the colonoware debate (Brandon 2009).

While archaeologists had noticed that slave assemblages included a diagnostic form of low- fired earthenwares, these ceramics were originally attributed to enterprising local Native

Americans who were supplying cheap vessels to slave owners. In 1979, Historical Archaeology published its first article on African Americans that focused on the colonoware enigma. The article concluded that the colonoware on Limerick Plantation, South Carolina was a development by both

African and Native Americans who were working to fill local demand (Lees and Kimery-Lees

1979). Other archaeologists also discussed colonoware’s origins with inconclusive results. Leland

Ferguson was among many who were unsure of to whom it could be attributed, though he recognized it had African characteristics with decorative styles not seen in the Old World

(Ferguson 1980). He would later affirm colonoware was an American ware type with African antecedents (1992). At Spiers Landing, Leslie Drucker (1981) was unsure that slaves had made colonoware independently, despite the fact that 40 percent of the ceramic assemblage was this

108

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street type. Richard Vernon (1988) concluded that colonoware was produced by both Native and African

Americans depending upon local labor conditions because it was found in both slave and historical

Native American contexts. Archaeologists also noted that colonoware increasingly mimicked

European vessel forms while African design elements became rarer. This observation added to the confusion surrounding this ware type in the archaeological literature while also demonstrating the artistic license of enslaved African Americans.

Archaeologists of the 1980s were reluctant to credit slaves with creating their own ceramics, as seen in the fact that they were initially called Colono-Indian wares rather than colonoware. Frequently, colonoware was recognizably different than Native American ceramics in some parts of the south and Caribbean. Other times it was not. Most scholars at that time believed the slavery system in North America was so onerous that slaves did not have enough freedom to create their own ceramics. Even though Fairbanks and Otto had identified evidence of firearms in slave deposits, which suggested they were self-provisioning in other ways, archaeologists remained reluctant to give African American slaves enough agency to create a unique ceramic type that fulfilled needs while also demonstrating artistic freedom.

African American archaeology of the 1980s remained rooted in plantation life, but it also expanded to other contexts at this time. It moved further away from the search for Africanisms and archaeological patterns to embrace a wider interpretation of African American lifeways and behavior. This was partially in response to the popularity of postprocessual archaeology, a theoretical paradigm that emphasized the situational nature of archaeological interpretations and acknowledged that there were multiple ways of knowing the past (Hegmon 2003; Wylie 2002).

It was also a result from the expanded interest in African American sites within historical archaeology. Work at Black Lucy’s Garden (Baker 1980), Weeksville (Bridges and Salwen 1980),

109

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street and Parting Ways (Deetz 1977) brought African American archaeology out of the slave context, expanding the focus of archaeological inquiry to address other sites where blackness was lived. At the same time, African American plantation archaeology began addressing the creation of a uniquely ethnic identity rooted in both American and African culture. Archaeologists embraced the complexities of acculturation and race-based class formation processes, and how that could be seen in the archaeological record (Adams and Boling 1989; Jones 1985; Joseph 1989; Moore 1985;

Wheaton and Garrow 1985). Some archaeologists even recognized the shortcomings of the previous focus on identifying patterns above all else. Archaeologists also recognized that it was unlikely that a uniquely African American archaeological signature could be found, especially after the Civil War (Orser and Nekola 1985; Singleton 1985).

African American archaeology underwent a transformation during the 1990s in response to three forces: postprocessualism; a group of new, vocal African American archaeologists who brought new perspectives; and a movement that stressed archaeology as a tool for social action.

Freed from focusing purely on what could be measured, postprocessual archaeologists of the 1990s were empowered to investigate the intangible elements of the African American experience such as material culture consumption (Mullins 1999a, 1999b), ethnicity (Perry and Paynter 1999), and spirituality (Orser 1994; Russell 1997; Stine et al. 1996). Postprocessualism helped archaeologists address the level of agency black people had in the past. Scientific archaeology emphasized the search for regular patterns that could be used to investigate past behaviors, but this focus prevented archaeologists from addressing the ways black people were able to carve out a new identity that was separate from African and European culture. Terms like acculturation and creolization continued to be used in the 1990s but the real goal was investigating the ways African Americans

110

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street used material culture to convey messages to each other and express themselves as a unique subculture.

African American archaeological literature of the 1990s is marked by two influential pieces, Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650–1800 (Ferguson

1992) and “I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life (Singleton

1999). Leland Ferguson’s seminal work on early African America made the strongest connection between Africa and blacks in the United States. In addition to addressing the colonoware debate in archaeology, he demonstrated that this ceramic type, as well as other elements of African

American life such as housing, had clear connections to Africa (Ferguson 1992). I, Too, Am

America was an edited volume that tackled the major topics in African American archaeology. It represents a major step toward reflexivity among archaeologists of the African Diaspora. Several chapters discuss popular resistance against commemorating African American pasts (Deagan and

Landers 1999), evidence of anti-black racism in the past (Bastian 1999), and the multivalence of material culture (Perry and Paynter 1999) alongside the traditional topics of Africanisms (Ferguson

1999) and colonoware (Mouer et al. 1999).

The journal Historical Archaeology became the main platform for discussing current research in African American archaeology during the 1990s. A flurry of articles brought African

American archaeology in a completely new direction. This movement was spearheaded by a number of African American archaeologists including Michael Blakey (1997), Ywone Edwards-

Ingram (1997), Maria Franklin (1997), Cheryl LaRoche (1997), Theresa Singleton, Terry Wiek

(1997), and Laurie Wilkie (1996, 1997) who were joined by European American scholars who focused on African diaspora sites like Paul Mullins (1998, 1999a, b), Charles Orser (1992, 1994),

Paul Shackel (1995, 1998), and Mark Warner (1998). This new guard of African American

111

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street archaeologists made it clear that, although African Americans dwelled in racism, they were able to live meaningful lives by using material culture in unique ways. They eschewed the search for patterns and focused on site-specific narratives as a means of learning more about the racialization process, enculturation, and the struggle against discrimination.

The 1990s also saw the birth of a social justice movement that forced historical archaeologists to reflexively reevaluate their role in anti-racism and use archaeology as a tool for social justice. The African Burial Ground Project became a microcosm for the way archaeology had been previously practiced and how politically minded African Americans, including archaeologists of African descent, expected it to be practiced in the future. In 1991, a cultural resource management (CRM) project led to the discovery of an eighteenth century African cemetery in New York City. Interest grew among New York’s African American community as the archaeologists began to excavate over 400 bodies. The descendant community took action through protests of what they considered yet another racist desecration of black ancestors, which led to a collaboration between CRM archaeologists, the City of New York, and anthropologists and archaeologists at Howard University–a historically black university (LaRoche and Blakey,

1997). In 1993, the African Burial Ground was declared a National Historic Landmark.

Events like the African Burial Ground project forced historical archaeologists to reflexively about the way they had, or had not, been using archaeology to dispel anti-black racism.

Postprocessualism allowed archaeologists to paint a new picture of African Americans as creative, enterprising, resilient people, but this work had been done almost completely without collaboration with black communities. Archaeologists were asked to: think about how their work influences

Black America (Franklin 1997), allow black communities to seize intellectual power (LaRoche and Blakey 1997), disseminate knowledge to interested publics (Gibb 1997), and include black

112

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street communities in heritage conservation (McDavid 1997). A call was issued for archaeologists to use their discipline for social justice and to combat racism in the United States (Singleton 1999).

This call for social activism, increased collaboration, and reflexivity has been heeded during the twenty-first century. African American archaeology scholars of the 1990s were joined by other historical archaeologists including Anna Agbe-Davies (2007, 2013), Whitney Battle-

Baptiste (2007, 2011), Jamie Brandon (2009), and Chris Fennell (2007, 2010) who continued to build upon postprocessual foundations. Race finally became a starting point for further investigating aspects of black archaeological sites like feminism, spiritual cosmology, and the materialities of race. Charles Orser’s analysis of race and the racialization process in the United

States has become foundational for both archaeological inquiry and investigating the role race plays in the profession. Building upon the concept that race is rooted in culture and society, Orser

(2004, 2007) uses material culture to provide insight into how race was practiced in the past. His work also reveals the role archaeologists play in the racialization process, something African

American archaeologists who emphasized social justice had been stating since the 1990s. Most importantly, Orser shows how the racialization process has been applied to European ethnic groups, specifically the Irish. Like blackness, whiteness is also subjective. This point can be used to discuss the ways whiteness impacts the interpretations European American archaeologists make at black sites.

Current scholars are asking what it means to do African American archaeology and are building projects that collaborate with black communities. Our practice is now a point for debate and discussion (Agbe-Davies 2007), which positions the field within a self-reflexive gaze. The expansion of community-based participatory research into African American archaeology bolsters that reflexivity while it also increases the contributions archaeology makes toward addressing the

113

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street questions that count for black people. Archaeology at New Philadelphia, which is now a National

Historic Landmark, is indicative of the way African American archaeology has become something by and for the people (Fennell et al. 2010; Shackel 2011). Contributions from local descendants have added to interpretations of African American sites and imbued this work with an emic perspective that would not have been told otherwise.

African American Archaeology in the American West

Historical archaeology conducted west of the Mississippi River has helped create a more holistic understanding of what life was like for the diverse population of Native American,

European immigrant, Asian, and African diasporic peoples. Built on resource extraction and agriculture, the West was a continuation of the capitalist experiment at the heart of this country’s origins. Labor in extractive industries or agriculture was a central aspect of life in most western communities (Hardesty 1991; Purser 1991). Commercial centers arose to service and support these extraction and agricultural outposts. Most African Americans in the West lived in the commercial centers where they could establish communities and protect each other (Taylor 1998). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the African American experience in the west was urban. As a result, urban spaces are most likely to contain archaeological traces of the African American West.

While diaspora studies in the American West are useful for better understanding the composition of European immigrant, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans (Lightfoot 1995), very little work has been conducted on African American archaeological sites in the West. African

Americans remain underdocumented and, thus, poorly understood group in the West (Dixon 2014).

African diasporic people were among the first visitors to the American West. Beginning with the journey of the Moroccan Estevanico (Esteban) across the Southwest in the sixteenth century,

114

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street people of African descent were among the first non-Native Americans in the West (Taylor 1998).

Racial designations were different for African people living in the Spanish colonial system than they were for African diasporic peoples living in the colonies of other European countries.

Archaeology in Spanish colonial California indicates religion and ancestry was a more important characteristic of racial hierarchies for Spanish colonials. Persons of African descent were able to achieve similar legal and social parity to other Hispanic colonists because of their behavior and participation in the local society (Voss 2008). This contrasts sharply with the way Africans were treated in the Anglo West.

Slavery is what brought the majority of African Americans to the West prior to the Civil

War. Historically, Texas has been home to the West’s largest African American population (Taylor

1998). Despite the large African American population, both during and after the Civil War, few

African American archaeological sites have been investigated. Work done by Barile (2004) shows that, while African American sites are frequently encountered in east Texas, few of these sites are recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Work in

Dallas is among the most widely reported African American archaeology in the state. The campaign to save Freedman’s Town in Dallas and research on the Levi Jordan Plantation provide insights into the lives of black Texans in urban and rural contexts (McDavid 2011, 2002, 1997).

Cultural resource management excavations funded by the Texas Department of Transportation at the Freedman’s Cemetery in Dallas was an opportunity to learn about how the mediation of class and race followed nineteenth and early twentieth century African Americans into death.

Bioarchaeological and material cultural studies of the burials in this black cemetery provided insight into the ways African American spirituality and the quest for equality shaped burial practices (Davidson 2004). African American archaeology in Texas highlights the resilience of 115

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street black communities in the West and illustrates the ways they combated discrimination. These projects also show how African Americans in the present continue to fight for their heritage.

While most African Americans lived in western cities, the activities of black soldiers following the Civil War has become the most common perception of blacks in the West. The

Buffalo Soldiers have become historical icons of taming the west. African American soldiers operated across the region and some of their military posts have been investigated archaeologically. Stationed at Fort Missoula in Montana between 1888 and 1898, the Buffalo

Soldiers’ 25th Infantry Regiment was historically known through the ethnographic record as a place where black soldiers were respected and treated well (Sorenson 2012). Archaeological analysis of a small dump from Fort Missoula attempted to interrogate the material remains of the

Buffalo Soldiers, but the refuse could not be directly connected to black solders (Mueller 2009).

Current work at Fort Davis in Texas includes analysis of another refuse deposit dated to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that is directly associated with African American soldiers stationed there. It is hoped this project will illustrate the lifeways of black soldiers in the West

(Laurie Wilkie, personal communication, 2017).

Thousands of African Americans looking to escape discrimination and racism following the Civil War traveled to western cities; however, in most cases, their quest for equality remained forthcoming. Frequently, African Americans did find more social and economic opportunities but they did not find equality (Taylor 1998). This is exemplified by the few archaeological studies conducted on African American sites in the American West. African diasporic people who arrived in the Comstock Mining District and lived in Virginia City, Nevada in the second half of the nineteenth century encountered a complicated political and economic climate that influenced many

116

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street aspects of their lives. In a society with greater economic opportunity that lacked overt racism, one may believe African Americans in Virginia City were comparatively better off than blacks in the east and southeast. Excavations at the Boston Saloon in Virginia City, which catered to an African

American clientele, showed blacks on the mining frontier enjoyed quality food and beverages and popular musical entertainment in the company of handsomely dressed women. It was a known as recreational venue that helped African American miners feel comfortable in the face of subtle racism, resistant attitudes, and discriminatory laws (Dixon 2006a, 2006b, 2005; Schablitsky 2006).

Additional African American archaeology conducted in California has given insight into life in black communities on the Pacific Coast that were not reliant on extractive industries.

Cultural resource management work conducted in West Oakland, California between 1994 and

1996 for the I-880 Cypress Freeway Replacement project has been the largest archaeological project of an African American community in the American West. The project encompassed 22 city blocks in a historically diverse neighborhood that became synonymous with Oakland’s

African Americans after World War II. Archaeology in West Oakland showed that that the neighborhood had similar material aspirations as other Americans during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004).

Although they were working class, African American residents displayed eclectic bric-a- brac in their homes as a means of showing sophistication and adherence to upper and middle class mores regarding exotic items as proof of worldliness. Bric-a-brac was a form of material culture designed as a display of affluence (Mullins 1999). This was known to African Americans who participated in this practice. African Americans in West Oakland also used material culture to show their upward mobility in other ways. Membership in fraternal orders, compliance with

117

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street domesticity mores, and religious objects are both displays of affluence and demonstrations of affiliation with certain social networks. In West Oakland, African Americans used the objects in their houses as evidence of their class and social status, aspects of life that also demonstrated their position within social networks. Material culture was a language used to convey status, which was also important in the continued campaign against discrimination and stigmatization (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004).

The history and archaeology in West Oakland mirrors that of the River Street

Neighborhood in Boise. A place inhabited by Chinese, Portuguese, Hawaiian and other immigrants became increasingly black during the second half of the twentieth century. By 1989, the neighborhood was 77 percent African American (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004:46). This demographic shift was accompanied by neglect and the neighborhood was designated as blighted by local officials. As a blighted place, West Oakland became ground zero for Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) that imposed “superblock” projects and freeway expansions that fractured the community. The Black Panther Party evolved in this landscape as both a reaction to structural racism and to provide basic amenities to a needy community (Solari 2001). Stigmatization and neglect was at the heart of this neighborhood’s treatment by local citizens and officials, which is why the archaeological work there does much to combat this negative view of West Oakland and give it a more human face.

Other work in California is a chance to understand what life was like for African Americans outside large urban areas. Research on Allensworth, California shows some African Americans sought to escape racism by creating their own settlements, removed from the existing European

American-dominated cities. In 1908, Lieutenant Colonel Allen Allensworth, a former slave from

118

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

Kentucky, purchased land in Tulare County that would be dedicated to an African American agricultural community. The town grew for its first few years before succumbing to struggles over water rights that starved nearby agricultural lands of a necessary resource. Archaeology at the

Allensworth Hotel shows residents’ aspiration towards betterment and affluence. Today, the settlement is part of the Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park and is a protected resource (Cox

2007). Archaeological research of the life and history of Nate Harrison, a legendary African

American hermit in San Diego County, explains how the desire of black people to be free can turn into a mythological narrative. Nate Harrison was the first African American farmsteader in San

Diego County who had escaped slavery by the 1870s. Records show he had made a home in the

San Jacinto hills by the 1880s, where he would live until his death in 1920. Since his arrival in San

Diego, Harrison’s story had been mythologized in newspaper accounts and local lore. These contradictory accounts clouded the reality of his life. Archaeological excavations showed much of his live differed from the way he was portrayed in local lore. Living a simple life alone in the hills,

Harrison was able to escape enslavement and, to a certain extent, was free (Mallios and Lennox

2014).

Historical Archaeology in Boise, Idaho

While a number of historical archaeological projects have been conducted recently in the

City of Boise, the River Street Archaeology Project was the first African American archaeology project in the city. Additionally, there have been no other African American archaeology projects in the State of Idaho that have been recorded in the cultural resource management publications or academic presses. Thus, very little is archaeologically known about African Americans in Idaho.

One prominent Basque-related site has been excavated in the City of Boise. This site is important

119

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street to our understanding of what life was like for non-white Boiseans and is one of the few close comparative databases for the River Street Archaeology Project.

Documents on file at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Boise show

36 cultural resource surveys have been conducted within one half mile of the Erma Hayman House.

These are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within One Half Mile of the Erma Hayman House

AGENCY YEAR TITLE AUTHOR PROJECT # Other 1980 Archaeological Test Excavations in the Jones, Timothy 20150164 Boise Redevelopment Project Area, Boise, Idaho Other 1980 Continued Archaeological Test Jones, Timothy N/A Excavations of Operation One, Boise Redevelopment Project Area, Boise, ID Idaho 1983 Annual Report of Archeological Gaston, Jenna N/A Transportation Investigations Department Other 1983 A Cultural Resources Overview, Survey, Polk, Michael N/A and Evaluation of the Veteran's Administration Medical Center, Boise, Idaho Other 1984 A Cultural Resources Overview, Survey, Polk, Michael, 20133347 and Evaluation of the Veterans Bradford Cole, Administration Medical Center, Boise, and S. Alan Idaho, Final Report Skinner Boise National 1987 Myrtle Street Complex Disposal Gallagher, BS-87-459 Forest Joseph Idaho 1988 PSR, 27th Street Extension Gaston, Jenna 20117077 Transportation Department Other 1988 Test Excavations on Borah Street Druss, Mark and 20150162 Historic Archaeology in Downtown Claudia Druss Boise Other 1989 Class I Historic Properties Inventory of Stump, Sheila 20143879 the Route of the Proposed AT&T Fiber and Dawn Optic Cable Between Spokane, Statham Washington and Boise, Idaho

120

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

AGENCY YEAR TITLE AUTHOR PROJECT # Idaho 1994 Fairview Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Petersen, Nick BHM- Transportation 7343(001) Department Other 1994 Draft: Military Reserve, Cultural N/A N/A Resources Survey, City of Boise, Ada County, Idaho Idaho 1995 Pioneer Pathway Extension Gross, Lorraine STP- Transportation 0100(109) Department Idaho 1995 North Bank of the Boise River at Capitol Wildt, Chris STP- Transportation Boulevard 0100(111) Department Boise National 2005 Boise Forestry Sciences Lab Myrtle Bertram, John BS-05-2041 Forest Street Complex Other 2006 7th and Fort Street Collocations Bauer, B. GMIDBO.C Telecommunications Site EO6D1110 Idaho 2006 Archaeological Excavations at the Cyrus Munch, M. N/A Transportation Jacobs/Uberuaga House, Boise, ID Department Department of 2006 Proposed New Department of Veterans TEC Inc. N/A Defense Affairs Regional Office Building at Fort Boise Idaho 2007 BSU Greenbelt Pathway Archambeault, J. STP- Transportation 0100(182) Department Idaho 2008 Pioneer Corridor Pedestrian/Bike Harding, W. A010(488) Transportation Improvement, Boise, Myrtle Street to Department Grand Avenue Department of 2010 Geothermal Expansion Project to Boise Perry Bauer, B. N/A Energy State University, Ada County Other 2012 999 Main St., Boise, Cell Tower Tews, Amber BOISID115 7 Other 2012 680 Cunningham Place, East Bench Cell Tews, Amber BOISID111 Tower 0 Other 2012 1550 West Franklin, McCauley Park Cell Tews, Amber BOISID203 Tower 6 Other 2012 30th Street Extension, Fairview Roberts, Jillian 505029 Ave/State St. Other 2013 T-Mobile Candidate (Idaho Building), Jerrems, William SL02080A Boise Department of 2013 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment Futch, Jana; W91278- Defense of Selected Facilities in Idaho Garder, Jeffrey 07-D- 0111/0053

121

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

AGENCY YEAR TITLE AUTHOR PROJECT # Idaho 2014 Garden City to Americana Boulevard Noll, Christopher A013(514) Transportation Greenbelt and Barbara Department Perry Bauer Idaho 2014 Broadway Bridge Bryant, Jennifer, A011(588) Transportation Susan Leary and Department Isla Nelson Federal 2014 Cultural Resource Evaluation and Visual Gibson, Barbara, 10014- Communications Effects Analysis for the BOI Chihuahua Jim Steely, and 014126.00 Commission Telecommunications Project, 1529 Michael Retter Washington Street, Boise, Ada County, Idaho Other 2014 Boise River Park Site Improvements Nickoloff, Niki N/A Phase II Project Department of 2014 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Rock, Carolyn W91278- Defense COL Pinkney Lugenbeel Army Reserve 11-D-19 Center (ID001) Department of 2015 Architectural Determination of Seattle District N/A Defense Eligibility for the Colonel Pinkney Corps of Lugenbeel U. S. Army Reserve Center Engineers and the Walling Irrigation Canal. Ada County, Boise, Idaho Department of 2015 5th & Idaho Redevelopment Davis, Kerry 171500015 Housing and 0 Urban Development Federal 2015 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for Santarone, Paul, FRN Communications the Verizon Wireless BOI Morris Hill Kenneth P. 001284534 Commission Communication Tower, Ada County Cannon, Ron 3 Sladek and Jonathan M. Peart Other 2016 Archaeological Monitoring Report for Davis, Choya N/A Perimeter Security Upgrades Measures at the McClure Federal Building, Boise, Idaho Other 2016 James A. McClure Federal Building, Wark, David N/A Boise, Idaho Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places Federal 2016 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Santarone, Paul, TCNS Communications AT&T Sand Creek (IDL02045) Kenneth Cannon, 140047 Commission Communications Tower, Ada County Ron Sladek and Houston Martin

122

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

This list is not comprehensive as other cultural resource surveys have been conducted in downtown Boise that are were not found in the SHPO database. Two of these unlisted projects have implications for historic preservation in the River Street Neighborhood: an oral history and building inventory project conducted in the early 1890s (Osa 1981) and a building survey conducted in the 1990s as part of the Interstate-184 expansion through downtown Boise (Stacy

1995). In 1981, Mateo Osa conducted oral history interviews with several African-American River

Street Neighborhood residents with the intent of documenting the history of the Lee Street area in order to make recommendations for historic preservation. The interviews provided a background for the neighborhood from the perspective of its African-American residents and formed a baseline for what is known about the neighborhood’s social dynamics.

Osa documented 23 homes along Ash and Lee Streets, in the vicinity of the Erma Hayman

House. At the time (1980–1981), this was a relatively intact portion of the River Street

Neighborhood that was being encroached upon by commercial development. Osa noted that it was one of the oldest intact areas of Boise. The houses along Lee and Ash Streets were built with the anticipation that they would house working-class Boiseans. This condition had not changed by the

1980s. Describing Lee Street in the early 1980s, Osa wrote:

“Lee Street is lined with mature trees and fences separate the yards from the

sidewalks in front of the houses. Set in the midst of a warehouse and urban

redevelopment district as it is, Lee Street stands out as an unique and self-contained

neighborhood. It deserves attention, not only as the traditional home of a segment

of Boise’s black community, but also as an area of virtually unaltered vernacular

residential architecture. Also, noteworthy, is the degree of continuity in relationship

123

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

to the rest of the community since, unlike many neighborhoods, it has not altered

its basic character over the years but still provides basic low-income housing close

to downtown.”

Mateo Osa (1981) recommended this one-block area be saved from development because of its character as a historical residential district. Transcripts of the conversations recorded by Osa and photos of several inventoried houses are on file at the Idaho State Historical Society Archives in Boise. The text of his final report “Survey of Lee Street Neighborhood” is on file at the Idaho

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Boise; however, these reports did not come up in the

SHPO project database.

The River Street Area Survey was conducted in 1995 to evaluate neighborhood buildings in anticipation of the constriction of Interstate-184 (Stacy 1995). Building upon the effort to preserve buildings in the neighborhood initiated by Osa in 1981, the “River Street Reconnaissance

Survey” results reported by Susan M. Stacy in 1995 were prepared for the Boise City Historic

Preservation Commission. The survey covered an area of 300 acres in central Boise and evaluated

151 buildings between Americana Boulevard on the west, Broadway Boulevard on the east, West

Myrtle Street on the north, and the Boise River on the south–a survey area that included the entirety of the River Street Neighborhood. This evaluation failed to create a historic preservation district within River Street, even though Stacy explains that the neighborhoods south of Myrtle between

Broadway Blvd. and Sixteenth St. (Americana Blvd.) were mature by 1915 and were one of the few places African Americans could rent in Boise (Stacy 1995:9). The 1995 inventory provided preservation recommendations, although the author did not conduct exhaustive research on every property evaluated. The 1995 report states that the River Street Neighborhood was unique because

124

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street of its identity as Boise’s black neighborhood and corroborates Osa’s recommendation to preserve the Lee and Ash Street portion of the neighborhood. Stacy writes (1995:13–14):

“About 1980–1982 the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office undertook a survey

of the ‘Lee Street Historic District,’ (Osa 1981) 22 houses located on Lee and Ash

Streets. The survey analyst and the SHPO office concluded that the area was

eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. When Boise

City objected to this conclusion, the survey and report were sent to the National

Park Service (NPS). The NPS agreed with the SHPO and issued a formal

determination that the district was eligible. The significance of this decision is that

any agency proposing to impact the area adversely and use federal funds to do so

(such as Boise City Community Development Block Grants or other federal

resources) will be obliged to mitigate such impacts according to a plan negotiated

with the SHPO. This requirement derives from Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.”

The whereabouts of this correspondence between Boise City, the Idaho SHPO, and the National

Park Service is unknown. It could not be located at the SHPO or Idaho State Archives as of 2015.

Stacy continued to state that the Lee and Ash Street area remained (in 1995) one of the few places in River Street where older homes were still standing. She recommended that other historic houses be moved to the Lee and Ash area to fill in vacant lots, which would strengthen the likelihood of preserving the place as a historic district (Stacy 1995).

Table 1 demonstrates central Boise has been subjected to a number of archaeological surveys in the past 37 years, although this list is incomplete. However, only seven archaeological

125

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street sites have been identified in this area. Table 2 is a list of all known archaeological sites within one half mile of the Erma Hayman House.

Table 2: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within One Half Mile of the Erma Hayman House

SITE NAME OWNER ELIGIBILITY DATE ATTRIBUTES 10AA149 Delamar Private Undetermined 1/1/1978 Site of early residential Boise House site 10AA173 Boise Private Undetermined 6/15/1982 Late nineteenth and twentieth City century landfill Dump 10AA301 N/A Private Undetermined 1/1/1987 Historical artifacts including bisque doll frags, marble, round nails, porcelain, stoneware milk glass, toy metal airplane, glass, wire nail, hardware 10AA302 N/A Private Undetermined 1/1/1987 Historical artifacts including flakes, glass, ironstone, porcelain, earthenware, nails, can, bricks, foil, paper, safety pins 10AA303 N/A Private Undetermined 1/1/1987 Former dwelling now covered by a parking lot; Artifacts include porcelain, stoneware, earthenware, glass, trolley spikes, bisque doll frags, hardware, nails, wallpaper 10AA304 N/A Private Undetermined 1/1/1987 Former tenement now beneath an asphalt parking lot; Artifacts include glass, nails, wood, porcelain, plastic button 10AA574 N/A HSTRC Undetermined 6/15/2000 Historical artifacts including glass, WTR crockery sherds, brick, lumber, wire nails, cans, stoneware

None of the previously identified sites is a prehistoric archaeological site. The Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) coordinates of four of these sites, 10AA301, 10AA302, 10AA303, and

10AA304, are within 50 meters (164 feet) of the eastern edge of the River Street Neighborhood boundary; near the present-day intersection of South 11th Street and West Myrtle Street. Reported 126

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street in January, 1988, these four sites are related to CRM archaeological test excavations associated with the Interstate-184 expansion along Myrtle Street. Archaeological testing in this location revealed the presence of deposits related to multi-family housing buildings and a blacksmith shop that were occupied at the end of the nineteenth century (Druss and Druss 1988). To the east of the

River Street Neighborhood in the present-day location of Julia Davis Park, site 10AA173 is the remains of Boise’s early twentieth century landfill. Recent research states this area of Boise was used as a landfill from 1902 to 1926 and it was an important element in the sanitation movement in Boise. Additionally, Boise’s sanitary reformers targeted non-European Americans with fines for littering, improper trash disposal, and uncleanliness. This forced Chinese, African Americans, and European immigrants to use municipal trash disposal services in order to avoid being fined

(Valentine 2016).

Archaeology on historical Basque sites in downtown Boise are the only representation of non-European American life in the city’s past. Archaeology at the Cyrus Jacobs-Uberuaga House at 607 Grove Street in downtown Boise, about 0.86 kilometers (0.54 miles) east of the Erma

Hayman House, focused on the analysis of artifacts recovered from a well built in 1864 and used until the 1890s (Goodwin 2014). The house was originally built by the Jacobs family, a European

American emigrant family that arrived in Boise in 1862 to capitalize on the Boise Basin gold rush.

The Jacobs family became merchants and influential socialites. In 1928, the Basque Uberuaga family purchased the Jacobs house and used it as a boarding house for single Basque men. It remained a boarding house until 1969. Material culture from the house demonstrates the late nineteenth-century material display of affluence associated with a socially upstanding European

American household (Goodwin 2014). The house itself is an example of socially upward life in a

European American landscape until the 1920s when it became an important element in Basque 127

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street society. The neighborhood around the Jacobs-Uberuaga house had changed by 1928 when the house changed ownership. In that time, this section of West Grove Street had become the heart of

Basque Boise (Totoricagüena 2004).

In this capacity, the house became a central element in the Basque community, which was strained after the 1924 passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that established quotas for a number of different countries. The Basque country is politically divided between the nations of

Spain and France, which meant Basque immigrants were rolled into the national quotas for these larger nations. As a stateless nation of ethnic minorities divided between two larger nations, it became difficult for Basque immigrants to enter the United States after 1924. The Basque in Boise and elsewhere in the United States had to decide whether they would remain in the country because it was unclear if they would be able to return if they left (Totoricagüena 2004). The Uberuaga family was among the thousands of Basque that decided to stay in the United States. Their presence forever changed the ethnic milieu of communities like Boise. The Cyrus Jacobs-Uberuaga House is a material manifestation of the multivalent ways historical sites can be created and recreated through time. It also contains the material cultural residues of nineteenth and twentieth century urban life in Boise (Goodwin 2014).

As explained in the following chapters, the River Street Project encompasses the only known African American archaeological site in Boise. The project also encountered archaeological features directly connected to Boise’s Basque heritage. The excavation project area covered half of a city block, nine parcels, and is one of the largest excavations in the City of Boise in 30 years.

Both the oral history and archaeology components are a continuation of the fight for heritage and acknowledgement that River Street Neighborhood descendant community has been waging since

128

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street the 1970s. As will be discussed in the next chapter, the methods employed on this project were designed to access the material as well as the abstract aspects of life in the neighborhood–a continuation of postprocessual archaeological theory. Finally, as a project born of a local heritage conservation movement, this archaeology project was designed to commemorate a difficult aspect of Boise’s heritage. As structural racism affected all who lived in River Street Neighborhood, it is an unavoidable aspect of the archaeology and ethnography project that was brought into the light and used as a vantage point from whence we could view this place’s history.

Historic Preservation, Local Advocacy, and African American Historic Places

The historical archaeology of African American life remains strongly influenced by the plantation setting. While this has provided new insights into identity formation, agency, and realities of African American slavery, archaeology needs to expand from that context in order to provide insight into the broader realities of African diasporic peoples in other regions and other times. Landmark excavations at African American sites like the African Burial Ground in New

York City and the Freedman’s Cemetery in Dallas are sources of identity for blacks that connects us to the past. They demonstrate our existence and heritage as well as our resilience in the face of structural racism, poverty, discrimination (Davidson 2004; LaRoche and Blakey 1997). Sites like these can be drawn upon to legitimize black heritage and are crucial elements in the African

American identity formation process (Thomas 2002). Because there are so few in the American

West, projects like the work in West Oakland (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004) and the River Street

Project are even more important for our understanding of life for African Americans in the west.

They also demonstrate that black people were present in the West and played central roles in western society at the local scale. Far removed from the well-documented plantation economy in

129

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street space and time, African American sites in the American West stretch the boundaries of black identity and heritage–adding to and complicating traditional narratives of this part of the country.

As of yet, the promising potential of cultural resource management archaeology to provide a better understanding of African American life (Wilkie 2004:112) has not born fruit in the

American West. Prominent CRM projects focused on African American contexts in the west like the Freedman’s Cemetery, Boston Saloon, and in West Oakland provide a glimpse of what life was like for western blacks and provide an important foundation upon which subsequent scholars can build. Given the large number of CRM projects conducted in the west, it is alarming that comparatively few African American sites have been preserved. Kerri Barile’s work in east Texas

(2004) highlights the difficulties associated with preserving African American sites in the west through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Regarding how CRM conducted under the NHPA tends to privilege historic properties with more substantial, elaborate architectural elements, Barile explains (2004:98) African American-related historic properties have suffered because of the way the regulations have failed to: “…give proper recognition to site historic context where race and class figured largely.” In this paradigm, simple African American-related properties are less likely to be preserved. Furthermore, the emphasis on “on single-approach methodologies” (i.e., the identification of bounded properties) has resulted in a drastic reduction of post-Civil War NRHP-eligible sites, especially those associated with African Americans in

Texas (Barile 2004:98).

Work conducted within the rubric of the NHPA and the other preservation regulations that support CRM archaeology have little room for the contributions of local communities. At present, historical preservation legislation emphasizes the identification of historic properties which are

130

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street bounded entities, in space, time, and research value, by skilled professional preservationists.

Furthermore, the preservation of properties is encouraged through a series of economic incentives like tax rebates that benefit property owners. This effects the preservation of African American properties in a number of ways: 1) it is difficult to delineate a property’s significance to the community because this requires the creation of a narrative that will not be interpreted the same way by all community members (see Chapter 3); 2) most preservation professionals are European

American and, therefore, have difficulties identifying non-white properties; 3) most significant non-white properties are no longer owned by the descendant community to whose heritage it contributes, which means descendants have to appeal to non-descendants for the preservation of historic properties that contribute to their heritage, and; 4) oftentimes, the economic incentives associated with historic preservation do not go to the descendant community because they are not the property owners. This is the case in Boise and most communities in the United States.

In many ways, this phenomenon applies to the way properties have been protected under the NHPA in Boise because preservation of properties like the houses in the River Street

Neighborhood or Basque diaspora-related buildings has not come through CRM but, rather, from collective financial action and advocacy from descendant communities. Legally mandated preservation has yielded a significant number of CRM projects in downtown Boise but this has not resulted in many archaeological excavations or protected historic properties. The surveys conducted in adherence to the NHPA have not resulted in CRM archaeology in downtown Boise; thus, very little is known about the historical archaeology of Boise let alone African Americans or

Basques in the city.

131

Chapter 4: African American Archaeology and River Street

Historic preservation regulations have not resulted in the conservation of any African

American or Basque-related properties in the River Street Neighborhood, although previous CRM studies have clearly stated the historical value of this district to Boise’s history. The archaeology project conducted there brings African American archaeology to a previously unexplored landscape. This project demonstrates the complexity of race, stigmatization, discrimination, community, and resilience in the American West. As will be explained in the following chapters, archaeological features and deposits in River Street chronicle how these forces played out for

African American and Basque Boiseans.

132

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

The archaeological component of the River Street Project was conducted with a spirit of collaboration and inclusion. It was a community based project that sought input from former neighborhood residents, other archaeology related organizations like cultural resource management companies, and local preservationists. The project’s goals were to identify archaeological remains, if any, in the vicinity of the Erma Hayman House on the 600 block of Ash

Street. At the same time, it was an opportunity for students and volunteers to participate in a community archaeology project. Traditional archaeological excavation methods, digitized maps, and the memories of those who used to live in the area were used to position excavation units and interpret the results. The following chapter describes the data recovery process employed in 2015.

Movement Toward Increased Community Collaboration in Archaeology

The River Street Archaeology Project was a collaboration between the neighborhood’s descendant community, local researchers, and members of the public who are interested in historic preservation and archaeology. In the last 20 years, archaeologists in the United States and elsewhere have started to collaborate with descendant communities (Atalay 2012; Atalay et al.

2014; Singleton 2007). Collaboration between archaeologists and descendant communities falls along a spectrum of inclusiveness and, although collaborative ventures are increasing, a large amount of archaeological work is conducted with minimal input from descendant communities.

Civil rights advocacy during the 1960s included a movement from Native Americans and other non-white people for the right to take ownership of heritage conservation pertaining to their culture

(Deloria 1988, 1992). As a result, consultation with Native people has been codified in United

133

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

States historic preservation regulations. Other western countries have followed suit and, today,

Native peoples have more decision-making power with regard to their heritage than ever before.

While regulations mandate input from Native peoples, there is little legal nexus to consult or collaborate with other non-white groups. Reflexivity within the field of archaeology is the primary motivation for collaborating with non-Native descendant communities. A new ethos within the field states that archaeology should be used for social justice and to transcend discrimination in our society. The historical archaeology of African Americans is an example of how the collaborative archaeology movement has expanded to include non-European American, non-Native people. The desire to include descendant communities in the heritage conservation process will continue to be a central aspect of my future work as an archaeologist.

Motivations for Collaborative Projects

By the 1980s, archaeologists in the United States and the United Kingdom had recognized the limitations of processual archaeology. Archaeologists noted the difficulty connecting patterns recorded in the archaeological record with the subjective and complicated nature of human behavior. The rise of postprocessual archaeology was the result. Rather than emphasizing a single perspective, postprocessualism is a mélange of different theoretical and methodological perspectives that started as a critique of positivistic processual archaeology (Atalay 2006:290–291;

Leone et al. 1987). Discourse, within the field of archaeology and between archaeologists and the communities in which they work, was one of the most important results of the postprocessual movement because it caused archaeologists to reevaluate their role in society (Smith 2004). For the first time, archaeologists asked if their work was improving or harming society. This reflexivity

134

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project was central to the postprocessual movement, which forced a self-interrogation of the entire field, its accomplishments, and the colonial nature of archaeology in general (Atalay 2006:291).

Indigenous archaeology evolved from the crisis caused by postprocessualist reflections

(Atalay 2006). Archaeologists identified several shortcomings in their interactions with the communities with which they worked, especially with Native peoples, that prevented their work from being more inclusive, holistic, and accepted by non-archaeologists. During the 1960s and

1970s, Native American activists began protesting against archaeological and anthropological work that did not incorporate indigenous values and concerns (Atalay 2006; Colwell-

Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Deloria 1988; Watkins 2001). These activists forced the realization among archaeologists that much of the archaeology to that point had played a role in the “othering” process that was central to the power dynamics in European American colonization.

Native Americans and other ethnic and racial groups were cast as “the others” in Western society.

Archaeology and anthropology were used to differentiate and separate people into ethnic groups

(Deloria 1992; Gupta and Ferguson 2008; Smith 2004; Watkins 2001; Watkins and Ferguson,

2005; Wilcox 2010; Wylie 2002).

Civil rights activism prompted archaeologists to question the ethics of continuing to do archaeology within the confines of Western science as opposed to using archaeological data to help communities reclaim their past. Before colonization of the Western Hemisphere, indigenous people were able to act as stewards of their own heritage. This was done the same way scientific knowledge is collected and conveyed–through close examination, memory, teaching, learning, and passing on knowledge–however, colonization privileged European-derived ways of knowing

135

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

(Atalay 2006:281–282). The postprocessual movement prompted archaeologists to reevaluate the ethics of privileging Western scientism over traditional knowledge.

More recently, archaeologists began to acknowledge that there are multiple ways of knowing and that the best way of accessing indigenous perspectives was to include them as research partners. Federal historic preservation laws in the United States mandate communication with federally acknowledged Native American tribes, but they do not call for true collaboration– that is, incorporating indigenous people in all aspects of the preservation process. Ethical guidelines adopted by the major archaeology professional groups, including the Society for

American Archaeology, Register of Professional Archaeologists, and World Archaeological

Congress, call for their members to adhere to a higher level of ethics that vary in intensity from using archaeology as a vehicle for social justice to merely recognizing that archaeologists have an obligation to share information with the indigenous communities with whom they work (Colwell-

Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2004). Over the last 20 years, archaeologists interested in collaboration with indigenous people have worked within a range of different levels of inclusiveness and cooperation that has been called by some archaeologists the Collaborative

Continuum (Atalay 2012:49–50; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Ferguson 2009)

(Figure 10).

The movement in archaeology toward a more inclusive, collaborative field is founded upon trust and respect between archaeologists and descendant communities. The goal of this movement is to improve the quality of archaeology while also building capacity for heritage activism within descendant communities. Archaeology conducted without input from indigenous and descendant communities falls short of truly explaining past behavior because it does not incorporate emic

136

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project perspectives that provide alternate explanations than the ones yielded by traditional archaeological methods. What archaeologists see, count, and measure does not provide the same information as traditional cultural knowledge conveyed by descendants (Ferguson 2009). Only by cultivating trust can archaeologists access traditional knowledge from descendant communities. Before they can expect cooperation, archaeologists should be attentive to the needs of indigenous and descendants who want to use traditional knowledge for the betterment of their communities (Ferguson 2009;

Kuwanwisiwama 2008).

Archaeologists must also work toward bettering the communities with whom they work and, rather than fearing questions from descendants, archaeologists should be using their skills to promote the interrogation of work that is not collaborative. Archaeology designed and conducted in the best interest of descendant communities should be a form of activism focused on decolonizing society, empowering future generations to reclaim their heritage, and increasing what is known about the past for the benefit of all (Atalay 2006, 2012; Atalay et al. 2014; Little and

Zimmerman 2010; Watkins and Ferguson 2005).

Collaborative Archaeology Projects with Descendant Communities

Collaborative archaeology requires a different mindset because it requires archaeologists to think beyond the confines of the field as it is traditionally practiced in order to connect with communities in ways that are not directly related to the systematic collection and analysis of archaeological materials. It also forces archaeologists to admit we do not have all the answers.

Collaborative archaeology is rooted in the concept of community-based participatory research

(CBPR), which entails all scientific research that includes members of the local community in all

137

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Figure 10: The Archaeology Collaboration Continuum

138

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project aspects of the project–including planning, research design, execution, and data dissemination

(Atalay 2012). According to Atalay (2012:63–75), CBPR has five main principles: community- based partnerships, wide participation, capacity-building, reciprocity, and recognition of multiple forms of knowledge. These principles, summarized in Figure 10, have been applied to community- based projects with both indigenous and non-indigenous people around the world.

Over the past 25 years, archaeologists have realized indigenous concerns about cultural resources and heritage conservation align with those of archaeologists (Murray 2011:364). This shared concern for heritage conservation provides a starting point for collaboration. Watkins

(2001, 2005) provides a summary of recent collaborative projects and the efforts archaeologists and communities are making around the world to learn about the past. In Canada, First Nations tribes are using their strong relationship with archaeologists to overcome the fact that there are no national heritage laws governing archaeological practice in aboriginal territories. First Nations leaders have taken the lead in creating collaborative relationships with archaeologists and universities to allow for scientific study in a manner that strengthens traditional knowledge about the past (Watkins 2005:434–436). It also allows an opportunity for First Nations communities to reconcile scientific data with traditional knowledge in order to create a more holistic interpretation of the past.

Communities across Africa, Australia, and New Zealand have struggled to overcome the legacy of colonization and the effect European hegemony has had on the way indigenous people and descendant communities regard scientific practice. Collaborative historical archaeology is a tool for overcoming painful pasts and the reductionist nature of processual archaeology (Murray

2011; Silliman 2001). Historical archaeology is now seen as a means for decolonizing historical

139

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project narratives that were used to subjugate indigenous people in Africa and Australia. Furthermore, current historical archaeologies are central to indigenous land and cultural property rights campaigns (Murray 2011:369). Historical archaeology has been a means for indigenous

Australians to assure that they are remembered in recent history as opposed to the way they have been portrayed as an ancient people that never modernized. Australian aborigines are still alive and were important in Australian history (Greer et al. 2002).

Collaborative archaeology with descendant communities requires adjusting archaeological practice so it can be accepted within traditional cultural systems. Archaeology is not intuitive.

Descendant communities must become familiar with archaeological methods and practice in order to understand what the science can and cannot do to further their heritage conservation goals.

Archaeologists must become familiar with the culture of the community in which they are working in order to conduct their research cordially and make it amenable to specific cultural mores. Atalay

(2012) discusses the cultural disconnects she was forced to overcome while conducting CBPR in rural Turkey near Çatalhöyük. Issues of gender, power, social status, and economics had to be addressed in order to make her work more viable. For example, Atalay had to make sure public meetings complied with the local gender roles that mandated separation between men and women.

She also had to overcome the fact that most locals did not feel confident in their understanding of archaeology to make recommendations on how public education tools should be created.

Researchers had to explain the basics of archaeological method and theory to local community collaborators before they could feel comfortable with making recommendations. This had to be done through gender-specific meetings.

140

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Building capacity within descendant communities is a central tenet of collaborative archaeology; however, social and economic conditions within these communities have hindered the development of a robust cadre of indigenous and archaeologists from other ethnic communities. Diversifying the world’s archaeologists is seen as one way the field can incorporate other cultural perspectives and address the effect colonialism has had on knowledge production.

Education requirements have been cited as a major roadblock to increasing the number of practicing indigenous and ethnic archaeologists within descendant communities. Archaeologists working in Hawai’i, Mills and Kawelu (2013:127) state: “One of the largest obstacles to the decolonization of heritage management in Hawai‘i has been the under-representation of CRM professionals from descendant communities.” They continue to explain that access to education in

Hawai’i is not equal and, although there are opportunities for Native Hawaiians to participate in

CRM projects, the general lack of graduate degrees among Native people in Hawai’i prevents them from rising into management positions (Mills and Kawelu 2013:130–132).

Collaborative Archaeology in Non-Native American Contexts

In the United States, collaborative archaeology has largely been practiced with Native

American tribes but an increasing number of archaeological projects at various gradations along the collaborative continuum have made substantial efforts to include non-Native communities. The majority of these are public archaeology projects with a specific goal of public outreach and education (Stottman 2014). While some of these public archaeology projects have collaborated with local and descendant communities in order to fashion research designs that address the questions that matter to local residents, the majority of these projects were designed by archaeologists and local people have only been invited to participate in the excavations and

141

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project comment on interpretations. Including local people in the reclamation of their own heritage is an important step, but both archaeologists and descendants reap more benefits from true collaboration. Public archaeology is a positive step toward full collaboration and community-based participatory research, but it is not always truly collaborative.

When it comes to transforming the field of archaeology, collaborative projects with African

American communities in the United States is, possibly, second only to the extensive work conducted with Native Americans. Recent activism among African Americans has forced archaeologists to reevaluate the artificial dichotomies between racialized groups that helped create this country. In 1991, a CRM project in New York City unearthed an eighteenth-century cemetery used by enslaved Africans. This site was later named the African Burial Ground (ABG). A controversy was sparked among the city’s African American community, who saw a European

American company excavating their ancestors without attempting to connect with black New

Yorkers. Protests ensued and the City was forced to change the project into a collaborative endeavor that included not only the local black community but African American archaeologists and African American scholars from outside New York (LaRoche and Blakey 1997).

The ABG project forced archaeologists in the United States to reassess their relationship with African Americans and what archaeology was, or was not, doing to improve the status of

Black America. The project questioned who should be allowed to research African American pasts, what the resulting interpretations mean for black people, and, most importantly, for whom are archaeologists working (Franklin 1997). African American archaeology had been practiced since the late 1960s, but the ABG forced archaeologists to reevaluate what their work had done to help

142

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project dispel racism, decolonize black pasts, or benefit the black community (Brandon 2009; Franklin

1997).

Calls for social activism through the archaeology of African Americans coincided with the expansion of collaborative archaeology during the 2000s. This movement toward a more inclusive practice that includes African Americans in heritage conservation through archaeology is exemplified through Carol McDavid’s work in Texas. Her 1990s work at the Levi-Jordan

Plantation was, from its conception, dedicated to including the local community in the data collection and dissemination process (McDavid 1997:115–116). Because this work was taking place in a racially polarized area, McDavid sought to bring together the descendants of African

American slaves and European American slave owners in order to provide a holistic view of the plantation’s past and craft a narrative that emphasized the multivalence of the site. A pragmatic approach was required to position this work as part of a much wider “historically situated, contingent, and pluralistic conversation” (McDavid 2002:305). McDavid’s subsequent work in

Freedman’s Town in Houston saw her role as an archaeologist expanded into other arenas. She realized her professional expertise and status as a European American archaeologist could be harnessed to further community historic preservation goals (McDavid 2011a). Not only was her work used to combat the negative stigmatization of this African American historic district, it was also central to the campaign black preservationists were waging against development that threatened the district’s integrity (McDavid 2011a, 2011b).

Public archaeology forced McDavid to confront her white privilege, which is an important self-reflexive exercise that is conducted by few European American archaeologists. She discusses how whiteness teaches European Americans to “think of their lives as normative, neutral, and

143

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project ideal”–an identity that is expected to go uncontested by the rest of society. Furthermore, as an academician, McDavid has an additional layer of authority that makes her ideas more easily accepted (McDavid 2007:68–69). McDavid’s work and self-awareness demonstrates that archaeology can do much to address racism, decolonization, and white privilege. The benefits of this process reach a much wider audience when conducted in collaboration with communities.

Memoryscapes as Interpreted Through Social Memory

Archaeologists have become increasingly interested in the various ways material culture aids the transmission of memories. To do this, material culture analysis must include perspectives from those with the cultural knowledge and social memory of the landscapes that contain the archaeological site. Studies that focus on the interplay between things, people, and memories has been termed memory studies and “memory work”, which is part of a wider focus in social sciences on the materialities of social life (Mills and Walker 2008:3–4). Memory work has two meanings according to Mills and Walker (2008:4): it refers to the social practices that create memories such as recalling, forgetting, and transmitting, and it also refers to the interpretive activities scholars use when studying memory. While memory work has a rich history in the social sciences, studies focused on the process of remembering and studies that investigate the contributions individuals make to social memory are particularly useful for this archaeology project. In these memory work studies, the actions of individuals, who are simultaneously members of social groups, are considered the principal agents in the transmission of social memory. Social memory is created on the individual level, but it is transmitted and conveyed by discrete social groups (Mills and Walker

2008:6–7). The River Street project seeks to understand the way social memory has been

144

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project transmitted among members of different racial groups in Boise, specifically African Americans and European Americans.

Memory is also reflected in the meanings affixed to material culture, including man-made objects on the landscape. Meskell (2008:235) remarks that archaeologists must acknowledge the never-ending dialectic between the physical manifestation and the iterative performance required for the creation of memory. Materiality, which for the River Street Project is defined as the quality or character of existing as a tangible part of reality, is intimately linked with human interactions with things, and the human doings, makings, and beings that result in materiality (Meskell

2008:235). The process of being a human that lives in a society also leaves an indelible mark on our remembrances of the past and results in the creation of material culture. Meskell (2008:236) is quick to note that “Memory cannot exist in a thinglike state since it is always subjective and spatiotemporally situated.” However, memory is linked as much to things as it is to past habitus.

Memories can be reached by interacting with things just as they can by being asked certain questions about the past.

Social memory is important for interpretations of landscapes that contain archaeological sites and historical buildings because landscapes only exist in the context of human societies who make sense of the world based on memories of previous experiences. Landscape is constructed by societies as a process of contextualizing the geographic territory these societies occupy. As social inventions, landscapes exist in memory and are also subject to the memory-making process. The term ‘memoryscape’ evolved in the last decade in the field of geography as a means of describing the ways people interpret their surroundings and navigate their relationships with the places in which they live. Geographers argue, “…that Human existence involves Being-somewhere. This

145

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project means the production of place through the inhabitation of spaces by cultural bodies. Space is rendered meaningful through involvement in experience.” Additionally, “Ethnographies inform us that perceptions of, and values attached to, landscape ‘encode values and fix memories to places that become sites of historical identity’” (Clack 2009:116). The memoryscape is a refinement of any geography concept promoting the idea that, “cultures are planes of meaning through which individuals sustain intelligibility and comprehensibility.” Clack (2009:119) continues by stating:

“The memoryscape is thus a hardwired yet subjective phenomenon that is of species-wide potential but is culturally particular in expression. All human beings dwell within a memoryscape.”

River Street Archaeology Project Research Design

The River Street Archaeology Project was conducted under the assumption that human behavior in the past cannot be adequately understood without first understanding the role of material culture in a specific social and historical context. Artifacts, buildings, and other material items are a tangible record of human behaviors and a window into the nuanced meaning behind those behaviors in the past. Because material items are the end result of meaningful actions executed by cognizant individuals, material culture can be actively used to create and reproduce society (Shackel and Little 1992:8). These meanings created through the consumption of material culture are constantly in flux. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century American West, where people from a wide spectrum of backgrounds and motives converged, “the changing meaning of consumption practices [was] fundamentally an issue of the changing organization and significance of material culture itself” (Purser 1992:106). Understanding the symbolic use of material culture and the active role it has played in the past is important for the interpretation of social relations and the reasons they have evolved in certain ways (VanBueren 2002:26–27).

146

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

The material culture recovered from the excavations at River Street should also be seen from the perspective of life in Boise and the greater United States at the time. The early twentieth- century was a time when Americans adjusted to the industrialization and urbanization that had spread across the country in the previous century. It was a period full of complex patterns of human mobility that revolutionized the nature and function of all social units in American society (Purser

1991:7). Cities like Boise illustrate that, by the early twentieth-century, the west was an integral, modern, and urban place. The transplanted rise of urbanism and modernity in the American West is well documented and supplemented by archaeological assemblages.

Changing manifestation and meaning of race was another aspect of life in the early twentieth century. Concepts in the archaeology of colonies can be applied to more recent historical contexts in order to reveal the ways racial categories play a defining role in society. Panich (2013) notes that groups living in oppression, such as the racial discrimination and segregation experienced by River Street residents, should be evaluated by highlighting their persistence. He goes on to state that identity, practice, and context are essential avenues of investigation for the study of archaeologies of persistence. Aspects of this identity and practice can be seen through the material signature of artifacts and the built environment (Orser 2000; Silliman 2010). Interrogating these elements was central to the use of archaeology to study of the River Street Neighborhood between the 1890s and 1960s.

The dialectic between European Americans and non-whites has always been important in

American society. Segregated places like River Street were central to the maintenance of whiteness as a racial category because it provided a contrast to the European American identity, which was proposed as the normative value of American society. In order to reveal whiteness, this project

147

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project focused, “…on the identities, ideologies, and norms that are not always understood or even explicitly realized by those who benefit from them, and on the ways these taken-for-granted assumptions can mystify, legitimate, and ultimately perpetuate systems of racial inequality”

(Hartmann et al. 2009:404). As explained in Chapter 2, European American racial identity was conferred upon those that exemplified an unwritten social code of proper behavior that included relative wealth, political power, and moral authority. While porous and constantly subject to change, the preeminence of European American identity had long been intact in American society by the time European Americans arrived to Boise (Hartigan 2005; Jacobson 1998:31–38; Roediger

1991). A second principal research goal of the River Street project is to demonstrate how European

American identity evolved through constantly changing relationships with other races and with subgroups of the European American race.

The River Street Archaeology Project

The archaeology project was focused on half of an irregularly shaped city block in the

River Street Neighborhood that was known to have been occupied by African American, Basque, and European American families between 1907 and the 1960s. This was the project area. It contained parcels owned by the Capitol City Development Corporation (CCDC) and the Boise

City Department of Parks and Recreation (Boise Parks) (Figure 11). Permission was granted by both administrative agencies to conduct archaeological excavations in this area between May 25 and July 5, 2015.

This location was chosen because it was believed to contain a number of intact archaeological remains, was largely void of existing structures, and the remaining parcel, a house at 617 Ash Street, was known to have been occupied by an African American family for over 60

148

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Table 3: Research Domains years. This building, the Erma Hayman House,

was built in 1897 and has been historically SITE FORMATION

• How was this site created? occupied by a number of working-class • How has it changed in the last 100 years? families of various races (Demo 2006; Madry SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IDENTITY • Artifact assemblages with status-diagnostic materials (e.g., ceramics, personal adornments, etc.) 2014). From the late 1940s until 2006, the • Economic assessment of faunal assemblages • Artifacts or building characteristics reflecting gender, age house was occupied by the African American of occupants or length of occupation Hayman family whose matriarch, Erma HOUSEHOLD FOODWAYS • Food containers • Faunal assemblage Hayman, lived at this location until her death in • Macrobotanical data • Concentrated disposal areas 2006. She raised her children and a number of • Historical record grandchildren there, including her grandson GENDER ROLES • Gender-related artifacts (clothing, personal adornment Dick Madry who was interviewed for the ect.) • Health and beauty aides • Evidence of gender-based decision-making project in 2014 and continued to help identify • Historical record the location of former structures during the HEALTH AND SANITATION • Building materials and features archaeological excavations. The entire • Artifact assemblages representing health actions • Waste disposal • History of industrial regulation fieldwork component was conducted from a • Historical record • Inter-site data place of collaboration. Universities, CRM companies, historic preservation agencies, governmental organizations, volunteers, and descendant community members were all asked to participate in the project. The entire City of

Boise was invited to visit and, if desired, participate in the excavations. In addition to excavations, the project fieldwork also included an ethnographic component where descendants were invited to record oral history interviews on-site. The project was conducted as an archaeology and ethnography field school administered by two Idaho universities; the archaeological excavations were administered by the University of Idaho while the ethnography component was administered

149

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project by the College of Western Idaho. College students could earn college credit from both institutions for their participation in the excavations and/or oral histories.

Research Domains

Based on archival research, oral histories and historical maps of the project area, archaeologists expected to find artifacts and archaeological features dating to the over 100 years of human activity in this location. It was unlikely that prehistoric Native American archaeological materials will be identified; however, based on historical archaeological data, it was very likely that a range of different material culture items made between the early 1900s and the 2010s would be found. Additionally, historical maps show at least six dwellings and associated outbuildings

(i.e., privies, garages, stables, and sheds) have existed on the CCDC and Boise Parks parcels. Many of these structures are gone, but their archaeological footprints remain.

150

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Figure 11: Property Ownership for River Street Archaeology Project Area, 2015 151

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

The River Street Archaeology Project had four central goals:

1. Identify, record, and excavate historical archaeological features associated with human

activity in this area from the 1890s to the 1960s.

2. Teach modern archaeological field method and theory to the field school students,

volunteers, and site visitors.

3. Include interested members of the local community in the project and disseminate

information about the neighborhood’s history–empowering them to take ownership of this

slice of local heritage.

4. Collect additional ethnographic data from former residents who are familiar with life in the

neighborhood prior to the 1960s.

The River Street Public Archaeology Project focused on the lives of residents in the project area shows in Figure 11 and the ways the neighborhood’s identity may have influenced their life chances. Very few artifacts and archaeological features in themselves are indicative of ethnic or racial identities. Discovering these items is rare; however, race, class, and ethnicity can be accessed through other more robust lines of archaeological inquiry. Table 3 lists a number of research domains, from which research questions and hypotheses were developed in order to address the larger question associated with this project that have to do with race, racialization, and ethnicity in

Boise, Idaho. Relevant lines of inquiry include:

Site Formation

The Erma Hayman House and the surrounding parcels have been subjected to extensive ground-altering activities in the 150 years since they were occupied by non-Native Americans.

152

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

One goal of the archaeological project was the identification of undisturbed sediments or sediments that were disturbed during the early twentieth century. Questions posed under this domain include:

• What is the age of archaeological deposits in this location? Are there any Native American

or mid-nineteenth century archaeological materials?

• Can we identify places of original deposition (i.e., items discarded on buried historical

ground surfaces)?

• What are the relationships of the various classes of artifacts to structural remains, extant

and non-extant (e.g., domestic, industrial, construction)?

• To what extent have ground-altering activities affected archaeological deposits?

• How do archaeological deposits in this area relate to the historic built environment?

Social and Economic Identity

The late nineteenth-century was a period of radical social and technological transformation that emphasized “middle class culture” as the ideal, provided mass production of a wide array of products, and encouraged mass consumption of those products (VanBueren 2004:73). The range of products only increased in the twentieth century. Social and economic reorganization facilitated by industrialization created a greater distance between an item’s manufacture and its eventual consumption. The value and type of objects owned by an individual spoke volumes about the kind of person that individual aspired to be and the kind of person they believed themselves to be. By the end of the nineteenth century, the meaning of commodities and their consumption had become an active element in self-creation and identity; a philosophy that continued during the twentieth- century (Cook et al. 1996:55).

153

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Many of the prevailing assumptions about African American past habitus has been dismantled because recent archaeologies of African American identity have focused on material culture as an arbiter of social identity. This work has also forced reflexivity within the field of archaeology and caused us to openly address the preconceived notions and unaddressed biases in archaeological interpretations of African Americans (Epperson 2001; Orser 2007:35). Recent

African American archaeologies have emphasized the temporal and spatial subjectivity of social identities (Orser 2007:34). This is important for interpretations of how race affected ontologies, agency, social networks, and practice (Orser 2004). Very little is known about this process west of the Mississippi River (see Chapter 4).

The River Street project sought to investigate the role material culture played in the creation of social identities, including race and ethnicity. Questions within this domain include:

• Does this site provide information on consumer practices and disposal behavior of

households linked to specific social, occupational, economic, or other societal

characteristics?

• Is there evidence of African American-specific or non-European American artifacts or

features?

• How does this site contribute to our understanding of non-European American people in

the American West?

Household Foodway Strategies

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, all residents of the United States were influenced by the promotion of mass consumption, the expansion of corporatism, social inequality,

154

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project and labor advocacy (Cook et al. 1996; Stein 1990; VanBueren 2004:19–20; White 1991:319–320).

In the face of these economic forces, rural households adopted a frugal approach to material culture. Being closer to the means of production gave rural households a higher degree of self- sufficiency than most urban households during the nineteenth century; however, new urbanites that grew up in the country brought this pragmatic rural provisioning approach to their lives in the city.

Artifacts recovered from this site provide an opportunity to gain insights into urban household economic strategies. Early twentieth century River Street residents grew up in rural and agrarian families and were intimately familiar with self-provisioning. Food storage and gardening was central to this strategy. Agrarian households depended on long-term economic strategies that emphasized frugality and planning (Limerick 1987; Stine 1995). Even though urban residents had access to a wider range of cheap, canned goods and more regular income, recent emigrants from the countryside were accustomed to growing their own food as an economic necessity and pragmatic approach to life. Certain artifacts, like canning jar fragments recovered at this site, suggest dependence on agrarian economic strategies practiced in an urban setting.

Oral history interviews with former River Street residents revealed that most families in the neighborhood kept chickens, maintained gardens, and grew fruit trees. Residents also fished in the

Boise River and went hunting in the nearby foothills. In their 2014 interview, Dick Madry and

Warner Terrell said preserving food items obtained through self-provisioning provided most the food River Street families ate. Research questions within this domain include:

• What effect did expanding transportation and urbanization have on consumption or

economic strategies?

155

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

• Is there evidence of self-provisioning at this site (i.e., wild game bones, canning jar

fragments and lids)?

• What foods were consumed in these households?

Gender Roles

Early twentieth century material culture has the potential to provide insight into the changing gender roles for women in the United States. It is important to note that the artifacts in archaeological assemblages are the result of selective purchases of women in the household, regardless of who earned the money to buy them (Cook et al. 1996). As gender divisions solidified during the late nineteenth-century, middle-class women became responsible for the operation of the household, including purchasing the necessary items for its functioning, and were discouraged from entering the workforce to earn money of their own (Coontz 1992). This changed dramatically during the early twentieth century as more women entered the workforce, as evidenced by the life of Erma Hayman. Low-income and non-white women were even more likely to work outside the home. Women were important contributors to archaeological assemblages and analysis often sheds light into their personalities and consumer preferences.

The first half of the twentieth century was a time of changing definitions of masculinity. While acknowledging the historical subjectivity to social definitions of masculinity (Alberti 2006), early twentieth century men sought to achieve a socially acceptable, clean-cut outward appearance by maintaining good grooming habits. This was also important for being considered an upstanding man. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a well-groomed man was promoted as the ideal of masculine identity. Facial hair configurations at this time emphasized a clean-cut appearance with, at most, well-groomed moustaches. Certain material culture items such as 156

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project moustache mugs, razors, shaving cream jars, garter clasps, shoes, and buttons can provide information on masculine identity formation at this site.

• Is there evidence of gender divisions in the collected assemblages?

• What do gendered artifacts say about household adherence to cultural mores of the time?

• How do gendered artifacts relate to the racialization process?

Medicine, Health, Sanitation, and the City of Boise

The manufacture of proprietary and patent medicines for ailments of all types peaked in the

United States during the late nineteenth-century (Anderson 2000). These medicines were used by all classes, races, and both genders, and rampant illness and financial limitations motivated the purchase of large quantities to alleviate health problems (Bonasera and Raymer 2001:51). Many of the liquid medicines contained alcohol, morphine, opium, laudanum, or cocaine, which caused consumers to believe the remedies were effective because the narcotics produced a feeling of well- being (Anderson 2000:35). Aside from side-effects, some of these narcotics actually did have some positive effects on illness, but the lack of regulation, clinical trials, and knowledge of the long- term effect of drug use allowed these substances to be irresponsibly combined in patent medicines, diminishing their beneficial qualities.

Archaeologists have proposed that African Americans may have disproportionately used patent medicines over prescription medicines as a way of subverting race-based controls over access to medicine (Mullins 2001). In many communities, African Americans and other minorities did not have access to pharmacies or trained medical professionals. Archaeologists have noted that

African American sites tend to have an overrepresentation of patent and proprietary medicine

157

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project bottles because they did not have access to prescribed medicines. Additionally, the proliferation of patent medicine through mail-order catalogs made it easier for minorities to purchase remedies with comparative anonymity. Questions about access to medicine and health care include:

• What kind of medicines were used in the project area? Is there evidence for any specific

ailments treated?

• Is there any evidence of private drug use and/or abuse?

• Is there evidence of a disproportionate representation of patent medicines versus

prescribed medicines?

Waste disposal and sanitation was rudimentary and illness from polluted water was rampant during the nineteenth-century. Because disease epidemics were commonplace, the sanitation movement of the late nineteenth century created pressure to clean up cities, arguably doing more to curb contagious diseases and lower mortality rates than advances in medicine

(Leavitt and Numbers 1978). Regulations regarding privy design and construction were created in cities across the United States to battle disease with varying levels of success (Stottman 2000).

Sanitation developments were motivated by urban growth, progressive groups who pressured lawmakers to use sanitation experts to solve the problem of increasing waste, and responsive municipal governments who attacked the problem (Melosi 2000:103). As a result, wastewater and sewer treatment in urban areas of the United States rose from 50 percent of the

1870 urban population to 87 percent by 1920 (Melosi 2000:152).

Former River Street Neighborhood residents have stated that some homes continued to use privies well into the twentieth century, even after the sewer system had been extended to the

158

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project neighborhood. A number of explanations for the longevity of privies have been proposed, most of which revolve around the cost of hooking up to the city’s sewer system that would be incurred by absentee landlords. A 1912 Sanborn Map of the Erma Hayman House parcel shows a building marked “out house” that may have been a privy. Outbuildings that may have been privies are also illustrated on adjacent parcels. By the 1942 Sanborn Map, many of these outbuildings had been converted to detached dwellings or garages; nevertheless, some of the 1912 structures remain. The privy at the Hayman House had been demolished by the 1940s. Research questions associated to the use of privies in the project area include:

• What was the closure date for privies on this block?

• When was the sewer system extended to this segment of Ash Street?

• What role did the identified privies play in the development of sanitation in Boise?

Archaeological Field Methods

The archeological field effort had four primary components:

1. A six-week archaeological field school administered by the University of Idaho;

2. A concurrent public archaeology component that will allow visitors and volunteers to experience archaeological fieldwork in real-time;

3. An oral history component allowing students to participate in interviews with former residents of the neighborhood; and,

4. A comprehensive analysis and reporting of all project findings that will meet the standards of the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

159

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Excavations were oriented around three primary objectives: 1) archaeological investigation of the Erma Hayman House parcel. This was the primary focus of the field school and the location of the field laboratory for artifacts; 2) exploratory excavations north of the Hayman House parcel where the first Basque hand ball court in Boise may have existed around 1912, and; 3) exploratory excavations outside the Hayman House parcel to determine the presence or absence of intact archaeological deposits in these areas. Shovel probes were used outside the Hayman parcel to determine the extent of soil disturbance and the nature of archaeological remains in these areas, if any.

Excavation units of various metric sizes were used on the Hayman House parcel to relocate outbuildings seen on early twentieth century Sanborn Insurance Maps. On the Hayman House parcel, excavations focused on discovering a privy depicted on historical maps and recovering additional material culture from across the parcel. These units were supplemented with shovel probes to get additional information on sediments across the parcel. A shovel probe grid was excavated across the parcels that lie outside the Hayman House parcel in order to reveal site- specific stratigraphy and assess artifact density across the project area. Additional probes were used to ground-truth architectural features illustrated on Sanborn Maps including outbuildings and houses. Most importantly, the probes were used to evaluate disturbed sediments outside the

Hayman parcel.

Artifacts collected from excavation units were processed at a field laboratory. Artifacts were cleaned, cataloged, and prepared for curation according to guidelines established by the Idaho

SHPO. Artifacts were bagged by provenience, which was recorded on a bag catalog. These

160

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project materials will be curated in perpetuity at the Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology at the

University of Idaho, which is the northern repository for the State of Idaho.

Volunteer excavators and ethnographers

were coordinated by the Idaho Archaeological

Society in order to provide opportunities for as

many individuals as possible and spread the

volunteer effort across the entire project’s

duration (Figure 12). Volunteers were

matched with project supervisors and Figure 12: Volunteers processing artifacts and discussing project results with a site visitor, 2015 university students who gave them instructions on how to properly record data and process artifacts. Archaeologists and volunteers used hand tools to remove sediments from bounded excavation units. Excavated materials were recorded using a provenience designation (PD) system that was used to give each archaeological unit (test pits, shovel probes, excavation levels, and archaeological features) a unique number as an identifier. The results of each excavated level or archaeological unit was recorded on a PD summary form, which chronicled soil textures, artifact densities, and, if present, archaeological features. All forms were digitized as PDFs so they could be viewed on electronic devices.

Digital scans of historical maps were used to help place archaeological excavation units.

These scans were overlain upon aerial photographs of the project area with a UTM grid that could be used to place units on the ground surface (Figures 13 and 14). Additionally, these overlays were translated into KMZ files that could be used in GoogleEarth, which made them usable on a smartphone and, basically, turned our phones into GPS units. Global Information System (GIS)

161

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project data for excavation units and features was collected using a Trimble GeoXT handheld GPS unit.

The collected GIS points were downloaded and used to create maps in ArcMap software. These points were then projected as a layer that could be overlain upon historical maps, which is shown in Figures 13 and 14. The resulting data could be used to orient archaeological materials to buildings and structures that existed in the project area in the past. It also helped to associate the excavated materials with households in this part of the River Street Neighborhood.

Oral History Fieldwork Methods

Oral history interviews collected in 2014 focused on recollections of the neighborhood’s landscape and how living in River Street shaped the lives of the descendant community. Oral history interviews collected at the same time as the archaeological field school followed similar methods and research questions. Former neighborhood residents were invited to visit the archaeology project area to speak about their recollections of life in this location. As the study focused on racial dynamics in Boise, they were given the opportunity to comment on how race relations within the neighborhood compared with relations in the wider community.

Digital technology was used to record and store the oral histories. A lavalier microphone connected to a digital recorder, laptop, or smartphone was used to record the conversation. Most of the interviews were conducted at the project site but one interview was conducted at the interviewee’s home. Interviews in the neighborhood were optimal because of the powerful relationship between memory and places. Notable locations were pointed out in real-time and digital photographs of those places were taken.

162

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Figure 13: Archaeological unit locations in relation to historical buildings on Sanborn Insurance Maps (1912) (Map courtesy Idaho State Historical Archives, Boise)

163

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Figure 14: Archaeological unit locations in relation to historical buildings on Sanborn Insurance Maps (1949) (Map courtesy Idaho State Historical Archives, Boise)

164

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

A total of 14 oral history interviews were used to contextualize the archaeological and historical data collected for this project. These are listed in Table 4. Five interviews were recorded in 1980 and 1981 as part of Mateo Osa’s historic preservation survey of the River Street

Neighborhood (see Chapter 4). Transcripts of these interviews were obtained from the Idaho State

Historical Archives in Boise. These interviews contain a trove of African American memories of how the neighborhood used to be during the mid-twentieth century and are invaluable as all five of the persons interviewed have since deceased. Additional interviews were recorded in 2014 and

2015 as part of the River Street Digital History Project. These later interviews included not only

African American residents but also European Americans that lived in River Street as children.

Interviews from 2015 were recorded at the archaeological project area.

Table 4: Oral History Interviews used for this Project

YEAR NAME RACE/ETHNICITY INTERVIEWER RECORDED 1980 Stewart, Bessie African American Osa 1981 1980 Perkins, Ellen African American Osa 1981 1981 Thomas, Doris European Osa 1981 American 1981 Buckner, Dorothy African American Osa 1981 1981 Tigner, Rosa African American Osa 1981 2014 Terrell, III, Warner African American White 2014 2014 Madry, Dick African American White 2014 2014 Bertram, John European White 2014 American 2014 Rice, II, Lee African American White 2014 2015 Stevens, Gigi European White et al. 2015 American 2015 Kennedy, LaVaun European White et al. 2015 American 2015 Wheeler, Lois European White et al. 2015 American 2015 Wheeler, Jack E. European White et al. 2015 American

165

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

YEAR NAME RACE/ETHNICITY INTERVIEWER RECORDED 2015 Hill, Sharon Diane European White et al. 2015 American 2015 Thomas, Kenneth W. European White et al. 2015 American

For the 2014–2015 interviews, potential consultants were identified through collaboration with the South Side of the Tracks Kids Club, which is a group of neighborhood descendants that have semi-regular reunions in Boise. The author attended the reunion in 2013 and obtained the contact information of several descendants. Contact information for additional interviewees was obtained through Boise’s largest African American church, St. Paul Baptist Church. All interviews, the ones collected in the 1980s and 2010s, were open-ended and semi-structured. A questionnaire was not used. Interviewees were asked to talk about their lives in the neighborhood.

They were also asked to point out memorable landmarks in the area including their houses, the houses of friends and relatives, and other places in the neighborhood. A snowball method was used to identify additional persons to interview. The first round of interviewees was asked to provide the contact information of other descendants that might be interested in collaborating on the project. They were also asked to personally contact other descendants and tell them about what was being done in their former neighborhood. From this method, a larger number of individuals was identified than could be interviewed.

All descendants that provided interviews in 2014 and 2015 signed release forms from the

University of Arizona explaining the purpose and use of their interview. These documents remain on file with the author. In order to maintain confidentiality, audio files generated during this project

166

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project were not uploaded to the internet and were donated to the City of Boise Department of Arts and

History and the Idaho State Historical Archives in Boise for curation.

The Materiality of this Region of Refuge

As the next chapter will explain, excavation units showed the presence of intact archaeological horizons exist in the project area; however, these were not evenly distributed.

Sediments were more intact at the southern end of parcels owned by the CCDC and on parcels owned by Boise Parks. Artifacts recovered date between the 1890s and 1960s, a time when the

River Street Neighborhood was a segregated enclave inhabited by “the others.” Excavations also identified archaeological features shown on historical maps and some that were not depicted. In sum, the archaeological excavations provided enough information to get a snapshot of what everyday life was like in the neighborhood when it was a region of refuge.

Oral histories, those recorded as part of this project and ones recorded by Mateo Osa in

1980 (see Chapter 4 for additional information on these interviews), clearly indicate River Street was a place where racial mores were somewhat transcended. Neighborliness and cooperation were characteristics remembered by the descendant community and it was these attributes that helped the community stay cohesive in the face of discrimination outside the neighborhood. These characteristics developed during the late 1940s when the neighborhood’s African American population increased. The European Americans that stayed in River Street were those who were most willing to live alongside African Americans regardless of the stigma that came with living in the Black Neighborhood. Oral histories explain how the character we know today was not always the way things were.

167

Chapter 5: Research Methods of the River Street Archaeology Project

Most importantly, the archaeology and oral histories helped describe what everyday life was like for neighborhood residents. Analysis of these data provides a foundation for evaluating the material source of the identity River Street residents have carried with them throughout their lives.

168

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Artifacts and historical documents were combined to guide archaeological excavations in this corner of the River Street Neighborhood during the first half of the twentieth-century. These datasets show that the neighborhood was constantly changing. The built environment has been dramatically altered as lots initially dedicated to detached, single-family dwellings were joined by outbuildings that were rented as dwellings. This increase in dwellings made the 600 block of Ash

Street a densely-populated place. Household demographics also changed over time as owner- occupied households were joined by tenants and as the neighborhood shifted from a Basque place to an African American one. Archaeological excavation units identified material culture deposited by historical residents along with sediments disturbed by building demolition and construction.

The excavations yielded archaeological data that could be combined with oral histories to get a better understanding of what life was like in the neighborhood.

Living in a Changing Landscape

The built environment of the River Street Neighborhood has always been constantly in flux. Archaeology in a portion of this place had to take into account the frequent construction and demolition events that impacted sediments and archaeological deposits. Additionally, the demographic composition of the neighborhood changed on an annual basis. While there were several long-time residents, many of those who lived there were renters who had no obligation to stay in the neighborhood after their leases were up.

Historical maps and demographic information gleaned from public records like city directories and county tax assessor’s office provided a glimpse into who was living in River Street and the kind of environment they inhabited. It also shed light into the type of employment residents

169

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s had and, in some cases, the residents’ racial or ethnic identity. This information was useful for interpreting the archaeological remains excavated from the 600 block of Ash Street.

Historical maps and documents show that temporariness characterized the life of most

River Street residents. Permanence was only known for a few families. The archaeological analysis centers around those long-time families; however, it is difficult to directly connect artifacts with families due to the nature of the sediments and deposits investigated archaeologically. As will be explained below, there is not an exact correlation between sediments, artifacts, and archival data in this part of River Street. The archaeological data provides a broad understanding of what life was like in this place in the past, however, it does not provide an exact snapshot into the lives of individuals.

Who Lived in the River Street Neighborhood from 1909 to the 1970s?

Historical maps show that the orientation and location of buildings on the 600 block of Ash

Street changed through time between 1912 and 1949. Buildings on the parcels in this area have changed even more dramatically after the 1980s when most structures in this area were demolished to make way for new construction, which had also been demolished by the time archaeology was conducted there. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps published in 1912, 1922, and 1949 provide the most accurate visualization of how buildings changed in this area of the neighborhood. Figures 13 and

14 in Chapter 5 illustrate how historical buildings from 1912 and 1949 relate to archaeological excavation units. Figures 15, 16, and 17 provide an overview of how buildings changed between

1912 and 1949 with relation to the archaeological project area.

170

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Figure 15: Buildings in project area (1912) (Adapted from Demo 2006; Sanborn Map Company 1912:41)

Figure 16: Buildings in project area (1922) (Adapted from Demo 2006; Sanborn Map Company 1922:41)

171

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Figure 17: Buildings in project area (1949) (Adapted from Demo 2006; Sanborn Map Company 1922:41)

These historical maps illustrate the trend towards density that took place in the first half of the twentieth century. The number of buildings increased on many of the lots in the project area, a fact that is reflected in city directory information associated with this place and these dwellings that were occupied by working class Boiseans (Appendix A is a directory of known residents of the 600 block of Ash Street between 1909 and 2006). For example, the parcels at 509 and 511 Ash

Street had one dwelling and one outbuilding each in 1912. This building configuration remained the same at these addresses in 1922. Between 1909 and 1925, William Anthony and Melissa Helen lived at 509 Ash Street. William was a bookbinder and storekeeper while Melissa worked at The

Mode–a Boise department store. By 1927, this property was owned by Chas. Martin and Ray Short who built a new building and subdivided the property by adding two more dwellings (509 ½ and

509 ⅓ Ash Street). Boarders with a number of different occupations lived in these smaller dwellings during the 1930s including a tobacconist and general laborers (Demo 2006). The

172

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s densification process is more pronounced for the property at 511 Ash Street. This parcel contained a single-family detached dwelling with a small outbuilding in 1912 and 1922, but, by 1949 an apartment building had replaced the original house and two newer, small dwellings had been built.

The parcel was now a five-unit apartment complex that housed dozens of tenants between the

1940s and 1990s (see Appendix A; Demo 2006).

The archaeological project centered around the Erma Hayman House at 617 Ash Street, which was the only extant building on the block in 2015 and was associated with a family of long- term African American neighborhood residents. Erma and her husband Lawrence Hayman bought this house in 1949 from the Robertson family. Erma lived there until her death in 2006 (Madry

2014). The house at 617 Ash was occupied by a number of different individuals between 1909 and

1944 when Harry Robertson and his family lived there. Previous residents included police officers, a barber, a salesman, and some laborers. In 1912 and 1922, there were three dwellings on this parcel: 617, 617 ½ and 617 ⅓ Ash Street, but city directories only list the resident of the main dwelling at this address. Harry Robertson’s daughter Gigi Stevens stated in an oral history interview that she lived there with her parents until the end of World War II (Stevens 2015). It is unknown if the Robertson family rented the other dwellings, but it is known that the Haymans did not rent to boarders and converted one of the dwellings into a garage in the 1950s (Dick Madry, personal communication, 2015).

Density increased during the 1940s as a result of World War II, but building additional dwellings on house lots continued in the 1950s. Historical maps illustrate this trend. As the only location where African Americans could live, former residents recall black families occupying small outbuildings that had been converted to dwellings (Demo 2006; Osa 1981; Stewart 1980).

There was incentive for absentee property owners to increase the revenue from their properties.

173

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

By adding new dwellings and converting outbuildings landlords could pack more people on their existing lots. The maps also show this did not happen on every lot in this area; for example, the house at 633 Ash Street remained in the same configuration until it was demolished to make way for the realignment of River Street in 1965 (Sanborn Map Company 1912:41, 1922:41, 1949:41).

Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, demolishing original buildings to make way for larger, multi- family apartment buildings added to population density in the project area. This trend continues into the present. The demise of the houses at 609 and 611 Ash Street are examples of this activity.

After remaining relatively intact between 1912 and 1949, these dwellings were demolished in 1981 to be replaced with two larger apartment buildings—621 and 651 Ash Street—which were both damaged by fire in the 2000s and demolished. Archaeological testing found no trace of any buildings on these lots as the sediments had been entirely disturbed by 2015.

City directories show the 600 block of Ash Street was inhabited by a mixture of working class individuals and families. Oral histories and other sources show that some of these dwellings were occupied by non-European Americans, specifically African American and Basque people.

Documents and interviews explain the 600 block of Ash Street was historically occupied by a diverse population of families (Demo 2006; Madry, personal communication, 2015; Stevens,

2015; Thomas, 2015). The Hayman family lived at 617 Ash Street for over 50 years and their sandstone house was the only extant building in the project area. At the other end of the block, the

African American Ray family moved into the house at 503 Ash Street in 1983 and resided at this address until the building was demolished in 2006 (Demo 2006). Doris and Jackson Thomas, a

European American family, moved next door to the Hayman family at 633 Ash Street in 1944.

The Thomases ran a café in downtown Boise and they raised their children, who were friends with

174

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s other African American children, in the River Street Neighborhood until their house was demolished in 1964 as part of the realignment of River Street (Thomas 2015).

All of these mid-twentieth century families moved in to their homes after they had already been occupied by a number of different families. Most of the houses on this block were constructed at the turn-of-the-twentieth century and were decades old by the time the Haymans, Thomases, and Rays arrived to the neighborhood. Diversity was also characteristic of this part of the neighborhood since its earliest days. For example, between 1909 and 1917 Basque families inhabited the houses at 631 Lovers Lane, which was across an alley behind the Hayman house at

617 Ash Street. Domingo Szabala and Manuel Aberasturi lived at 631 Lovers Lane between 1909 and 1916. It is believed that Szabala and Aberasturi constructed Boise’s first fronton, a concrete court where traditional Basque handball games were played (Alegria 1987; Demo 2006). By 1917, this house was owned by Marcellano and Maria Arana who operated a bakery from this location

(Demo 2006). It is believed the Aranas integrated the fronton into their bakery’s architecture

(Madry, personal communication, 2015). The fronton is not depicted in Sanborn Maps from 1922 or 1949.

Piecing together the material lives of the residents of this section of River Street was complicated because of the continual construction, demolition, and remodeling of buildings that took place in the past. As will be explained, sediments across the project area were created from decades of activities that took place on the landscape. This sequential accumulation of material culture is the product of past events, some of which obliterated evidence of what happened before.

While disturbance is widespread, intact historical strata were identified in some parts of the project area. It is from these intact historical sedimentary lenses that archaeologists can gain an understanding of what life was like in the neighborhood in the past.

175

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Excavation Results

Archaeological excavations included controlled units of varying dimensions including 40- centimeter-diameter (16-inch-diameter) circular shovel probes, square test pits, and a rectangular hand trench. Shovel probes were used to collect stratigraphic information about sediments in the project area whereas square test pits were used to investigate sediment strata containing historical artifact-bearing sediments. All units were excavated using hand tools, trowels, shovels, picks, and sediments were screened through rocker screens with ⅛-inch hardware cloth. A total of 34 shovel probes, 11 test pits, and one hand trench were excavated at various locations across the project area (Figure 18). Artifact density was not uniform across the project area, which is depicted in

Table 5. A total of 12,048 artifacts were recovered from all units, but 88 percent (n=10,612) of the assemblage was recovered from square excavation units.

Table 5: Artifact Distribution from Controlled Excavation Units

HISTORICAL TEST ARTIFACT STRATA PIT DIMENSION DEPTH VOLUME ARTIFACTS DENSITY DENSITY 6 2x2 0.48 1.92 794 413.54 581.25 7 2x2 0.54 2.16 680 314.81 669.32 16/22 2x2 0.54 2.16 1907 882.87 1263.64 19 2x2 0.63 2.52 714 283.33 505.88 27 1x1 0.47 0.47 250 531.91 553.85 40 2x2 0.49 1.96 1320 673.47 1047.41 82 1x1 0.48 0.48 526 1095.83 1706.90 83 1x1 0.47 0.47 542 1153.19 1462.16 107 4x0.5 0.35 0.7 107 152.86 265.79 118 1x1 0.58 0.58 984 1696.55 2006.25 127 2x2 0.48 1.92 1031 536.98 591.07 130 2x2 0.42 1.68 1086 646.43 725.93 142 1x1 0.8 0.8 671 838.75 1069.49 TOTAL 10612

176

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Figure 18: Excavation Unit Locations, 2015

177

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Excavation units demonstrated widespread disturbance with a horizon of historical artifact- bearing sediments in some locations; however, the exact cause of these disturbed sediments is not known on all lots. As the project area spans nine parcels that were privately owned by different individuals until recently, each parcel has a unique construction, demolition, and redevelopment history. Historical maps illustrate change in the built environment that continues into the present.

As a result, most of the original buildings in the project area have been demolished. On some lots these buildings were replaced, oftentimes more than once. Archival documents provide limited information as to when construction and remodel events occurred. Despite this wealth of information, the exact date of ground-disturbing events remains unknown for most lots.

Demolition of older structures is most

likely the cause of sediment disturbance.

As explained in Chapter 3, buildings in

River Street were spared mass demolitions

associated with urban renewal. Instead,

buildings in the neighborhood have been

developed/redeveloped in a more

piecemeal fashion. One by one, buildings

have been demolished and replaced with

new structures, oftentimes multi-family

apartment buildings (Figure 19). This

continues into the present. The building

demolition rate in the neighborhood has

Figure 19:Demolition of 1114 Lee Street in 2006 (Demo 2006) remained consistent since the 1940s. At

178

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s least one building is lost every one to two years. This was mentioned in previous building surveys conducted by Osa (1981) and Stacy (1995). In her extensive building documentation on Lee and

Ash Streets, Demo (2006) witnessed the house at 1114 Lee Street being demolished before she could record it for her study (see Figure 19). This dwelling is less than one block away from the archaeology project area and was recommended eligible for preservation by both Osa (1981) and

Stacy (1995). In 2017, remained a vacant lot. In the time between the launch of the River Street

Digital History website in 2014 and the publication of this dissertation, the author is aware that two houses were demolished at 606 and 612 S. 13th Street, which is approximately one block northeast of the Erma Hayman House. These lots also remained vacant in 2017. It is likely more homes will be demolished as the City of Boise grows and as the City’s urban renewal plans come to fruition.

Each of these demolition and redevelopment events impacted sediments in the project area to varying degrees, as seen in the shovel probe stratigraphic profile illustrated in Figure 20.

Depending on the extent and depth of excavations, historical and natural sediments have been disturbed. In some places, as is the case at 609 and 611 Ash Street, engineered fill characterized by sand with many subrounded cobbles and gravels has been introduced, covering natural and possibly historical sedimentary layers. In other locations, especially in the northeastern quadrant of the project area, historical sediments have been disturbed down to the natural sediments, obliterating any intact archaeological matrix. The archaeological field methods for this project had to account for extensive disturbance while being flexible enough to investigate pockets of intact historical sediments. This was done by employing different excavation unit types and evaluating intact sediments with careful excavations.

179

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Shovel probes, which are documented in Appendix B, showed the uppermost sediments across the project area have been disturbed to varying depths. Archaeologists were able to penetrate through the disturbed sediments until reaching natural sediments. The term “disturbed” means sediments that have been displaced in the last 50 years. “Natural” sediments are characterized by yellowish brown fluvial sands, silts, and clays that are indicative of terrain conditions prior to the construction of an urban landscape in this location. In most locations, these natural sediments contained laminated lenses or pockets of brown silt that alternated with the yellowish brown sand. The depth of these natural sediments in relation to the ground surface varied because historical construction, demolition, filling for architectural purposes, and other deposition processes affected the ground surface to varying degrees and did not uniformly impact the ground surface across the project area. Figure 20 illustrates the general distribution of sedimentary layers across the project area from north to south, showing that these layers are not

Figure 20: Shovel probe stratigraphy along east edge of project area.

180

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s congruous or contiguous across the site. Even in locations where historical artifact-bearing matrix was identified, a significant amount of modern disturbance has impacted the upper 15 to 20 centimeters (6 to 8 inches) of sediment.

Controlled excavation units, called test pits, were positioned in locations where intact, historical artifact-bearing sediments were identified. These “historical” sediments were characterized by a dark brown silty or sandy loam containing artifacts made prior to the 1960s and, oftentimes, contained evidence of burning like coal, charcoal, or slag and cinder fragments. In general, the historical stratum was encountered below disturbed matrix and above natural fluvial sediments. Like sediments, historical artifacts were not uniformly encountered across the project area. Table 5 shows the quantity and density of artifacts in the 13 test pits.

Historical artifacts were generally encountered between 10 and 50 centimeters below the ground surface (cmbs). This is illustrated in Appendix C. Intact historical sediments were only identified in a small lens in most test pits between 20 and 60 cm thick. This made test pits with a smaller volume had a higher artifact density because the historical sedimentary strata were a greater percentage of the test pit’s volume. Appendix C also illustrates how several of the larger two-by-two–meter test pits yielded a greater number of artifacts and, even when controlling for the volume of the historical strata, smaller one-by-one–meter pits had a higher artifact density.

This discrepancy had three main causes: 1) smaller, one-by-one-meter test pits were usually placed in locations where shovel probes had already confirmed the presence of intact historical strata; 2) larger two-by-two-meter test pits were designed to capture a greater number of artifacts and/or explore subsurface archaeological features; therefore, they had a greater volume-to-artifact ratio, and; 3) the historical strata represent discrete discard events that did not happen uniformly across the project area (i.e., some households deposited more items than others and distribution activities

181

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s on each parcel changed throughout time). Basically, discard in the past did not take place at the same rate or in the same part of the house’s yard between the 1890s and 1960s.

Controlled excavation

units provided insight into the

distribution and integrity of

sediments across the project area.

Aside from an upper horizon of

disturbed matrix about 20 cm

thick, the lower sedimentary

levels at 617 and 633 Ash Street as Figure 22: North Wall profile of TP 83 at 633 Ash Street, view north. Note the clearly visible lens of historical sediments characterized by dark brown sandy silt positioned between sterile sediments and modern disturbance (2015) well as portions of 631 Lovers Lane contained intact, historical

sediments (Figures 21 and 22).

Only a small pocket of intact,

historical sediments was identified

at the rear of 509 Ash Street.

Sediments were disturbed down to

sterile, natural fluvial sediments

Figure 21: West wall profile of TP 40 at 617 Ash Street, view west. Note the across the remainder of the project thick coal oven clean-out in the left side of the photo (2015) area.

Controlled excavation units encountered both artifacts and archaeological features. Except for the fronton which was found at 631 Lover’s Lane, all features were identified at 617 and 633

182

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Ash Street. A more detailed description of the sedimentary, artefactual, and feature summary for the various test pits excavated in the 2015 field season can be found in Appendix C.

Artifact Summary

A total of 12,048 artifacts were recovered from all excavation units, shovel probes, and one hand trench. These items are summarized in Table 6. Metal artifacts, which were primarily nails and miscellaneous metal fragments, comprised the largest percentage of the assemblage (n=5,093;

42.3 percent). Glass fragments (n=4,214; 35.8 percent) including bottle, window, and miscellaneous vessel glass was the second most prominent artifact material type. Most of the remaining 21.9 percent of artifacts was comprised of ceramic fragments from tablewares and decorative items (n=937; 7.8 percent), and organic items like marine shell, faunal bone, and fruit pits (n=1,365; 11.3 percent). The remaining 2.8 percent of artifacts was plastic (n=215; 1.8 percent), rubber (n=68; 0.6 percent) and leather (n=22; 0.18 percent) fragments. Five prehistoric lithic artifacts were also recovered. These included one chert secondary flake, a piece of chert shatter, a basalt secondary flake, one obsidian secondary flake, and one piece of obsidian shatter.

Very few artifacts could be accurately dated based on manufacturing marks. Those that could are listed in Table 7. Approximate dates could be gleaned from the assemblage from some artifacts like glass that had specific manufacturing techniques and utilized different materials throughout time. While most metal artifacts were non-diagnostic, bottle glass includes items made with manufacturing processes that were common during the early twentieth century. During the late nineteenth century, bottle manufacturing in the United States made the switch from hand- manufacture to fully automated manufacturing processes. By 1881, the first semi-automatic bottle machines were patented in the United States. Semi-automatic bottle machines were capable of making the base, body, and neck of the vessel automatically but the finish and lip were still tooled

183

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Table 6: Artifact Summary

ARTIFACT MATERIAL N= % ARTIFACT MATERIAL N= % ARTIFACT MATERIAL N= % CERAMIC LITHICS OTHER Clothing closure 1 Debitage 5 Clothing closure 1 Earthenwares 767 LITHICS Total 5 0.04 Fabric 2 Lighting 8 METAL Other 21 Other 4 Ammunition 8 Tool 1 Porcelain 145 Bottle Closure 51 OTHER Total 25 0.21 Stoneware 6 Can 62 PLASTIC Toy 5 Clothing closure 50 Bottle Closure 2 CERAMIC Total 936 7.77 Hardware 1002 Clothing closure 7 GLASS Jewelry 4 Clothing 1 Decorative 31 Lighting 1 Miscellaneous 2 Machine-made bottle 147 Miscellaneous 1444 Other 18 Bead 1 Nail 2069 Tool 1 Clothing closure 1 Other 47 Toy 162 Flatware 543 Tool 11 Unknown 22 Canning Jar 69 Toy 4 PLASTIC Total 215 1.78 Canning Jar Lid 46 Unknown 340 RUBBER Lighting 186 METAL Total 5093 42.27 Other 66 Other 13 ORGANIC Toy 2 Semi-Automatic Bottle 15 Marine Shell 43 RUB Total 68 0.56 Toy 16 Button 9 UNKNOWN Unknown Bottle 2513 Clothing closure 5 Unknown 5 Unknown 505 Faunal 1124 UNKNOWN Total 5 0.04 Unknown Vessel 228 Floral 174 Grand Total 12048 99.98 GLASS Total 4314 35.8 Other 9 LEATHER Unknown 1 Other 22 ORGANIC Total 1365 11.33 LEATHER Total 22 0.18

184

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

Table 7: Makers Marks Summary

PD ART. UNIT LEVEL MARK MANUFCTURER LOCATION DATE REFERENCE NO. 30 268 TP- 3 KERR GLASS MFG Kerr Glass Sand Springs, 1915--Present Toulouse 16/22 CORP/ SAND Manufacturing Oklahoma 1972:42; SPRINGS OK/ 11 Company Toulouse 1977:307--308 30 284 TP- 3 WRA CO./.32…W Winchester New Haven, 1866--Present White and 16/22 Repeating Arms Connecticut Munhall 1963:26- Company -27 35 317 TP-16 4 …LAUGHLIN/…BLIC" Homer Laughlin Homer Laughlin 1936--1973 Lehner 1989:246 FiestaWare FiestaWare China Company 35 369 TP-16 4 ... T&K. Knowles, Taylor, East Liverpool, 1919--1926+ Lehner 1989:238 Knowles Ohio 44 523 TP-40 2 "DWM/K/K" Deutsche Waffen- Baden and Berlin, 1896--1922 Barnes 2006:601 cartridge, und Germany centerfire 0.39 Munitionsfabriken in/9.9 mm Aktien- Gesellschaft 44 534 TP-40 2 "CLOROX" plastic Clorox Company, United States 1940--1960 The Clorox cap Inc. Company 2017 71 726 SP-9 "SHIRLEY Shirley, c. 1902--1915+ Collier's 1909:27; PRESIDENT" Massachusetts Dry Goods suspenders clasp Reporter 1915: 94 906 TP-83 2 centerfire Winchester New Haven, 1902--Present Barnes 2006:298 "W.R.A.Co/38 S&W Repeating Arms Connecticut SPL" Company

88 966 TP-82 2 Mason jar lid liner; Toulouse 1977 "GENUINE BOYD CAP/ FOR MASON JARS"

185

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

PD ART. UNIT LEVEL MARK MANUFCTURER LOCATION DATE REFERENCE NO. 85 1005 TP-82 1 1910 Lincoln wheat United States Various locations 1909--1942 Yeoman penny 2005:113--114 85 1006 TP-82 1 1909 Liberty Head United States Various locations 1892--1916 Yeoman dime 2005:147--149

87 1046 SP-13 Suspender clasp; "CROWN MAKE [in cursive]/ PAT JUNE 7, 1881"

77 1055 SP-12 rimfire; .22 regular Union Metallic Bridgeport, 1857--Present Barnes 2006:467; "U" Cartridge Connecticut Goodman 1998 Company n.d. 128 1165 TP-127 1 "CAP23/GENUINE PORCELAIN LINED" nearly complete 131 1237 TP-130 1 T.S.&T./Lu-Ray Taylor, Smith, and Chester, W. 1938--1950s Lehner 1988:461- Pastels, U.S.A. Taylor Company Virginia -462 134 1305 TP-127 3 rim-fire, .22 short; Winchester New Haven, 1857--Present Barnes 2006:467 "H" Repeating Arms Connecticut Company 135 1355 TP-130 2 AMB; Owens- Owens-Illinois Streator, Illinois 1933 Lockhart 2004:27 Illinois "20/O-I-in- Glass Company Diamond/3 [on bottom]/5 [on right]" 140 1443 TP-127 5 Homer Laughlin Homer Laughlin East Liverpool, c.1900 Lehner 1989:247 Company Ohio 146 1452 TP-127 6 Homer Laughlin Homer Laughlin East Liverpool, c.1900 Lehner 1989:247 Company Ohio

186

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s

PD ART. UNIT LEVEL MARK MANUFCTURER LOCATION DATE REFERENCE NO. 149 1518 TP-142 3 KERR GLASS MFG Kerr Glass Chicago, Illinois 1909--1912 Toulouse CO./CHICAGO IL Manufacturing 1972:307 Company 154 1569 TP-142 5 bottle base, Owens-Illinois United States 1940+ Toulouse "DURAGLAS" Company 1972:403 cursive; 160 1635 SP-31 CORELLE/BY Corning Glass United States 1970s Corning Museum CORNING Works of Glass 2017 158 1647 TP-127 clean-up Owens Illinois mark Owens-Illinois United States 1930s+ Toulouse "O-I-in-diamond" Company 1972:403 mark "4441-G/3" below

187

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s by hand. The first fully automatic bottle machine was developed in 1903 and these machines dominated the market by the 1920s (Jones and Sullivan 1989:38–39). At River Street, a few fragments from semi-automatic machine-made bottles were identified alongside a greater number of fully automatic machine-made bottles.

Decoloring additives in glass were also important for providing approximate dates to archaeological strata, particularly sun-colored amethyst glass fragments (n=212). Beginning in

1865, manganese was an economic substance added to glass flux to help make it colorless. In the

United States, this additive reached its peak production between 1880 and 1920s. By the 1920s, selenium had replaced manganese as a major glass decolorant. Manganese is an important dating tool because, when exposed to sunlight for an extended period of time, glass containing manganese will turn various shades of purple or amethyst (Lockhart 2006). Solarized glass that has turned amethyst indicates the surrounding sediments were most likely deposited between the 1880s and

1920s, which was the earliest period of occupation at River Street.

Very few datable maker’s marks were identified on artifacts in this assemblage. This is likely because glass and ceramic artifacts have been broken into many pieces and were recovered from non-stratified archaeological contexts. Nevertheless, the few marks identified are associated with large, nationally distributed products that were widely available in the United States. These marks are summarized in Table 8. Artifacts with manufacturing marks include a range of items from tableware vessels to bottles to ammunition. Nearly all of these items were made in the United

States. It is through these mass-produced products and locally obtained food items that archaeologists can get a glimpse of what everyday life was like for River Street residents. In conjunction with stratigraphic data and oral histories, these items can be used to address the research domains that can be extrapolated to investigate aspects of race, racialization,

188

Chapter 6: Life in the River Street Neighborhood, 1890s to 1960s stigmatization, and craft a narrative of the River Street Neighborhood as a region of refuge for its historical residents.

189

Chapter 7: Unpacking the Research Domains

Despite decades of construction, demolition, and reconstruction on the 600 block of Ash

Street, intact sedimentary strata containing material culture were identified and have been used to address a series of research domains crafted specifically for this project. The things people purchase, make and use in their everyday lives provide insight into their personal identity, group affiliation, and socioeconomic status. Because things are imbued with meaning, these discarded items can be considered a reflection of who River Street residents were and who they wanted others to think they were.

Addressing the Research Domains

The archaeological data collected from excavation units summarized in Chapter 6 can be used to address the research domains posited in Chapter 5. When combined with oral history interviews, a rich investigation of life in this changing human landscape can be crafted. The following sections summarize how archaeology provides information on what life was like for

River Street residents on the 600 block of Ash Street and Lovers Lane during the first half of the twentieth century.

Site Formation and Stratigraphy

Excavations demonstrated that historical strata were created through the slow accumulation of organic and inorganic particles on a relatively stable ground surface over decades of time.

Excavations did not encounter stratified archaeological features like refuse piles, privies, or burn piles, but intact sedimentary layers containing historical artifacts were identified. The historical strata in this project area are indicative of the space between buildings, also known as a yard. Yards have been recognized as important activity areas by archaeologists, especially those studying

190

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

African Americans in the Western Hemisphere. As Heath and Bennett explain (2000:38), the yard is a bounded, sometimes enclosed, area of land that immediately surrounds a dwelling and is considered an extension of that dwelling. It is the site of domestic activities; the care and maintenance of domesticated animals and plants; a recreation area; and a source of aesthetic enjoyment. In River Street, residents raised gardens, tended chickens, and recreated in their yards.

The yard was also a play area for children (Madry 2014; Terrell, III 2014). Yards were important spaces for neighborhood residents because they were an outdoor extension of domestic habitus and, thus, contributed to household identity, self-sufficiency, and home economics.

Artifacts recovered from intact sediments reflect domestic activities and limited disposal activities that took place in yards. Materials deposited here took place through happenstance and were impacted by activities that took place after their original deposition. Most glass, ceramic, and metal artifacts have been broken into pieces smaller than two centimeters in diameter. While over

12,000 artifacts were collected, not a single complete vessel was recovered from the project area.

This most likely happened because the various broken bottles, tableware vessels, and metal objects discarded in the yard areas were trampled for years after their deposition. Neighborhood residents had other reasons not to discard objects in their yards. Most inorganic refuse from River Street was discarded through the city’s trash collection service. African Americans, immigrants, and poor whites were likely to discard their refuse through the trash collection system because sanitation violations targeted members of these groups during the twentieth century (Valentine 2016).

Additionally, unkempt yards were a primary complaint of non-neighborhood residents who sought to characterize River Street as a blighted area. Non-white property owners had incentives to keep their yards clean to not add to the identity of their homes as negative places.

191

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

The combination of artifacts and sedimentary data demonstrate the project area is an active landscape containing echoes of past activities. Despite widespread disturbance, pockets of intact sediments contained items discarded in yard areas. Historical strata are a palimpsest of activities conducted by households over decades. Because intact, stratified features were not identified, it is nearly impossible to connect artifacts, strata, or activities to a single household or time period.

Material culture collected in most units explains what life was like for the average resident rather than a specific family.

Social and Economic Identities

City directories and oral histories indicate that River Street residents were solidly working class. Most of the professions noted in the directories, which can be found in Appendix A, are jobs in the service industry or labor-related positions. In the United States, class differentiations are difficult to separate from other social identifiers because aspects of class, economic status, and social statuses—categories like racial and ethnic affiliation—are intrinsically enmeshed (Walker

2008:117). Since the country’s conception, American colonists and citizens have sought to dispel hardened class divisions like those that existed in Europe (Isenberg 2016).

During the twentieth century, most Americans sought to classify themselves as members of the middle-class. Middle-class affiliation can be postulated from certain classes of artifacts.

Based on the value and frequency of ceramic fragments and decorative bric-a-brac, residents at this site appear to have been members of the middle-class. Categorization of the middle-class is difficult, but estimates from the early twentieth-century suggest that between 20 and 40 percent of

United States households earned enough money to be in this socioeconomic group (Cowan 1983).

This suggests that a moderate level of financial stability and success was an important determinate

192

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains of middle-class citizenship, which is often reflected in the material culture purchased by households.

Souvenirs and bric-a-brac refer to decorative materials that do not fulfill a functional purpose except to display the desired knowledge, personalities, and characteristics of the owner.

In this sense, this artifact has a high esteem value. Displaying these items became popular during the 1850s and continued into the twentieth-century, presenting materials associated with social status (or desired social status) that had little to do with the cost of these objects (Mullins

1999a:159). By the twentieth century, these mass-produced items were generic and affordable but were still important household markers that had the potential do display worldliness, sophistication, and adherence to social mores. According to archaeologist Paul Mullins:

“In any context, bric-a-brac’s symbolism was a situationally distinct fusion

reflecting who its consumers consciously understood themselves to be, their

objective position in social and class structure, and who they wished to be.

Symbolically, bric-a-brac was a daydreaming commodity form which consumers

mused over, idealizing who they were by dreaming about who they and their society

could be” (1999a:164).

For African Americans, bric-a-brac was more than simply commodifying an ideal lifestyle or membership in a social group. Decorative display items not only confirmed citizenship and affiliation with American social groups like class and nationality, but they also played a role in a consumer politics that reaffirmed the existence of African Americans as a people in their own right–distinctive from the overarching “Americanness” that was idealized as a prerequisite for belonging to middle-class America (Mullins 1999a, 2017). At River Street, small fragments of painted ceramic vessels, porcelain figurines, Asian porcelain vessels, and colored press-molded

193

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains glass items were household furniture. These stylish items reflected household aesthetics; items that improved the interior ambiance. But, they were also conspicuous consumption displays that explained the social and financial status of household occupants to neighbors and visitors. These items were supposed to be seen by household visitors and were intended to demonstrate the residents’ commitment to American consumer culture, class affiliation, and middle-class mores

(Mullins 2017).

Financial stability for working-class Americans was the ideal that was supposed to firmly place them among the ranks of the middle-class, although this was difficult for a laborer, clerk, or railroad worker to achieve. By the twentieth century, working-class Americans could obtain material culture associated with the middle class because distribution and manufacturing networks allowed formerly exotic items to be readily available to a greater number of people at cheaper prices (Cowan 1983; Riordan and Adams 1985). One example from River Street is the diversity of Asian porcelain tableware vessel fragments recovered from several different excavation units across the project area. A total of 145 porcelain artifacts were recovered from the project area, 140 of which were from decorative figurines, bisque dolls, or tableware vessels. Decorative porcelain fragments were obtained from all 14 of the test pits and six of the shovel probes, which suggests most households had at least some porcelain items. The majority of these artifacts (n=137) were recovered from units excavated at 617 Ash Street, but units at 633 Ash (n=23) and 511 Ash (n=13) also had porcelain fragments from several different porcelain tableware vessels. Within these units, most porcelain tableware items come from stratigraphic Levels 2, 3 or below that depth, strata that are associated with intact historical sediments that contain artifacts primarily made between the

1920s and 1950s.

194

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

Decorative porcelain vessels and bric-a-brac were part of a concerted campaign for neighborhood residents to assert their household socioeconomic identity. Archival documents and oral histories describe how River Street residents were hard-working and frugal; however, materially, these individuals wished to use decorative household items to demonstrate they were members of a commodified society. For African American residents, the messages conveyed through material culture also fought dominant social memes of White supremacy and Black inferiority. Conspicuous consumption is designed to be experienced by those among the social groups that know you most intimately, so Black displays were not designed to convince racist

Whites to relinquish their derogatory views of black people. Instead, these items were an attempt to reaffirm their social status to other Blacks and other neighbors (Mullins 2017). In River Street, this included European American neighbors.

Material culture was not entirely about conveying messages about status. The objects that fill our homes are also functional and serve everyday needs. Generally, the ceramics incorporated

into the historical households in the

project area are the result of the

purchase of nationally distributed

stylish products (Figure 23). The

presence of undecorated items

suggests a balanced approach to

tableware usage. Plain, undecorated

vessels were probably used on a

daily basis with more expensive

vessels reserved for special Figure 23: Undecorated ironstone bowl recovered from 633 Ash Street

195

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains occasions and visitors. During the 1890s and early 1900s, middle-class dinner parties were expected to be large and diverse with tableware arrangements reflecting the creativity and economic level of the host. By the mid-twentieth century, the proliferation of other consumer goods partially replaced the primacy of fancy tableware vessels as an indicator of class status.

Expensive tablewares were only used for special occasions like holiday dinners. Daily meals did not require special dishes, and undecorated tableware was commonly used (Levenstein 2003:61–

62; Wegars 1982:4). When compared with undecorated fragments, the greater portion of the ceramic assemblage is decorated wares, suggesting that these may have been used frequently or were decorative items used sparingly, behaviors that contradict frugality. This fact may also be more associated with availability than wealth because decalcomania was widely available in a range of prices that were affordable for most middle-class households by 1900.

In addition to material culture, the Basque residents at 631 Lovers Lane used the built environment to express their ethnicity and culture. As shown in Appendix A, the dwelling at 631

Lovers Lane was inhabited by ethnic Basque bachelors and a family from 1909 until 1918 (Demo

2006). A Sanborn Map made in 1912 shows the lot at 631 Lovers Lane had two dwellings, a stable, and a handball court called a fronton in the Basque language. Local Basque lore states that the fronton at 631 Lovers Lane was built around 1906 by Domingo Szabala (Alegria 1987). Shovel probes excavated at 631 Lovers Lane were used to relocate the remains of the 1906 fronton. The only remains of this structure is a concrete slab (Feature 125) and it was explored with a 4-meter- by-0.5-meter hand trench excavated on an east-west axis (Figure 24).

196

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

Figure 24: The remains of the first Basque handball court constructed in Boise (Feature 125). Called a fronton in the Basque language, this feature was an important part of the early Basque community. View east. Without a politically recognized nation-state, language, culture, and traditions are the ties that bind the Basque together as a people. The Basque have been integral to the colonization of the

Western Hemisphere since the fifteenth century. Since their involvement as sailors on Columbus’ exploratory voyages, the Basque continued on to play integral roles in the expansion of the Spanish

Empire in North and South America. Their skills as sailors and navigators are renowned. By the nineteenth century, Basque sheepherders controlled much of the industry in Argentina and they expanded northward from South America into the United States during the mid-nineteenth century.

Basque herders had spread across the American West from Arizona to Nevada and northward into

Idaho and eastern Oregon by the end of the 1880s. By the nineteenth century, the Basque in Idaho

197

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains were synonymous with sheepherding. Doing this kind of work in a cattleman’s land was risky.

Sheepherding was considered beneath cattle ranching and, in an arid place like southern Idaho, cattlemen and sheepherders were constantly at odds for access to forage and water. The exotic language, dress, customs, and Catholic beliefs added to their stigmatization (Bieter and O’Dell

2014; Totoricagüena 2004). As described in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, the Basque in Boise were discriminated against throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their identity as ethnic Basque is what forced them into the River Street Neighborhood during the early twentieth century.

Out of the prying eye of upstanding

European Americans, the Basque in River

Street had more freedom to practice their

traditions and culture. The construction of

this fronton is one way they expressed their

ethnicity. After the mid-nineteenth century,

Basque frontons were L-shaped. Pelota

games were played against the short wall

and a left wall of the fronton was added to

freestanding courts. Indoor frontons or ones Figure 25: The remains of Boise's second fronton in the backlot of 512 W. Idaho Street (2015) in plazas had three or four walls. The left wall was not only a boundary but an integral element in the game itself (Abrisketa 2012:63–64). The fronton at 631 Lovers Lane is the first in Boise, but there are two other extant frontons in the city.

The remains of the second fronton in Boise are located at 512 W. Idaho Street (Figure 25). This feature is a single wall of the L-shaped structure that was constructed soon after the fronton in the

198

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

River Street Neighborhood. In 1914,

John and Juana Anduiza purchased a lot

at 619 West Grove Street. The couple

planned on building a boarding house for

other Basque workers but they erected

their business around a fronton that was

built on the basement and ground floor of

the building (Figure 26). This was the

third and last fronton built in the City of

Boise. Today, the Anduiza Fronton is a Figure 26: The playing court at the Anduiza Fronton, Boise, Idaho (2015) historical landmark that hosts the Boise

Ko Fronton Association–a traveling team that competes at traditional Basque games around the world (Bieter and Bieter 2014). Along with a few other frontons, including one in Jordan Valley,

Oregon, the Anduiza Fronton is one of the few historical courts in the United States that is still operational (Figure 27).

The fronton was an important feature for members of the Basque diaspora because it provided a cultural connection to their homeland in northern Spain and southwestern France. A variety of different games can be played depending on the size of the court. Called pelota, these activities include games played with the hands, paddles, or a xistera (i.e., a wicker basket that is used to play versions of jai alai). Abrisketa (2012:25) explains:

“Basque pelota is a group of games in which a varying number of players

(pelotaris) are positioned in front of each other or facing a wall (frontis), and

exchange a solid ball wrapped in leather by hitting it with their hands or an

199

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

instrument. The ball must always bounce within established boundaries (eskas or

fault lines), and the players try to make it as difficult as possible for their opponent

to return it; the objective is to win by earning points and by being the first to reach

the stipulated final score.”

Figure 27: The massive outdoor fronton in Jordan Valley, Oregon (2016)

The fronton is L-shaped because a longer wall is used to support the shorter wall against which the rubber ball is bounced, the frontis. Architecturally, the longer wall is structurally important to a free-standing fronton like the one in the River Street Neighborhood because it adds strength to the frontis which is the structure that bears the brunt of each ball strike.

While the mechanics of these games are relatively simple, pelota is an important cultural institution. It has been documented for over 500 years in the Basque country before being exported to the United States, Argentina, the Philippines, and other parts of the Basque diaspora. Pelota has acquired specific ritual and aesthetic forms that have become integral into the way Basques think about themselves. Today, pelota is an essential part of Basque nationalist imagery and is a major sport in northern Spain. Pelota tournaments are still played on frontons in the American West

(Abrisketa 2012) (see Figure 27). As will be explained later in this chapter, pelota is also an

200

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains important element of Basque masculinities as men are the primary players. Handball games played by Basque men in Boise were also a demonstration of toughness, strength, and honesty.

The working-class status of River Street residents is corroborated by oral histories and archival documents related to the residents of the 600 block of Ash Street. Interviews with Gigi

Stevens, Sharon Hill, and Kenneth Thomas (2015) discuss how their parents, who lived at 633 Ash

Street from the 1940s to 1960s, spent much of their time operating and managing the family’s restaurant. They spent long hours at the restaurant, working late into the night, while the children were left to fend for themselves. After washing up and getting ready for school, the children walked to the restaurant in downtown Boise where they would eat breakfast before heading to school.

Dick Madry (2014) explains how his grandmother, African American Erma Hayman, worked several different service jobs to supplement his grandfather’s income. Erma Hayman worked as a seamstress, maid, typist and in other positions to bring extra income into the household. Warner

Terrell, III (2014) recalled that his father worked as a waiter at the Arid Club in downtown Boise for decades. For River Street residents, adulthood was characterized by work. Much effort was expended on obtaining and maintaining jobs in downtown Boise and beyond. At an early age, children had to be responsible for themselves. Children’s chores helped maintain the household and, in the case of gardens and fruit trees, contributed resources to the family. As explained in the following section, River Street residents practiced frugality and self-provisioning not only as an economic necessity but because it was part of their heritage.

Household Foodways

Faunal bone, fruit pits, canning jars, and other food-related artifacts are at the heart of understanding household foodways in the River Street Neighborhood. Food remains, in the form of fruit pits, nut shells, marine shell, and faunal bone, are summarized in Table 9. These are the

201

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains remains of meals consumed in households and, along with tableware artifacts, provide insight into the culinary practices of household residents.

Table 8: Food Remains Summary

FORM QUANTITY TOTAL Marine 41 41 Faunal 1123 1108 Floral 174 174 TOTAL 1164 1338

Faunal bone and shellfish remains indicate household residents consumed domesticated large mammals along with marine resources most likely imported from the Pacific Coast. A cursory analysis of the faunal assemblage is described below. A more detailed analysis of the faunal bone from this site is currently under analysis at the University of Idaho’s Alfred Bowers

Laboratory of Anthropology. Most faunal remains (n=911), floral ecofacts (n=102), and marine shell (n=29) was recovered from stratigraphic levels associated with historical artifact-bearing sediments. However, a significant proportion of these artifacts (n=376; 28.1 percent) were recovered from Level 2 which is the transition between disturbed sediments and historical strata.

The majority of the faunal assemblage was large mammal bone that had been saw cut, which suggests it was professionally butchered somewhere locally. Much of the faunal assemblage was the remains of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) and cattle (Bos taurus), two domestic species that could have been procured within 20 miles of town and would have been readily available to Boise residents. Element representation of large mammals such as cattle is not consistent with home butchering; there is no evidence that slaughtering waste [i.e., foot or skull elements from large- bodied mammals (Schulz and Gust 1983)] was deposited in the project area. Instead, cattle and

202

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains large mammal element representation includes bones and bone sections commonly associated with meat cuts prepared and sold by professional butchers (Schulz and Gust 1983).

Some of the faunal remains

suggest River Street residents did procure

some of their meat from domesticated

animals raised in their yards and through

fishing. The remains of a bird, most likely

a chicken, was recovered from a small

area of Level 2 of Test Pit 7. These bones

(n=61) comprised a nearly complete Figure 28: Long bones of a chicken skeleton (Art. No. 127) in TP 7 in Level 2. Trowel points north. chicken skeleton (artifact number 127) and corroborate oral histories of chicken raised by the

Hayman family at 617 Ash Street (Figure 28). Dick Madry (personal communication, 2015, 2014) told archaeologists that his grandmother kept chickens in a coop located at the rear of the house lot near Test Pits 7 and 19 and processed the birds for cooking in this part of the yard (see Figure

28). The chicken skeleton was at the same elevation as a stone building foundation (Feature 13) and the surrounding sediment was part of a historical stratum containing artifacts associated with the Hayman family’s tenure at 617 Ash Street, that is mid-twentieth century artifacts like jadeite vessel and fully automatic manufactured bottle fragments. Madry believed some of the posthole features identified in this portion of the lot could have been associated with the chicken coop.

Eggshell fragments recovered from nearby Test Pits 19 and 22 indicate the chickens also provided eggs. It is likely the chicken skeleton and egg shells were part of self-provisioning measures taken by the Hayman family.

203

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

Fruit pits recovered at this site indicate the utilization of home preserving strategies, which was an outgrowth of frugality as well as a symbol of self-sufficiency. Canning jar fragments suggest dependence on frugal, agrarian-like economic strategies practiced in an urban setting. With the perfection of canning jars by the 1870s, households could preserve a larger quantity of foodstuffs for consumption during the winter. These reusable jars made seasonal foods available all year at an affordable price. A number of canning manuals, directions, and cook books were widely available at the close of the nineteenth-century and proliferated during the first half of the twentieth-century (Williams 1992:116–117).

Floral remains in the project area are primarily comprised of fruit seeds and pits that were recovered from several different excavation units. Units associated with the Hayman and Thomas families, 617 and 633 Ash Street respectively, yielded the greatest number of fruit pits and nut shells. Floral specimens were identified by species and closest subgenus. Two members of the

Prunus genus were identified, Prunus amygdalus, or the common peach (n=58) and Prunus domestica, or plum. Peach pits were primarily recovered from test pits excavated at the Hayman and Thomas houses, but at least one peach pit was recovered from units associated with 511 Ash

Street which was a rental property with a wealth of occupants and 631 Lovers Lane with is associated with two Basque families (see Appendix A). Madry and Terrrell, III recall River Street residents cultivated a number of fruit trees in their yards including plum, peach, and cherry trees.

Peach trees are sensitive to frost but are cultivated in southern Idaho as a cash crop. Residents simply replaced the tree if it died in winter frosts (Madry 2014; Terrell, III 2014). Black walnut trees were common in this part of the neighborhood and 44 walnut shells were recovered from excavation units across the project area. Black walnuts are edible, but their extremely tough shell

204

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

Figure 29: Remains of a cherry pitting tool recovered from 617 Ash Street prevents them from being a significant urban food source for most people. It is more likely these shells are from trees that were valued for their shade and aesthetics more than their nuts.

A cherry pitting tool (artifact no. 447) (Figure 29) was recovered from Level 3 of Test Pit

19, which is associated with the mid-twentieth century occupation of the Hayman, Robertson,

Barras, or Bybee families (see Appendix A). This item suggests the processing of fruit for canning.

Fruit canning at home is an activity that requires significant quantities of produce. A canning guide written by the Ball Corporation (1989:9) states that two to three pounds, or between six and eight peaches, can be preserved in a one quart jar. Based on this estimate, pits from the equivalent of seven to nine jars of peaches were recovered from the project area, which represents as much as

24 pounds of peaches. Along with the 69 glass canning jar fragments, the 46 glass fragments from zinc-lined canning jar lids, and the cherry pitting tool, the material culture from this site demonstrates neighborhood residents made efforts to store at least some of the fruit produced in their yards.

205

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

The presence of canning jar fragments, canning jar lid fragments, the cherry pitting tool, and fruit pits was part of common self-provisioning activities undertaken by most River Street households. Fruit trees were common throughout the neighborhood. Gardening was also a common practice. Because fruit was widely available from local farms and within the neighborhood, River Street residents preserved fruit and other vegetables for consumption during the off-season. Fruit canning was noted by Dick Madry (2014), who recalled that his grandmother,

Erma Hayman, grew a variety of fruits and vegetables in their yard for household consumption.

He recalled that it was the children’s chore to care for the garden, even though his grandmother and other matriarchs in the neighborhood considered the garden “theirs” (Madry 2014). Residents grew food in whatever yard spaces they had available, even renters and boarders. What was not consumed fresh was processed for canning so it could be enjoyed later (Madry 2014; Terrell, III

2014).

Gender Roles

In the commodified, interconnected material world of twentieth century United States, material culture and gender identities were intrinsically linked. As the primary purchasers of domestic products, women played an integral role in the association of gender with material goods; however, items advertised and consumed by men were also central to displays and assertions of masculinity. Artifacts from River Street provide insight into the ways women and men expressed their gendered identities through material goods.

As durable items frequently found at archaeological sites, archaeologists have used ceramics as proxies for a variety of different behaviors, including identity expression. Klein (1991) emphasizes that women were the principal purchasers of ceramics in American households. During the nineteenth-century, the popularization of women’s roles within the domestic sphere

206

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains emphasized the use of specialized items for serving food, which required an increasingly complex and diverse assemblage of material culture. The culinary utensils that facilitated this elaboration became more decorated and relatively expensive over time. This transition towards elaboration was particularly pronounced among middle class households, who invested in domestic-related goods such as tableware (Klein 1991:79).

The ceramic assemblage at this site contains a wide variety of decorated wares with nearly every available decorative technique, including imported Chinese and Japanese porcelain vessels.

At Japanese and Chinese immigrant sites in the Pacific Northwest, Asian ceramics are an extension of their traditional foodways and a demonstration of cultural affiliation. Ceramic items were imported specifically for Chinese and Japanese communities in the United States during the nineteenth century (Renee Campbell, personal communication, 2017; Ross 2011; Sando and

Felton 1993; White 2008). For Americans who were not Japanese or Chinese, Asian ceramics were exotic tableware items that were frequently used as bric-a-brac. Chinese porcelain had been a desirable commodity in Europe since the sixteenth century. The aesthetic value of Chinese porcelain vessels was also embraced by people in the United States (Barber 1910). As Chinese porcelains were expensive and difficult to obtain until the twentieth century, they remained a status symbol of refinement, worldliness, and affluence. By the twentieth century, Japanese porcelain vessels were gaining in reputation (Barber 1910; Renee Campbell, personal communication,

2017). With the expulsion of Chinese laborers from many western communities during the

207

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains nineteenth century, including Boise, Japanese workers filled the labor void. Through labor contractors, Japanese working-class communities developed in the early twentieth century across the American West and west coast of Canada (Ross 2011; White 2008). Japanese were known to have historically resided in the River Street Neighborhood at this time (Bertram 2014). It is likely local stores catered to this clientele, making Japanese porcelain vessels available to all Boiseans.

Fragments of Chinese and Japanese porcelain were recovered from excavation units in the project area that are all associated with households containing women (Figure 30). Most of these items are blue, underglaze transfer printed vessels that bear popular chinoiserie decorative patterns. These items were most likely purchased under the supervision of women, possibly even have been purchased with the earnings of women, in an attempt to demonstrate the household’s sophistication and to improve the aesthetic quality of the home. Given the small number of Asian porcelain fragments to undecorated earthenware fragments, it is likely these imported bowls, cups,

and saucers were rarely used for food consumption and

were more important for their aesthetic value.

The time mothers devoted to children continually

increased during the twentieth century. Mothers were

expected to spend time playing with their children and

providing education and nurturing at all times. By the

Figure 30: Celadon porcelain fragments from 633 1940s, women were devoting much of their time to their Ash Street children’s lessons, activities, and education (Cowan

1983). Women like Erma Hayman, Doris Thomas, and the other mothers that lived in the project area were forced to balance social expectations of making a significant economic contribution

208

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains while simultaneously caring for their households and children. Based on who their children and grandchildren have become today, these women adeptly lived up to their expectations.

Care of the household, especially cleaning, was advertised as one of the primary responsibilities of women at this time. Housework underwent a transformation between 1890 and

1930 as machines were created to take care of the myriad of household tasks. These machines, in conjunction with the decline in domestic servants and delivery services, increased the amount of time women spent on housework because more tasks were added to the existing regimen and fewer women were doing it. Cleanliness standards had also risen. Germ theory mandated that kitchens and bathrooms be not just clean, but germ free (Cowan 1983). While the remains of cleaning utensils were not recovered archaeologically, a Clorox bottle cap recovered from Test Pit 40 in sediments associated with the Hayman or Robertson families indicate tenets of germ theory were adhered to by household members. It is likely that Hayman or Robertson matriarchs used bleach to sanitize household items to maintain cleanliness or whiten linens.

While women had a large number of household responsibilities, children’s chores partially ameliorated some of these tasks. Stove cleaning events were observed in ash pit features identified at the Hayman House parcel. The many unburned pieces of coal that characterized historical sediments through the project area indicate that coal stoves and ovens were used by most occupants. Additionally, coal or wood-burning stoves were increasingly replaced by oil or gas ranges, which eliminated the need for hauling fuel, carrying ashes, and blacking the stove to prevent rust (Cowan 1983). The cleaning of coal stoves would have been a frequent household responsibility. In the Hayman and Thomas households it was the children that were responsible for cleaning the coal stoves and hauling coal (Madry 2014; Stevens 2015).

209

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

By the late nineteenth-century, parents

were encouraged to promote the intellectual

stimulation derived from physical play and

exploration, allowing children to learn from

their mistakes. Children’s clothing was

therefore designed for rough play and

mobility, and leisure was emphasized for both

Figure 31: Marbles recovered from 617 Ash Street adults and children. Toys, such as dolls, were designed for educational development and to practice gender-specific adult roles. Child-sized and child-specific products of all types were developed at this time and remain with us today (Calvert

1992:81–87). Toys found at 617 and 633 Ash Street include marbles, ceramic doll parts, plastic airplane fragments and cast iron car parts (Figure 31). Marbles were used in adult and children’s games by both genders, but fragments from broken porcelain dolls represent items specifically made for girls. It is also likely the plastic airplane and cast iron cars were supposed to be played with by boys. Pencil leads and erasers found at 617 Ash Street could have been used by household adults, but oral histories explain the importance of homework in African American households in the neighborhood. Dick Madry and Warner Terrell, III (2014) explained that homework was an equal to household chores for all neighborhood children. Play could only begin after household maintenance chores and homework had been completed.

Other artifact categories provide insight into the materiality of masculinity among neighborhood residents. Masculinity is difficult to define and even more difficult to infer from archaeological materials because social definitions of masculinity focus on a constellation of specific traits, behaviors and expectations that are associated with males by a given society. These

210

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains elements of masculinity are internalized by males as a part of their identities. Material culture use is central to gender identities because it is a cultural construct (Alberti 2006:405,409). As such, this identity depends upon the interpretation of cultural symbology, which includes material culture in the twentieth century United States. Like the image of a proper woman, elements of masculinity are constantly renegotiated and interpreted by “others” within society as well as the individual. While acknowledging the historical subjectivity to social definitions of masculinity

(Alberti 2006:407–409), early twentieth century men sought to achieve a socially acceptable, clean-cut outward appearance by maintaining good grooming habits and wearing socially accepted attire. This was also important for being considered an upstanding European American man, but it was also important for non-Whites like Basques and African Americans because maintaining a proper outward appearance was another salvo in the continual battle against stigmatization. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a well-groomed man was promoted as the ideal for

European American males, as disheveled European Americans were equated with the newly popularized term “white trash” (Hartigan 2005:61). Edward Bok, editor of the Ladies Home

Journal from 1899 to 1919 is quoted saying:

“The man who makes a point of keeping himself clean, and whose clothes look

neat, no matter how moderate of cost they may be, works better, feels better, and is

in every sense a better business man than his fellow worker who is disregardful of

both his body and dress, or either. He works at a distinct advantage. The external

man unquestionably influences the internal man” (in Hoy 1995:92).

Bok understood the relationship between the internal and external man; acknowledging a symbiotic relationship. This passage also insinuates that a proper personal image was not only essential for social affiliation, but also racial membership. European American males that did not

211

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains maintain a clean-cut image may have been regarded as something less than European American.

Attire was the outward reflection of each man and the cuff links and suspender clasps associated with River Street men were important aspects of their outward appearances.

A range of buttons and other clothing fasteners were recovered from across the project area. These items are summarized in Table 9. Most buttons could not be associated with a specific gender. Several clothing-related artifacts could be associated with men that lived in the project area in the past. For example, three brass cuff links were recovered from historical sediments in

Test Pit 40 which is at 617 Ash Street—the historical domicile of the Robertson and Hayman families. A fastener used to connect the cuff of a man’s shirt, cufflinks peaked in popularity during the early twentieth century as mass production made dress shirts affordable and available to a greater number of men. As mentioned before, a man’s outward appearance is an important expression of his social status (Alberti 2006). This message was internalized by the men that lived at 617 Ash Street as they used stylish cuff links to fasten the type of shirt fitting of an upstanding

American male.

Table 9: Clothing-Related Artifacts

FORM Button Clasp Grommet Other Pin Shell Snap Suspender Unknown TOTAL

Bead 1 1

Button 8 8

Clothing closure 32 7 4 15 4 2 4 68

Clothing 1 1

Fabric 1 1

Jewelry 3 3

Other 24 24 TOTAL 33 7 4 43 4 8 2 4 1 106

Suspender clasps recovered from shovel probes excavated at 631 Lovers Lane indicate the men living at this address also adhered to social mores regarding men’s attire. Two suspender

212

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

clasps were recovered from units excavated at

631 Lovers Lane. The suspender clasps date to

the period when the Basque Szabala and

Aberasturi families lived at this address (see

Appendix A). One particular clasp from this

address, marked “SHIRLEY/PRESIDENT”

Figure 32: Shirley President suspenders clasp recovered from 631 Lovers Lane (Art. No. 726), relates to early twentieth century men’s fashion advertisements depicting the social conception of what a masculine man should look like (Figure 32). Shirley President suspender clasps were produced by the C.A.

Edgerton Manufacturing Company of Shirley, Massachusetts. Advertisements for the company mention patents obtained in 1900 and it is known the company was in operation by then (Dry

Goods Reporter 1915:18) (Figure 33). By 1915, Shirley was advertising their suspender clasps to women but it is clear from previous ads in Collier’s Magazine and other periodicals that their main clientele was men.

Advertisements for Shirley suspender clasps proclaimed quality while emphasizing their importance to men’s attire. The company made considerable effort to differentiate its product from other similar products in order to assert authenticity in a society filled with similar products.

Nevertheless, ads made during the 1910s demonstrate the role small items like this did to contribute to social acceptability, which was a major contributing element to masculine identities in Boise and the rest of the United States.

213

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

In addition to clothing items, the fronton was also a culturally significant element in Basque masculinity. During the second half of the nineteenth century, pelota underwent key transformations in Spain that shaped the game as it is today. The game played against the wall had fewer technical and instrumental requirements, making it more accessible. Pelota spread to plazas and around the world with overseas Basque. Elastic was introduced to the rubber balls which made it easier to hit. The games became faster and harder. Critics considered the new game violent and

without aesthetic merit

(Abrisketa 2012:63–64). The

game became a mass spectacle in

Spain and other larger cities.

Professional pelotaris crossed

borders with their instruments in

hand. Meanwhile, hand pelota

was reduced to smaller frontons.

Pelotaris played the hand

modality for fun and, in in the

Basque diaspora, for camaraderie

and to demonstrate toughness

(Abrisketa 2012:64–65).

With its large population of

male laborers, pelota and

frontons were elements of

Figure 33: The Dry Goods Reporter, September 4, 1915, Pg. 18 (courtesy Google masculinity for Boise’s Basque Books)

214

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains communities during the early twentieth century. In the Basque country, increasing numbers of women started playing pelota (Abrisketa 2012:65–66). In Boise’s isolated Basque community, the games were dominated by men. Players played games like pala that required paddles on larger frontons like the one operated by the Anduizas. Handball games probably dominated on smaller courts like the one in the River Street Neighborhood at 631 Lovers Lane. The pelota ball is extremely hard. It is rubber covered with leather, so pelota players had to have tough hands to play the games. Pelota players were known for their toughness. Local lore describes how, in the early days of pelota at the Anduiza fronton, the players’ hands would swell up after only four or five points. John Anduiza, who weighed about 240 pounds, would have the players put their hands flat on the stairway by the fronton, place a wooden board on the back of their hands, and would stand on the board to take down the swelling. Despite this remedy, the players’ hands would hurt for days after a single game (Bieter and Bieter 2014:66).

Basque men congregated around places like the fronton at 631 Lovers Lane, the Anduiza

Fronton, and other social places. Located in River Street, the fronton on Lovers Lane was outside the surveillance of White Boiseans. In this region of refuge, Basque men could congregate and participate in cultural practices that might have been frowned upon by upstanding European

Americans. They were simultaneously demonstrating and practicing aspects of masculinity that were important to their cultural heritage.

Health, Medicine, Sanitation, and the City of Boise

The houses in the project area were fully connected to modern water, sewer, and trash systems by the mid-twentieth century. This was the result of a long sanitation campaign that had been waged across the country for decades. In the United States, waste disposal and sanitation was rudimentary and illness from polluted water was rampant during the nineteenth century. Because

215

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains disease epidemics were commonplace, the sanitation movement of the late nineteenth-century created pressure to clean up cities, arguably doing more to curb contagious diseases and lower mortality rates than advances in medicine (Leavitt and Numbers 1978). Sanitation developments were motivated by rapid urban growth, progressive groups who pressured lawmakers to use sanitation experts to solve the problem of increasing waste, and responsive municipal governments who addressed the problem (Melosi 2000:103). As a result, the population served by wastewater and sewer treatment in urban areas of the United States rose from 50 percent in 1870 to 87 percent by 1920 (Melosi 2000:152).

Fragments of ceramic sewer pipes and drainage tiles are testament to sanitation and dewatering efforts undertaken by River Street residents. Ceramic pipe fragments and drainage tiles were common finds. The intact remains of a ceramic sewer pipe were encountered at 107 cmbs in

Shovel Probe 3, suggesting additional ceramic pipes may remain throughout the project area.

Sewer and other water pipes were introduced to the neighborhood sometime during the early twentieth century as the Hayman house still had a functional well located in the basement into the

1950s (Dick Madry, personal communication, 2015).

The outhouse marked on the 1912 Sanborn Map of 617 Ash Street was a main target of the

2015 archaeological excavations. This feature was not identified but it likely remains on the property. Privies were common throughout the United States until running water was introduced.

The introduction of water quickly led to the transition to indoor water closets that were plumbed to the household privy pit. This, essentially, created a cesspit; however, the use of water to transport the waste greatly increased the amount of effluent (Tarr et al. 1984). Cesspits generally had to be deeper than privy pits, which would have been difficult in the River Street Neighborhood which was built on the Boise River’s floodplain and seasonally had a high water table. By the 1920s,

216

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains there was a growing cesspool elimination movement across the country. It was believed that;

“Except under the most favorable conditions the construction and use of a cesspool cannot be condemned too strongly…Leaching cesspools especially are open to…serious objections”

(Barlow 1992:125). While the exact date when municipal water and sewer was extended to the

River Street Neighborhood is unknown, it appears like the houses on the 600 block of Ash Street had indoor plumbing and sewer systems sometime between 1912 and 1922.

Trash collection was extended to the River Street Neighborhood sometime during the early twentieth century. It is the efficiency of Boise’s municipal trash collection system that prevented

River Street residents from creating stratified garbage piles at the back of their properties and limited the yield of archaeological investigations in this part of the neighborhood. Using newspaper directories, Valentine (2016) has created a chronology of dump sites in the city of Boise from 1902 until 2016. In the process, he discovered that late nineteenth century sanitation czars targeted non-White Boiseans for rubbish disposal violations. Fines for improper disposal were disproportionately levied on Chinese residents during the late nineteenth century before switching to African American, Japanese, and Basque residents in the twentieth century. This targeting by city officials was a powerful motivator for property owners in River Street to pay for trash collection, even if they were absentee landlords. Based on the date of the artifact assemblage, most rubbish and household garbage generated by River Street residents between 1902 and the 1940s was deposited in the location of present-day Julia Davis Park, which is less than one quarter mile southeast of the project area, or further downstream of the Boise River near present-day Garden

City, which is also less than a half mile away from the neighborhood. These city dumps were in operation when historical sediments were deposited in the project area and are the most likely repositories for most of the neighborhood’s trash at that time.

217

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains

A series of coal stove or furnace clean-out areas at the back of the lot at 617 Ash Street was the only discrete garbage disposal-related archaeological features identified (see Figure 22).

These sediments contained few artifacts. The lack of stratified archaeological sediments, even amongst intact historical strata, is indicative of the way this neighborhood was treated by outsiders, especially European Americans. Stigmatization forged this place, but neighborliness characterized it as a region of refuge for those who were discriminated against.

Few artifacts could be associated with medicinal items used within the households of the project area. A total of 40 medicine-related artifacts were recovered, primarily fragments of glass panel bottles that may have contained a variety of different products. Unfortunately, no maker’s marks for medicinal products were identified. A fragment from a glass applicator was recovered from Level 2 of Test Pit 40, which is associated with the Robertson or Hayman households. This item was used to apply a variety of medicinal substances and indicates medicines were being distributed on this property at one time in the past.

Deciphering the History of a Multi-Racial Urban Block

Pockets of intact historical sediments yielded material culture associated with the lives of the residents of the 600 block of Ash Street between the early 1900s and 1960s. While most of these fragments of mass produced items cannot be directly associated to particular households, they do provide an overview of what life was like at that time for the diverse community that called this place home. River Street residents were fully integrated into larger social and economic systems. Residents used income received from formal jobs to purchase tasteful decorative items that conveyed sophistication, worldliness, and domesticity. Men sought to wear fashionable attire that would convey their status as upstanding Boiseans. Children played in the same yards where they tended gardens as part of their household contribution. As is discussed in the following

218

Chapter 7: Unpacking Research Domains chapter, neighborhood residents were part of the wider economy but their social status prevented full participation. Frugality was the norm among the residents. Foods were grown in their yards and stored for later use. Some households raised chickens. These working-class Boiseans relied on an informal network based on familiarity and honesty to help make ends meet, nurture each other’s children, and escape from the discrimination they faced outside the neighborhood.

219

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together

In October, 2016, I learned that the Erma Hayman house had been donated by the Capital

City Development Corporation (CCDC) to the Boise City Department of Arts and History. In an ironic twist of fate, the organization responsible for continuing the legacy of urban renewal in

Boise (i.e.,, the demolition of dozens of potentially historical buildings) had now become a contributor to historic preservation. The archaeology project was well-received by the City of

Boise. Fifty-four volunteers and more than a dozen college students participated in the project, donating over 1,400 person-hours of labor. Between 20 and 30 Boiseans visited the site each day.

The project was featured in eight local television news stories and enjoyed front-page coverage in the local periodicals The Idaho Statesman and Boise Weekly. While it is unknown how many people watched news stories about the project, over 4,500 people have visited the River Street

Digital History website and the pages about the archaeology project are the most commonly visited. My impression is the highly visible public archaeology project conducted on the 600 block of Ash Street did much to raise awareness of the historicity of the River Street Neighborhood and the role this place played in Boise’s past.

The Erma Hayman House will become the second African American-related historic property in Boise. Relocated to an area of Julia Davis Park, about half a mile east of the archaeology project area, St. Paul Baptist Church is Boise’s first Black historic property. It was the first building constructed by African Americans in Boise and currently houses the Idaho Black

History Museum, but this building is not at its original location. It was moved to its present location in 1998. The Hayman House will be the first African American historic property in Boise that remains in its original location. This is important because archaeological excavations, oral histories, and archival data collected for this project indicate this building’s significance truly lies

220

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together in its location in an ever-changing landscape. This lot was where the Hayman family could be

Black in an overwhelmingly European American city. The social context of segregation, racism, and racialization that forged the River Street Neighborhood was also a source of solidity. It is this place and all its associated history that helped neighborhood residents persist.

The Oral History of a Stigmatized Place

Narratives of race were at the heart of the differential treatment of “the others” by European

Americans in Boise. Three processes are at play that resulted in the creation of places like River

Street. First, over the course of the twentieth century, the racialization process created a dialectic where European Americans positioned themselves politically, socially, and geographically in different places than the non-Whites in their communities. This differential treatment was essential to the creation of ghettos and segregated enclaves like the River Street Neighborhood. Second, the systematic channeling of public funds and investment away from non-White places cultivated material inequalities that helped reify racial identities and justify stigmatization. It also contributed to white flight, which solidified segregation. Third, the concentration of poverty in underserved places like River Street exacerbated social problems which further stigmatized the residents of non-White spaces and contributed additional fuel to negative narratives and identities associated with “the others” (Hayward 2013:45; Weise 2004). This circular dynamic has played out in numerous cities across the United States and is still in operation today (Figure 34).

The narratives that create identities are at the heart of how urban enclaves of segregation are created in the United States. Social identities are based on narratives that are told, internalized and projected outward for others to consume. In a racialized society, the collective identity construction process is competitive. Social actors create and circulate narratives while they compete with other social actors who offer alternative stories of who “we” and “the others” are.

221

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together

The most successful narratives are told and retold until this perspective becomes institutionalized– imbedded in the social institutions, rules, and laws that define the norms and standards of our society (Hayward 2013:38).

Figure 34: An overview of the ghettoization process in the United States

In the case of places like River Street, the dominant narrative that pervaded Boise’s society was that this place was blighted, maligned, a place of vice, the space for the others (i.e.,, those who are not part of “our” society). This neighborhood was neglected by the city for most of the twentieth century because city officials, who were mostly European Americans, did not believe

River Street was worthy of capital investment. Its residents were not “us.” They did not deserve social support. By the 1960s, it was believed that the best way to “deal with” the neighborhood was to bulldoze it and build something entirely new in the empty space it left behind.

222

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together

Interviews strive to complicate those narratives that stigmatized the neighborhood. In every interview, descendants explain that the people that lived in the River Street Neighborhood were familiar with each other and were completely aware of how they were treated by European

Americans that lived on the outside. Interviewees, all of whom were children in the 1940s and

1950s, recalled how children played together and freely roamed through the neighborhood. Adults watched out for neighborhood kids and this constant surveillance made it difficult for them to get into trouble (Hill 2015; Thomas 2015; Jack and Lois Wheeler 2015). Growing up in the 1950s,

Black and White neighborhood children played together in open lots, at a nearby gravel pit, and along the Boise River (Rice, II 2014; Terrell, III 2014; Thomas 2015). Even as children, the interviewees were aware that they lived in families that were among the working poor (Hill 2015).

From 1944 until 1964, the European American Thomas family lived at 633 Ash Street. Kenneth

Thomas grew up in this household and recalls how he knew they were not rich but lived comfortably. He recalls they always had food to eat, clothes to wear (even though the children only got new clothes when the schoolyear started), and had a roof over their heads. His parents worked hard managing a café in downtown Boise, but their labor was enough to provide for the whole family and afford to own their own home (Thomas 2015). The Thomases were like most other working-class neighborhood residents in Boise, regardless of race.

Outside the neighborhood, Boise was not as accepting of River Street residents. Stores were segregated through a “Silent Segregation” that was based on custom and local knowledge.

Signs were not used to prevent Blacks and other non-Whites from visiting certain businesses.

Instead, places outside the neighborhood were segregated through an understanding of where

Blacks were welcome and where they were not that was spread informally through society. For example, African Americans were allowed to eat at the café managed by the Thomases but the

223

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together front section of the dining room was reserved for Whites. The Thomases freely gave food to down- and-out neighbors, including Blacks, but they were unwilling to allow these same Black people to eat in the front section of the restaurant from whence this food came (Hill 2015). Similarly, Lois

Wheeler recalls how, in the 1950s, she unknowingly brought an African American friend to visit her mother who was working part-time at a bowling alley in downtown Boise. The girls stopped by just to say hello and the mother bought them both a soda. Later that night, Lois’ mother told her not to bring that friend to the bowling alley again because Blacks were not allowed there.

Defiantly, the 12-year-old Lois said she would never enter that building again, a pledge she has kept for over 60 years (Wheeler 2015). African Americans recalled similar instances where they were directly discriminated against, like the story told by Warner Terrell, III in Chapter 2 when a

White female schoolmate was picked up by the police for walking with him in downtown Boise

(Terrell, III 2014).

White supremacy in Boise was maintained by normalizing whiteness as a desirable social identity. This normalization was maintained by subtle, yet predictable, microaggressions and more overt discriminatory actions against non-White people. Whiteness was used to bolster economic, social, and political power in the greater Boise community largely because prevailing narratives stigmatized non-Whites. Whiteness was a racial identity that was connected to aspects of social superiority; embracing whiteness was a way to access a greater level of social goods and, potentially, upward mobility. “Whiteness entails material benefits; therefore, the material benefits white people receive are a reward for whiteness (Hartigan 2005:278). It was assumed that white

River Street residents were a lesser type of European American. Their poverty was their reward for not fully embracing whiteness by living outside the River Street Neighborhood. For non-

Whites River Street residents, the message was clear: They were free to live in River Street but

224

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together were not welcome outside that place. Because they could not become White, African Americans could not leave the neighborhood until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as the Fair

Housing Act) made housing segregation illegal.

Overt Jim Crow was not needed to maintain segregation in Boise because all residents had the social knowledge of their society that prevented them from crossing unstated lines. European

Americans continually perpetuated a narrative of the River Street as a negative place, a “no-go- zone” for upstanding Whites. To outsiders, all of the people that lived in the neighborhood, Black,

White, and otherwise, were the personification of every negative tale told about this place.

Neighborhood residents understood what was being said about them by their fellow Boiseans but they had different strategies to address this stigmatization. The European American residents had the privilege of standing up for their friends and neighbors. Overt discriminatory acts could be confronted with boycotts and other actions. If interactions with outsiders got too bad, White residents could simply leave the neighborhood; by leaving the neighborhood, White residents could leave behind the stigma. African American and other non-White residents did not have that privilege. They were forced to comply with unstated Jim Crow rules outside the neighborhood because they did not have the ability to escape stigmatization. Unwritten housing codes prevented non-Whites from living anywhere outside the River Street Neighborhood. In order to cope with subtle racism, non-Whites entrenched themselves in the social networks within the neighborhood.

Most of the long-time European American neighborhood residents also entrenched themselves in their local network. However, some Whites did not.

Whiteness, Blackness, and Neighborliness…to a Certain Extent

Most neighborhood descendants that provided interviews made it clear that neighborliness dominated interactions in the River Street Neighborhood during the 1950s and 1960s; however,

225

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together one interview states that relations were not as friendly as they seemed. It was clear that discrimination against the people that lived on the South Side of the Tracks was rampant throughout the rest of the city outside the neighborhood. Boise was segregated but maintenance of racial separation was not as overt as it was in the Jim Crow of the southeastern, eastern, and

Midwestern parts of the country. None of the informants recall signs preventing Blacks from entering Boise businesses, but it was understood that African Americans were not equally welcome outside the neighborhood.

An interview recorded with LaVaun Kennedy (2015) complicates the narrative that all was well in the River Street Neighborhood. Kennedy agrees that residents lived amicably but she acknowledged that not every European American resident openly fraternized with the African

Americans in the neighborhood. As a young child, she lived at 617 Ash Street between 1943 and

1949. Her parents sold this house to the Hayman family at the end of World War II and moved to another house in the neighborhood on South 11th Street. In her interview, Kennedy recalled that race relations in Boise were governed by what she called “Silent Segregation.” She stated that schools and other public places were not necessarily segregated. Her elementary school had a few

African American and Native American students, but she recalls that these children were not accepted by the rest of the student body. Because boys valued athletic abilities, they were more open to African American boys that had sports skills. Girls formed cliques and were not receptive of non-White girls.

Kennedy acknowledged that her parents were racist but were not openly discriminatory against their African American neighbors. In one story, Kennedy recalled a time when she was about six-years-old she was playing with an African American boy. The boy had to use the bathroom and invited Kennedy in to his house, which was next door at 633 Ash Street. Kennedy

226

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together refused to go into the boy’s home stating that she was not allowed to go into a ‘nigger’s house.’

The boy told his mother and the mother came outside and told Kennedy that her father was the only ‘nigger’ on that block. Upset and crying, Kennedy went back home and told her mother what had happened. The two mothers made tentative amends with Kennedy’s mother saying that she was embarrassed for what her child had said and that it was best if the two children did not play together any more. Kennedy never played with that child again (Kennedy 2015).

In another tale, Kennedy explained how her father was a part-time gardener at an open lot in the River Street Neighborhood. After returning home from his primary employment, her father would harvest vegetables, arrange them in a basket, and sell them door-to-door in the neighborhood. Sometimes, Kennedy was allowed to sell the vegetables and keep some of the money. She recalls that, although her father sold vegetables for years, he never sold to the neighborhood’s African Americans. It was understood that she would not sell to Black people either (Kennedy 2015).

LaVaun Kennedy’s interview complicates the narrative that River Street was a completely open community where race relations were entirely transcended. Like all neighborhoods, River

Street was inhabited by a range of people from diverse backgrounds with complicated histories.

Her narrative explains that some European Americans lived in River Street simply because they were poor and could not afford to live elsewhere. She recalled that she was ashamed because she lived in that neighborhood and was relieved when, as a teenager, her family moved to California

(Kennedy 2015). Kennedy’s parents did not like African Americans but they were not willing to directly discriminate against them, preferring to let their prejudice take a back seat to maintaining the peace. When confronted about their racism, as happened with the bathroom incident, her parents pretended ignorance and settled the issue by not talking about it. Kennedy acknowledged

227

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together that the silent segregation that pervaded Boise in the 1940s and 1950s was founded upon ignorance.

She believes white Boiseans were racist against African Americans because they did not know any black people personally and had no idea what it was like to be African American (Kennedy 2015).

The segregation created by an ignorance of “the other” made it difficult to cross racial lines. Unless you lived in River Street, it would have been unthinkable for a white Boisean to interact with an

African American and not have their reputation as an upstanding white person tarnished. This inability to cross the barriers created by segregation has played a major role in the way the River

Street Neighborhood has been treated by city officials and real estate investors.

Persisting in a Changing Landscape

As explained in Chapter 3, the River Street Neighborhood was nearly destroyed by urban renewal in the 1970s. At that time, most of this place was considered blighted. It had long been stigmatized because of its association with non-Whites. As a result, the city had long neglected this neighborhood. Streets remained unpaved. Sidewalks were not complete. During the 1960s, investors started purchasing properties in the neighborhood for a variety of different purposes.

Most of these properties remained rentals, but absentee landlords did little to maintain their investments. These houses, many of which had been constructed between 1890 and the 1920s, were sorely in need of repair but most landlords let their properties deteriorate while they continued to rent them out to tenants (Jack and Lois Wheeler 2015). When the Boise Redevelopment Agency

(BRA) started studying development options in the neighborhood in 1968, it was assumed that the best remedy for River Street was the wrecking ball (see Chapter 3 for more on urban renewal in

River Street).

River Street residents resisted their neighborhood’s demise by banding together and doing what they could to demonstrate their membership in Boise’s citizenry. They repaired owner-

228

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together occupied dwellings, cleaned up their stretch of the Boise River, and created a resident-focused urban renewal plan that was not dependent upon demolishing existing housing stock. They proposed that this remain a residential place. They demanded that they be allowed to remain.

This collective action was made possible only because neighborhood residents had long practiced self-reliance. As stigmatized working-class people, they understood that they were the only ones that could save their valued neighborhood. Decades of neglect and ostracization had led to the creation of a subculture within the City of Boise that had its own social and economic system.

Oral history interviews explain that neighborhood residents took care of themselves. They helped their neighbors when times got tough (Lois Wheeler 2015). Residents helped each other find work, housing, and other resources (Oliver 1995; Terrell, III 2014). Stores in the neighborhood took cash money and scrip for neighborhood residents. Children recall being able to “buy” groceries from the neighborhood stores and the purchases were simply placed on a family credit account. Parents paid their bill when they could afford it (Hill 2015; Thomas 2015). Neighbors provided food and clothing for those in need that did not have the funds to afford these items (Lois Wheeler 2015).

Archaeological data corroborates oral history accounts of gardens and fruit trees that supplied food for households (Madry 2014; Terrell, III 2014). Fresh and canned fruit and vegetables could be given to neighbors in times of need. While the neighborhood was well-serviced by the fire department and casually patrolled by the police, residents took care of disputes and small fires on their own. Descendants explain they preferred to settle misdeeds among themselves not because they were afraid of the police but because it was the right thing to do for a neighbor they respected

(Thomas 2015).

Scholars of ghettos, slums, and other informal communities within nation-states have long recognized the existence of an informal economy that helps poor residents survive in the capitalist

229

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together world. The informal economy is built upon networks of reciprocity and patron-client relations that can be leveraged to create an informal social security system necessary for survival. This informal system is based on reciprocity, which is an outgrowth of familiarity, friendship, or familial relations. In an informal economy, material goods, intellectual properties like personal connections, or services can be dispersed without a monetary exchange. It is understood that the distribution of favors, connections, or material items will be repaid at some point in the future.

Trust is essential for this system to function optimally. Transactions in the informal economy take place largely outside the surveillance or involvement of the larger bureaucracy. Most importantly, they do not require money which is necessary for all transitions in the formal economy (Lomnitz

1988). People living in enclaves with strong informal economies like River Street are able to survive without reliance upon the formal economy. This system is particularly important for groups with limited mobility in the formal economy because of their racial, ethnic, or social identities because these people would not be able to earn enough money to obtain the resources necessary to survive in a capitalist society.

The same stigmatization that creates segregated landscapes like River Street is also responsible for the informal economies that support their residents. While the informal economy is dominated by criminal elements in most cities, a non-criminal informal economy is the system upon which more working-class and impoverished Americans have used to find work, obtain services, and, in some cases, create material products (Venkatesh 2008; Wacquant 2007).

Venkatish (2008) describes how public housing residents in Chicago during the 1990s and 2000s used a web of connections, favors, and obligations to obtain child care, car repairs, food, clothing, and employment. Illicit activities like selling drugs and gang activity took place alongside sidewalk car repair businesses and unlicensed daycares. In other research from Chicago, Levett and

230

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together

Venkatesh (2001) describe how most housing residents hold jobs in the formal economy while also operating in the informal economy within the neighborhood. These low paying positions are supplemented by activities in the informal economy.

The River Street Neighborhood mirrors many aspects of the communities in this research.

Residents were ostracized from upwardly mobile jobs in the formal economy outside the neighborhood. Relegated to low wage, service positions, residents used other means to make ends meet. Oral histories indicate a small area of the neighborhood was used for illicit activity during the 1960s and 1970s. A small red light district with several entertainment houses operated along

Lovers Lane at this time (Madry 2014; Stewart 1980; Terrell, III 2014). Other businesses in the neighborhood, such as Blackjack’s Barbeque, supported multiple streams of income, some of which included illicit activities like loansharking (Buckner 1981). As many residents came from rural backgrounds, raising rabbits, chickens, and gardening was another way residents provided food by self-provisioning. Gardens and fruit trees were mentioned in several oral histories and archaeological excavations found widespread evidence of fruit pits, canning jars, and animal bones that provide insight into the ways residents provided for their own diet (see Chapter 7 for a more thorough discussion).

All of this was possible because of the strong social networks created by neighborhood residents. Families knew each other. Children played together, forging bonds that endured long after they moved away from the South Side of the Tracks. The informal economy that helped residents care for each other in times of need was harnessed in the 1960s and 1970s to prevent the

River Street Neighborhood from getting demolished by urban renewal. Unfortunately, these networks have weakened in the last 40 years. Potentially historical buildings are being lost in the neighborhood at a consistent rate and, unless unchecked, all of the buildings and structures

231

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together mentioned in oral histories will be gone in the near future. Selective, judicious, community based historic preservation is the only way we can maintain the memories of this landscape before it vanishes.

Harnessing Auzolan for Historic Preservation

In the process of writing this dissertation, I have become aware of the concept of auzolan.

This concept originated in the Basque Country and it is loosely translated as “joint work in a community” or “community work.” This concept is at the heart of the historic preservation plan that transformed the 600 block of Grove Street in downtown Boise into the Basque Block. During the early twentieth century, the nascent Basque community in Boise coalesced in this small segment of the downtown district. This was where boarding houses were constructed by the

Anduiza family and others to house the itinerant Basque sheepherders. By the 1970s, buildings in this part of downtown had fallen into disrepair and it was only by happenstance that they were not destroyed during urban renewal. The Basque Center at Sixth and Grove Streets was the only

Basque-owned building on the block at that time. In 1983, Adelia Garro Simplot, whose father was a Basque immigrant and whose father-in-law was potato magnate J.R. Simplot, purchased the

Cyrus Jacobs-Uberuaga House in an attempt to preserve a small piece of Basque heritage in Boise.

In 1985, she led the founding of the Basque Cultural Center, Inc. which later became the Basque

Museum and Cultural Center. The house was donated to the Basque Center in 1986 and, during the 1990s, it was restored to its original state. In the following years, the Basque Center raised the funds to purchase other buildings on the 600 block of Grove Street. In addition to purchasing and restoring Basque-related historical buildings, the Basque Center has also spearheaded a cultural revitalization movement in Boise. The Center has revived the Jaialdi festival, launched the Oinkari

Dancers, helped the formation of the Boise Ko Fronton Association, established a Basque Studies

232

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together center at Boise State University, and started a Basque language preschool (Shelby 2014). All of these activities come from the fact that the Basque community has fully embraced the concept of auzolan. Their campaign to do community work with the goal of bettering Boise’s Basque community is exemplary and could be applied to the heritage of other groups in the United States.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, one way communities can discover preservation projects that publics can care about is through community based participatory research (CBPR). Community based participatory research is an approach archaeologists have used to ethically conduct projects oriented towards helping local communities (Atalay 2012). As all heritage conservation work takes place along a continuum (see Figure 10), it is easier to place what we do within the communities in which we work. Traditional CRM along the lines described in Chapter 4 has done little to preserve the places that count to minority communities because much of that work takes place outside the public eye, effectively preventing public participation. Additionally, affected communities of color do not have equal participation within the regulatory system that controls historic preservation because of their minority status. As a result, many of their heritage sites do not get equal treatment under the law (Barile 2004). Work like the River Street Digital History project, which was initiated and conducted within the affected community, allows participation within the historic preservation and heritage conservation system.

Community based historic preservation work provides archaeologists with a way of including communities in our work while also addressing some of their needs or research questions. Archaeologists on these projects have the potential to empower communities to advocate for their resources while also building their capacity to do their own preservation work.

Communities that care about their heritage can harness the expertise and skill of CRM practitioners to help further their own goals. In the meantime, archaeologists get the chance to study the past in

233

Chapter 8: Bringing It All Together a more meaningful and inclusive way. Fully engaging the community is essential to this sort of preservation work because the inclusiveness it fosters brings together scholars, government officials, the descendant community, and preservationists to collaborate on one project with the goal of contributing to the heritage of an underrepresented group.

If it takes work to preserve the places that matter to local communities, somebody has to do that work. The best way to do heritage conservation is in conjunction with a public that sincerely cares and is willing to show up and do the work; however, publics are not just going to show up and support a preservation effort that does not have their best interests in mind. The most dedicated community preservationists are individuals that care about the places in which they live. These are the people who will come out and volunteer. They will give services, expertise, time, and money for preservation projects they care about. Most importantly: Community preservationists will care for the project after it has been completed because they can claim ownership of their own work.

Long after all the archaeologists, architects, planners, and construction companies have gone home, local preservationists and residents are the ones that will fight to keep adverse effects away from historic properties. The successful preservation of the Hayman House is a continuation of the auzolan spirit that already exists in Boise. It can be the foundation for a campaign to preserve pieces of all the ethnic and racial groups that have made Boise what it is today. It is also a way

Boiseans can combat the structural racism that has prevented the equal commemoration of non-

White heritage throughout the city.

This is the truest form of historic preservation in the world–when communities come together to protect resources they care about in order to benefit the rest of the public.

234

235

Appendix A: Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 503 Ash 1906– Rucker, Wiley Barber, Builder Owner N/A Demo 2006 1908 1910 Kaerrick, Fred Wholesale and Lulu house manager 1912 Dwelling and one Sanborn Map outbuilding Company 1912:41 1912– Greenwood, Clerk for 1913 Otis and Roy Carlson-Lusk Hardware 1920 Fisher, Laborer for Owner Robert and feedstore Euna 1922 Same as in 1912 Sanborn Map Company 1922:41 1925 Taylor, Albion Employee at and Geo Joy Pharmacy 1927– Smith, 1929 Maurice 1930– Carey, Fred Garage Rent 1931 and Myrtle; mechanic Howard, Everett 1932– Hellig, Jessie 1933 and Vernon 1934– Phillips, 1935 Robert

236

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1936– Phillips, 1937 Elmer 1939– Allison, Byron 1940 1941 Covert, Julius 1943 Vacant 1945– Covert, Julius 1950 1949 Same as in 1922 Sanborn Map Company 1949:41 1953 Vacant 1952– Remodeled (1953) Kane, R.A. 1955 1955– Fort, Marvin Black 1960 1961– Brewster, 1964 Lizzie 1965 Green, Jas 1967– Electrical upgrades Bowen, Alf Black? 1980 (1979)

1983– Ray, Minnie Black 2006 509 Ash 1908– Anthony, Storekeeper, Residents 1925 William, bookbinder, Helen, odd jobs, sales Melissa lady at the Mode, Ralph, Alf, Laborers Boarders William, Burt

237

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1912 Dwelling (1912) Sanborn Map Company 1912:41 1922 Outbuilding added Sanborn Map (1922) Company 1922:41 1927– New building Martin, Chas; Owner 1929 erected Short, Ray 1930– Pendleton, general work, Boarders 1931 Elon and tobacconist, Margaret; laborers Snodgrass, G.; Taylor, E., Kiefer, C. 1932– Wykoff, Bert; Boarder 1933 Buckmaster, J. 1934– Wykoff, Bert Owner 1935 Casey, Boarders McDowell, MacFarland, Alvord, Gardner, Johnson 1936– Wykoff, Bert Owner 1937 1939– Kistler, Jas 1940 1941 Sharp, Clyde 1943 Brennan, Juanita

238

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1945 Hansen, Gerald 1948 vacant 1949 New Dwelling and 2 Sanborn Map outbuildings (509 Company 1/2 and 509 1/3) 1949:41

1950– Bradburn, 1979 Ada 509 1/2 Ash 1929– Wykoff, Bert Owner 1931 511 Ash 1908– Lockerby, Laborers Resident 1910 Chas, Raymond, Ralph, Lydia, and Chas 1911 Ebbert, Clerk Resident Chester 1912 Dwelling and two Sanborn Map outbuildings Company 1912:41 1912– Briggs, Harry Boise Police Resident 1917 Patrolman 1920 Walton, Laborer Owner Miller, May and Sarah 1922 Same as in 1912 Sanborn Map Company 1922:41 1923 Short, Ray, Beauty Owner Fred, and operator, Garnett elevator operator at

239

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Falks, mechanic, clerk, janitor, student 1930– Short, Ray, Owner 1935 Fred, Garnett, and Flo 1936– Rains, Lee 1937 1939– Thompson 1940 1941 Kolotski, Walter 1943 #1,#2 vacant, #3 Knoy, Elmer, Fair 1945 #1 Loveless, #2 Sims, #3 vacant, #4 West 1948 #1 Giles, #2 Knoy, #3 vacant, #4 Benz 1949 New building, Sanborn Map apartments; three Company new outbuildings 1949:41

1950 #1 Bens, #2 Neering, #3 vacant, #4 Rush

240

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1953 #1 Bens, #2 McMin, #3 vacant, #4 Bower 1955 #1 Bens, #2 vacant, #3 Thomas, #3b Cogler, #4 Mason 1958 #1 Bens, #2 McMeeken 1959 #1 Bens, #2 Hughes, #3 vacant, #4 Borup, Cliff 1960 #1 Bens, #2 Hughes, #3 vacant 1961 #1 Smith, #2 vacant, #3 Bens 1962 #1 Meyers, #2 vacant, #3 Bens 1963 #1 Meyers, #2 vacant, #3 Bens 1964 #1 vacant, #2 vacant, #3 Bens 1965 #1 vacant, #2 Warner, #3 Bens, #4

241

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Farrell, Jennifer

1966 #1 vacant, #2 Warner, #3 Bens, #4 vacant 1967 #1 Vacant, #2 Miller, #3 Bens, #4 vacant 1968 #1 Collier, #2 Guay, #3 Bens, #4 Robertson 1969– #1 Collier, #2 1970 Guay, #3 Bens, #4 Robertson 1971 #1 Stein, #2 Guay, #3 Bens, #4 vacant 1972 #1 Miller, #2 Guay, #3 Bens, #4 Brambo 1973 #1 vacant, #2 Guay, #3 Bens, #4 Brambo 1974 #1 Glavota, Owner (Glavota) #2 vacant, #3

242

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Bens, #4 vacant

1975 #1 vacant, #2 vacant, #3 Miller, #4 Glavota 1976 #1 vacant, #2 Miller, #3 Miller, #4 Forshay, #5 Glavota 1977 #1 vacant, #2 Miller, #3 Miller, #4 Forshay, #5 vacant 1978 #1 vacant, #2 Butler, #3 Miller, #4 Forshay, #5 vacant 1979 #1,3,5 vacant, #4 Forshay 1980 #1 Davis, #2 Land, #3 vacant, #4 Forshay, #5 Daley 1981 Carport and patio #1 Davis, #2 added Land, #3 vacant, #4

243

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Forshay, #5 Daley

1982– Vacant 1984 1986 Baumgartner, Hassis 1987 #1 Corn, #2 Whoeler, #3 vacant, #4 Hall 1988 #1,2,3 vacant, #4 Wright 1989 #1,3 vacant, #2 Hare, #4 Shelley 1990 #1 Heinz, #2 Hare, #3 vacant, #4 not rented 1992 #1,3,4,5 vacant, #2 Mitchell 1993 #1,5 vacant, #2 Abner, #3 Pasquall, #4 Bischoff 1994 #1,2,4 vacant, #2 Facer, #5 Whiteman

244

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1995 #1 Henderson, #2 Raspberry, #3 Alder, #4,5 vacant 1996 #1 not rented, #2 Alder, #3 Schmidt, #5 Weaver 1997 #1,2,4,5 vacant, #3 Alder 1998 #4 Schmidt 609 Ash 1906– Warren, Electrical Resident 1907 Anthony engineer 1909– Gamble, Fred Print shop Resident 1910 and Grace 1912 Dwelling and one Sanborn Map outbuilding Company 1912:41 1915 Goodwin, Boarder Belle 1917 Moore, Frank Clerk at Boise Resident Ice and Produce 1919 New dwelling built Caldwell, Fields 1920– Beech, Abby Resident 1931 and Sherman Charlotte, Truck driver for Owner Ashlock and Boise Ice and Robert Produce

245

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1922 Porch added to Sanborn Map main dwelling Company 1922:41 1932– Ashlock, Truck driver for Resident 1941 Robert Boise Ice and Produce 1943 Litz, Henry Owner/Resident 1944– Lierow, A. 1945 1948– Litz, Henry 1961 1949 New dwelling with Sanborn Map back and front Company porches; new 1949:41 outbuilding

1962 Fulfer, Pete 1963– Trumble, 1966 Leroy 1967 Stevenson, Sheldon 1968 Davis, Michael 1969– Scibor, Janet 1977 1977 No Further Listing 1981 Demolished for 621, 651 Ash St. apartments 611 Ash 1909– Caldwell, Resident 1910 Dollie

246

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Vitelle, John Carpenter Boarder 1912 Dwelling with two Sanborn Map smaller Company outbuildings 1912:41 1912– D'Amant, Rancher/saloon Resident 1913 Frank manager 1914 D'Amant, Exchange Bar Resident Frank and manager Mary 1917 Howard, Barber Resident Grant 1920 Garside, John Garage Resident and Marion mechanic McSorley, Mary 1921– Wardle, Farmer Resident 1923 Hirum 1922 Same as in 1912 Sanborn Map Company 1922:41 1927 Lowe, Harry 1929 Fletcher, Lloyd 1930– Foster, 1931 William and Evelyn Burgess, Tinner, florist Lester 1932– Snyder, Vern 1933 1934– Jensen, Joe Owner 1940

247

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1941– Jensen, Marie 1945 1948 Upshaw, Thomas 1949 New dwelling and Gilley, Lillard Sanborn Map two outbuildings Company (611 1/2?) 1949:41

1950– Bauer, 1953 George 1955– Downey, 1956 Robert 1957– Lowe, 1962 Vernard 1963– Mason, Steve 1964 1967– Dickerson, 1970 Clarence; Lundberg, Mamie 1971– Hall, Mary Owner 1980 1981 Demolished and replaced by 621, 651 Ash St. apartments 611 1/2 Ash 1953 An outbuilding of Halliday 611 Ash St.

1955– Gilley, Lillard Owner 1980 617, 617 Ash 1909 Thompson, 1/2, 617 Chester 1/3

248

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1910 Baindage, Bartender Damien and Mary 1911 Crossman, Boarder Chas 1912 Dwelling with two Sanborn Map smaller dwellings Company (617 1/2 and 617 1912:41 1/3 Ash St.)

1914 Nichols, Jos Patrolman Resident 1915 Cross, Ernest Barber Resident 1917 Fackerell, Jos Laborers and Lyman 1918– Wasson, Jas Pressman 1920 and Anna; Byington, Edna 1922 Same as in 1912 Sanborn Map Company 1922:41 1927 Hodge, George 1929 Foulke, George 1930– Neal, Richard Dry goods Renter 1931 and Dorothy salesman 1932– Foulke, Owner 1933 George 1934– Bybee, Lee Owner 1940 1941 Vacant

249

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1943 Barras, Stephen 1944– Robertson, Owner European 1948 Harry American 1949 One outbuilding Sanborn Map converted to Company garage; same main 1949:41 house 1950– Electrical upgrades Hayman, Owner Black 1986 (1973); roof Lawrence improvement and Erma (1979); heating and air conditioning (1987) 1986– Hayman, Owner Black 2005 Erma 633 Ash 1909– Gilbert, Boarder 1910 Bertha; Caldwell, Dollie 1910 Peters, hired man Clajes, Katrina, Elsie, Myrtle, Erle 1912 Dwelling Sanborn Map Company 1912:41 1918– Oberbillig, Quarz miner, 1931 John and stonecutter Edith Ernest, Harlow and Donald

250

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE 1922 Same dwelling Sanborn Map Company 1922:41 1932– Class, Chas Owner 1935 1936– Jones, Erwin; Boarders 1940 Fitzpatrick, Frances 1941– Class, Chas 1943 1944– Thomas, Restaurant Owner European 1960 Jackson and owners American Doris 1949 Same dwelling with Sanborn Map new outbuilding Company 1949:41 1961– Thomas, Owner European 1964 Doris American 1965 Demolished for River Street Realignment 631, 631 Lovers 1909– S/Zabala, Laborer Basque 1/3, 631 Lane 1913 Domingo 1/2

1912 Dwellings at 631 Basque Sanborn Map and 631 1/3 Lovers handball Company Lane court at 631 1912:41 1/2 Lovers Lane; Built in 1909 1914 S/Zabala, Basque Domingo

251

Appendix A: River Street Project Area Resident Directory, 1909–2006

NUMBER STREET YEAR BUILDINGS RESIDENT OCCUPATION OWNERSHIP RACE/ETHNICITY REFERENCE Aberasturi, Laborer Basque Manuel 1915 Aberasturi, Laborer Basque Manuel 1917 Arana, Bakery owner Basque Marcellino and Maria 1918 No Further Listing 1922 Dwellings Sanborn Map dramatically Company altered/demolished 1922:41

1949 Dwelling at 631 Sanborn Map Lovers Lane now Company 612 Lovers Lane; 1949:41 New dwelling at 604 Lovers Lane 612 1/2 Pioneer 1922 Dwelling with Sanborn Map Street possible Company outbuilding 1922:41 612 Pioneer 1949 Dwelling with small Sanborn Map Street outbuilding Company (formerly (possibly same 1949:41 631 building as 631 Lovers Lovers Lane from Lane) 1912) *Adapted from Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F in Demo 2006

252

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

1 55 0–38 Very dark brown loam None Disturbed with roots and modern debris 38 Fronton (Feature 125) Probe terminated at 38 cmbs on Feature 125 2 59 0–14 Landscaping: Dark Bottle glass, 62 Disturbed brown loam mottled flat glass, with mortar inclusions nails, machine made bottle glass 14–28 Disturbed: Dark brown loam with modern debris and artifacts 28–35 Very dark brown loam Many Historical with charcoal/coal artifacts inclusions 35–51 Greyish brown silty Few artifacts sand with rust filaments; transition to sterile sediments

51–76 Natural sediments: No artifacts Natural Yellowish brown sand with laminated lenses of brown silt

76–85 Grey sandy clay No artifacts Probe terminated at 85 cmbs in sterile sediments 3 61 0–15 Landscaping: Dark None 77 brown silty loam with grass and roots

15–40 Disturbed: Mottled Bottle glass, Redeposited dark brown loam with flat glass, historical tan sandy silt metal, bottle and natural inclusions caps sediments 40–61 Same as above with bottle glass, cobbles and gravels ceramics, metal

253

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

61–72 Mottled brown and porcelain at tan silty sand 71 cmbs

72–107 Yellowish brown sand metal and with few cobbles ceramic sewer pipe at 101 cmbs Probe terminate at 107 cmbs on clay pipe 4 63 0–47 Disturbed: Very dark plastic, 23 Disturbed brown silt with small faunal bone, cobbles and gravels glass

47 Fronton (Feature 125) Probe terminated on Fronton (Feature 125 at 47 cmbs) 5 64 0–34 Disturbed: Dark plastic with 1 Disturbed brown silt with some some small subround historical cobbles and gravels artifacts Probe terminated on Fronton (Feature 125 at 34 cmbs) 6 65 0–7 Sod Layer: Very dark None 12 Disturbed brown silt

7–38 Disturbed: Dark plastic, nail, brown silt loam with faunal bone, cobbles glass 38–46 Very dark brown silt ceramics Historical loam with charcoal inclusions 46–63 Brown sandy loam None Sterile 63–74 Yellowish brown sand None with laminated lenses of brown silt

74–92 Grayish brown clay None Probe terminated at 92 cmbs in sterile sediments 7 66 0–15 Dark brown loam with glass, 118 Disturbed roots and some ceramics, modern debris metal 15–37 Brown loam with brick, metal, rounded cobbles and ceramic, roots glass 37–43 Brown loam with plastic, glass gravels ceramic

254

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

43–60 Brown loam with glass, Historical charcoal and gravels ceramics metal 60–69 Coarse yellowish None Natural brown sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 69 cmbs in sterile sediments 8 70 0–15 Compact dark brown glass, brick 2 Disturbed silt with angular gravel Probe terminated at 15 cmbs on ferrous pipe 9 71 0–20 Brown silt loam with Glass 54 Disturbed many roots and rounded cobbles; some charcoal 20–26 Brown silt loam with None many rounded cobbles; pockets of asphalt and plastic 26–38 Brown silt loam with None fewer rounded cobbles; pockets of asphalt and plastic 38–63 Dark brown loam with Many glass, Historical some rounded gravels ceramics, and cobbles; some metal, and charcoal and rust faunal bone staining 63–72 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 72 cmbs in sterile sediments 10 72 0–10 Sod Layer: Brown Plastic, nail 116 Disturbed loam with gravel

10–29 Compact brown loam glass with many gravels

28–45 Dark brown loam with Many glass charcoal and gravels and metal

45–71 Dark brown loam with Glass and Historical charcoal and gravels metal

71–80 Yellowish brown Few artifacts sandy silt with small gravels

255

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

80–88 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt

88–91 Greyish brown sandy None clay Probe terminated at 91 cmbs in sterile sediments 11 73 0–14 Brown silty loam with None 62 Disturbed roots and angular gravel 14–25 Mottled silty loam None with mortar

25–50 Dark brown sandy brick, metal, Historical loam with gravels, glass, and roots, and sandy ceramics inclusions 50–66 Coarse yellowish Few artifacts brown sand with pockets of dark brown sandy loam 66–72 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 72 cmbs in sterile sediments 12 77 0–12 Sod Layer: Brown None 36 Disturbed loam with gravel

12–30 Brown silty loam with glass gravels and cobbles

30–36 Brown silt loam with None pockets of sand and much angular gravel

36–56 Dark brown loam with Metal, Historical rust staining and few ceramic, gravels brick, and glass 56–71 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt

Probe terminated at 71 cmbs in sterile sediments 13 78 0–45 Brown silty loam with Faunal bone, Disturbed gravels and cobbles glass, metal

256

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

45–86 Dark brown sandy Modern loam with gravels, plastic, roots, and sandy historical inclusions glass, nail, metal 86–103 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 103 cmbs in sterile sediments 14 81 0–18 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 39 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic; bottle and angular gravels, glass, metal asphalt, and charcoal

18–25 Brown silt with sand Brick, inclusions and angular ceramic, gravels some metal

25–54 Dark brown silt with salt-glazed Historical some gravels stoneware, bottle glass, ceramics, metal 54–60 Mixed coarse nail yellowish brown sand and dark brown silt

60–72 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 72 cmbs in sterile sediments 15 87 0–12 Sod Layer: Very dark None 47 Disturbed brown silt with roots and angular gravels, asphalt, and charcoal

12–42 Brown silt with sand bottle glass inclusions and angular gravels

42–52 Dark brown silt with metal, glass Historical some gravels, cobbles, charcoal, and evidence of burning 52–73 Mixed coarse metal, glass yellowish brown sand and dark brown silt

257

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

73–78 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 78 cmbs in sterile sediments 16 90 0–18 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 23 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic, tiles, and angular gravels, glass and asphalt 18–61 Very dark brown silt Modern with many angular plastic, glass, gravels nails, faunal bone, wire 61–83 Yellowish brown sand plastic mixed with brown sandy silt 83–85 Greyish brown clay None Natural Probe terminated at 85 cmbs in sterile sediments 17 92 0–5 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 42 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic; nails, and angular gravels, glass and asphalt 5–40 Very dark brown silt Modern with many gravels plastic; faunal bone, glass 40–48 Yellowish brown None coarse sand with many subround small gravels 48–60 Yellowish brown sand None Natural mixed with brown sandy silt 60–81 Greyish brown clay None with silt inclusions Probe terminated at 81 cmbs in sterile sediments 18 95 0–11 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 55 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic and and angular gravels, glass and asphalt 11–39 Very dark brown silt metal, glass, with many gravels ceramic

258

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

39–79 Yellowish brown sand metal, glass, mixed with brown ceramic sandy silt 79–87 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 87 cmbs in sterile sediments 19 96 0–22 Very dark brown silt Modern 31 Disturbed with roots and angular plastic; nails, gravels glass, button 22–45 Dark brown silt with Modern small gravels plastic; nails, shell, ceramic

45–60 Yellowish brown sand glass, plastic mixed with brown sandy silt 60–75 Greyish brown clay None Natural with silt inclusions Probe terminated at 75 cmbs in sterile sediments 20 97 0–18 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 66 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic, glass, and angular gravels bottle cap

18–40 Dark brown silt with Faunal bone, small gravels glass, nails, 1999 penny

40–65 Very dark brown silt ceramic, with small gravels faunal bone, glass, plastic, nails 65–85 Yellowish brown sand None Natural mixed with brown sandy silt Probe terminated at 85 cmbs in sterile sediment 21 100 0–42 Very dark brown silt None 31 Disturbed with roots and angular gravels 42–60 Dark brown silt with ceramic, nail, small gravels glass

60–71 Yellowish brown sand None Natural mixed with brown sandy silt Probe terminated at 71 cmbs in sterile sediment

259

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS 22 105 0–13 Sod Layer: Very dark Modern 146 Disturbed brown silt with roots plastic; glass, and angular gravels ceramic

13–20 Light brown gravely Plastic knife, sand plaster, glass

20–30 Dark brown silt with Plaster, glass, small gravels pull tab

30–40 Light brown sandy styrofoam, loam metal cap, plaster, glass 40–45 Dark brown clayey faunal bone, Historical loam glass, nails, asphalt roofing 45–47 Dark brown loam with Coal, glass, coal and charcoal nails, asphalt roofing 47–70 Very dark brown bricks, faunal clayey silt with sand bone inclusions 70–88 Coarse yellow brown Metal and Natural sand with laminated bottle cap at lenses of brown silt top of level Probe terminated at 88 cmbs in sterile sediments 23 106 0–18 Sod Layer: Very dark glass, 35 Disturbed brown silt with roots ceramic and angular gravels

18–38 Brown silty loam with glass, coal concrete inclusions

38–53 Yellowish brown sand glass mixed with brown sandy silt 53–61 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt

Probe terminated at 61 cmbs in sterile sediments

24 111 0–2 Sod, grass, roots None 5 Disturbed 2–47 Dark brown silty sand Few glass, with roots and coal ceramic, and inclusions brick

260

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

47–52 Light brown clayey silt None 52–56 Dark brown silty clay None 56–64 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 64 cmbs in sterile sediments 25 114 0–2 Sod, grass, roots None 9 Disturbed

2–9 Brown clayey silt with 1 nail roots 9–40 Dark brown clayey silt nails, with sprinkler line ceramic, traversing probe glass, metal

40–45 Brown clayey silt None 45–50 Dark brown clayey silt None 50–63 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 63 cmbs in sterile sediment

26 117 0–2 Sod, grass, roots None 20 Disturbed 2–55 Dark brown silty sand Brick, nails, glass, faunal bone 55–60 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 60 cmbs in sterile sediments 27 148 0–33 Dark brown sandy Modern 7 Disturbed loam with gravels plastic

33–51 Brown loamy sand ceramic, glass, plastic

51–71 Light to medium 1 nail brown sand fragment

71–80 Brown clayey loam None 80–100 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 100 cmbs in sterile sediment 28 151 0–23 Dark brown sandy brick, glass 36 Disturbed loam with gravels

261

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

23–40 Dark brown medium brick, glass, sand nails, faunal bone, ceramics 40–70 Dark brown clayey nails, glass, loam faunal bone

70–87 Dark brown sandy clay None Natural Probe terminated at 87 cmbs in sterile sediments 29 152 0–38 Dark brown sandy glass 4 Disturbed loam with gravels

38–50 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt

Probe terminated at 50 cmbs in sterile sediments

30 159 0–6 Sod, grass, roots Modern 14 Disturbed plastic 6–22 Dark brown silty loam Modern with gravels plastic; glass

22–45 Brown sandy silt with glass, metal, Historical many gravels bone, nail

45–65 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 65 cmbs in sterile sediments 31 160 0–5 Sod, grass, roots bottle glass, 73 Disturbed ceramic

5–12 Dark brown silt loam glass, metal 12–15 Burn Layer: very dark glass Historical brown silt loam with charcoal

15–26 Dark brown sandy silt glass, nails, with many gravels and metal cobbles 26–40 Coarse yellow brown None Natural sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 40 cmbs in sterile sediment

32 N/A 0–62 Modern Fill: Brown None Disturbed sandy silt with many large gravels and cobbles

262

Appendix B: Shovel Probe Summary

PROBE PD DEPTH SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS TOTAL COMMENT NO. (cmbs) ARTIFACTS

Probe terminated at 62 cmbs on large rock

33 N/A 0–61 Modern Fill: Brown None Disturbed sandy silt with many large gravels and cobbles Probe terminated at 61 cmbs on large rock 34 N/A 0–58 Modern Fill: Brown None Disturbed sandy silt with many large gravels and cobbles 58–65 Lens of mottled None brown silt and sand

65–68 Dark brown sandy silt charcoal and coal 68–90 Greyish brown silt None Natural with rust filaments

90–97 Coarse yellow brown None sand with laminated lenses of brown silt Probe terminated at 97 cmbs in sterile sediment

263

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

6 617 Ash 2x2 1 9 14–21 10 Sod Layer: Bottle glass 31 Brown and metal sandy loam fragments with gravel and pebble fill 2 12 21–28 Brown Modern 234 sandy loam plastic mixed with with glass, concrete, metal, and charcoal, ceramic and slag fragments; faunal bone and peach pits 3 15 28–42 Brown silty Mostly glass 324 Vertical loam with and metal posts subround fragments gravel with some ceramics, faunal bone, and architectural debris 4 36 42–52 Brown silty Bottle glass, 192 loam with metal, sand ceramics and pockets and faunal bone charcoal

264

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

5 42 52–62 Yellowish Very few 13 101 Posthole brown artifacts sandy loam with coarse sand pockets TOTAL 794

7 617 Ash 2x2 1 11 14–25 10 Sod Layer: Glass, metal, 89 13 Building Brown faunal bone, foundation sandy loam and modern with gravel plastic and pebble fill 2 14 25–37 Brown silty Glass, 376 loam with ceramic, and charcoal metal fragments; faunal bone 3 49 37–47 Brown silty Glass and 207 loam metal fragments; faunal bone including nearly complete chicken skeleton 4 60 47–57 Brown silty Very few 6 Posthole loam artifacts

265

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

5 80 57–70 Yellowish Very few 1 brown artifacts sandy loam with coarse sand pockets TOTAL 679

16 617 Ash *1x2 1 17 11–19 10 Sod Layer: Modern 37 Brown plastic with sandy loam some artifacts with gravel and pebble fill 2 18 19–29 Brown silty Glass, 192 loam with ceramic, and coal and metal, with charcoal some faunal bone *Combined with TP-22 after Level 2

2x2 3 30 29–38 Brown silty Much glass, 853 loam with ceramic, and charcoal and metal subround fragments cobbles 4 35 38–42 Silty sand Glass, nails, 497 with and metal subround fragments; cobbles faunal bone; large ash concentration

266

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

5 48 42–52 Silty sand Nails, metal, 173 50, 52 Ash pits with and glass charcoal and fragments; sand pockets of ash pockets and charcoal 6 58 52–62 Sandy loam Very few 6 with coarse artifacts sand pockets 7 62 62–65 Yellowish None 0 103 Posthole brown sandy loam with coarse sand pockets TOTAL 1758

19 617 Ash 2x2 1 20 14–23 10 Sod Layer: Very few 20 13 Building Brown artifacts foundation sandy loam

2 25 23–32 Brown silty Bottle glass, 327 loam with ceramics, and coal and metal charcoal fragments 3 31 32–38 Brown Glass, metal, 209 sandy loam ceramics, and with faunal bone charcoal 4 38 38–47 Brown Mostly glass 103 sandy loam and metal fragments

267

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE with few ceramic and faunal bone

5 43 47–57 Brown Mostly metal 49 sandy loam fragments; some glass and ceramic 6 45 57–67 Brown Mostly metal 20 sandy loam fragments with many subround gravels 7 47 67–77 Yellowish Very few 1 brown sand artifacts with many subround gravels TOTAL 729

22 617 Ash *1x2 1 23 13–19 10 Sod Layer: Modern 5 21 Sandstone Brown plastic with block sandy loam few artifacts walkway with some charcoal 2 24 19–28 Brown silty Modern 144 loam with plastic mixed charcoal and with historical subround ceramics, gravels glass, metal, and faunal bone

268

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

TOTAL 149 *Combined with TP-16 after Level 2

27 617 Ash 1x1 1 28 8–15 26 Sod Layer: Some modern 41 Brown plastic mixed sandy loam with faunal with some bone, glass, charcoal and metal fragments 2 29 15–25 Yellowish Bottle glass, 132 brown silty ceramic, and loam with metal charcoal, fragments small gravels, and cobbles 3 32 25–35 Dark brown Nails, bottle 74 clayey silt glass, and with faunal bone charcoal, gravels, and cobbles 4 33 35–45 Sandy loam Few artifacts; 10 with some brick, faunal subround bone, and gravels metal fragments 5 34 45–55 Yellowish Very few 2 brown silty artifacts sand with some

269

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE subround gravels

TOTAL 259

40 617 Ash 2x2 1 41 12–22 39 Sod Layer: Modern 64 Brown plastic with sandy loam historical with some glass, charcoal ceramics, and faunal bone 2 44 22–32 Brown Some plastic 658 sandy loam with many with faunal bone, charcoal ceramic, glass, and metal fragments 3 53 32–42 Brown Much metal; 441 67 Posthole sandy loam many faunal with bones, glass charcoal and ceramic fragments 4 57 42–51 Brown Mostly flat 117 sandy loam glass with with gravel some bottle inclusions glass and metal fragments 5 69 51–61 Brown Few glass and 9 75 Posthole sandy loam metal fragments

270

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

TOTAL 1289

82 633 Ash 1x1 1 85 19–29 84 Sod Layer: Much 394 Brown silty ceramic, glass, loam with and metal gravel fragments inclusions with some faunal bone; a 1909 dime and 1910 penny 2 88 29–40 Brown silty Bottle glass, 101 loam with metal, and charcoal and ceramic slag fragments; inclusions some faunal bone; zinc canning jar lid with liner 3 91 40–48 Brown silty Fewer 24 loam; artifacts; pockets of ceramic, charcoal- metal, and bearing glass sediments fragments 4 93 48–58 Brown silty Few artifacts; 7 loam; mostly bottle pockets of glass and charcoal- nails; glass bearing heavily sediments patinated

271

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

5 98 58–67 Yellowish None 0 brown sand with silt and clay pockets TOTAL 526

83 633 Ash 1x1 1 86 15–22 84 Sod Layer: Bottle glass 55 brown silty and metal loam with fragments gravel inclusions 2 94 22–32 Disturbed Glass, metal, 136 brown silty and ceramic loam fragments; many fruit pits; 1970s beer can 3 99 32–42 Brown silty Many metal 329 loam with fragments; charcoal and glass, ceramic, ash and wire inclusions 4 110 42–52 Brown silty Cut nails, 21 loam with hand-tooled charcoal bottle glass, inclusions and ironstone bowl 5 115 52–62 Yellowish Very few 1 brown silty artifacts sand TOTAL 542

272

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

107 631 Lovers 4x0.5 1 108 15–41 109 Sod Layer Modern 0 Lane and plastic and Overburden: bottle glass Dark brown silty loam 2 116 41–50 Dark brown Nails and 21 silty loam bottle glass with small cobbles 3 122 50–60 Brown Faunal bone, 80 125 Fronton sandy loam ceramic and (Basque glass handball fragments court)

4 123 60–70 Dark brown Very few 3 sandy loam artifacts TOTAL 104

118 511 Ash 1x1 1 119 16–26 120 Sod Layer: Few metal 21 dark brown and bottle sandy loam glass fragments 2 121 26–34 Dark brown Modern 69 sandy loam plastic with historical artifacts; mainly bottle glass and plastic fragments

273

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

3 124 34–45 Sandy clay Intact 136 with pockets archaeological of sand sediments; coal and slag with bottle glass, metal fragments and faunal bone 4 129 45–54 Sandy clay Faunal bone 81 with pockets with metal of sand and bottle glass 5 133 54–74 Dark brown Charcoal and 677 sandy clay slag with throughout; evidence of metal, bottle burning glass, and faunal bones throughout; bottom 5 cm sterile yellowish brown sand TOTAL 984

127 633 Ash 2x2 1 128 13–19 84 Brown silty Bottle glass 118 loam with and metal gravel and fragments; concrete some faunal inclusions bone

274

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

2 132 19–29 Brown silty Occasional 323 loam with modern gravel and plastic with concrete historical inclusions artifacts; glass and metal fragments with some ceramic 3 134 29–39 Brown silty Historical 364 loam with metal, glass, gravel and ceramic inclusions fragments 4 136 39–49 Brown silty Late 152 137 Posthole loam with nineteenth gravel and century glass small and ceramic cobbles fragments with metal and nails 5 140 49–55 Brown silty Few metal 36 loam with and ceramic charcoal fragments flecks, gravel, and small cobbles 6 146 55–61 Yellowish Few ceramic 3 brown silty fragments sand TOTAL 996

275

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

130 617 Ash 2x2 1 131 14–24 10 Sandy loam Much bottle 296 with many glass, some cobbles faunal bone, flat glass, and plastic fragments 2 135 24–41 Sandy loam Burn area 683 characterized by slag, roofing tiles, and bluish debris; Many nails, glass, faunal bone, ceramics, and plastic fragments 3 139 41–48 Silty loam Metal 92 fragments, some faunal bone, glass, and ceramics 4 141 48–51 Sandy loam Few artifacts 9 5 145 51–56 Yellowish Very few 9 brown sand artifacts; none with silt in the lowest pockets and few gravel centimeters TOTAL 1089

276

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE

142 631 Lovers 1x1 1 143 14–25 144 Sod Layer: Few artifacts, 1 Lane clayey loam 1975 penny and plastic fragments 2 147 25–35 Upper layer Glass, nails, 40 of hard clay, large metal lower loam, fragments large rocks 3 149 35–44 Soft clayey Tennis racket 145 loam with handle, glass, few roots nails, possible 1920s license plate 4 153 44–54 Dark brown Nails, bottle 182 sandy silt glass, bottle with many bases subrounded cobbles 5 154 54–64 Dark sandy Fewer 93 clay with artifacts, subrounded sandstone pebbles blocks and mortar throughout 6 155 64–74 Nearly black Faunal bone, 62 sandy clay bottle glass, with pebbles and metal fragments 7 156 74–84 Light yellow Few bottle 145 silty sand glass and metal fragments;

277

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Summary

TEST ADDRESS DIMENSION LEVEL PD DEPTH DATUM SEDIMENT ARTIFACTS QUANT. ASSOC. FEATURE PIT (cmbd) FEATURES TYPE many wire nails

8 157 84–94 Light yellow Very few 3 silty sand artifacts in upper 5 cm; bottom 5 cm sterile TOTAL 671

278

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1 2 1 9 TP-6 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 blue glazed whiteware 2 2 1 9 TP-6 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 7 1 Terra cotta fragments 3 2 1 9 TP-6 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile 4 2 1 9 TP-6 1 FCC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 partial decal 5 2 1 9 TP-6 1 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 molded 6 2 1 9 TP-6 1 ENT GLS TOY MBL 1 1 green and colorless marble 7 2 1 9 TP-6 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 6 1 8 2 1 9 TP-6 1 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 9 2 1 9 TP-6 1 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 2-hole button 10 2 1 9 TP-6 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 11 2 1 9 TP-6 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 12 2 1 9 TP-6 1 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 Shell 13 2 1 9 TP-6 1 MSC ORG FLO SHL 5 5 walnut shells 14 2 2 11 TP-7 1 FCC CER ETH UNK 2 1 undecorated 15 2 2 11 TP-7 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 turquois glazed 16 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC CER ETH UNK 1 1 Terra cotta fragments 17 2 2 11 TP-7 1 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated 18 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 green with gilding on rim 19 2 2 11 TP-7 1 ARC GLS FLT AQU 8 1 20 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 15 1 unidentified vessel 21 2 2 11 TP-7 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 22 2 2 11 TP-7 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 23 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 24 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 green milkglass/ jadite? 25 2 2 11 TP-7 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 11 11 wire nails 26 2 2 11 TP-7 1 ARC MTL HRD MSC 14 11 27 2 2 11 TP-7 1 CLT MTL JEL OTH 1 1 watch? Yes

279

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

28 2 2 11 TP-7 1 CLT MTL CLC CSP 1 1 29 2 2 11 TP-7 1 FCC MTL TOL OTH 1 1 Can opener 30 2 2 11 TP-7 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 15 15 31 2 2 11 TP-7 1 CLT BON CLC BUT 1 1 bone button 32 2 2 11 TP-7 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 3 1 fruit pits 33 2 2 11 TP-7 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 6 1 possibly toy car fragments 34 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 turquois glazed 35 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 2 undecorated whiteware 36 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 green-glazed whiteware 37 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC CER ETH UNK 9 1 Terra cotta fragments 38 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ARC CER ETH BRK 4 1 Brick 39 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 painted 40 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 edge molded 41 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 9 1 42 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 30 1 colorless vessel 43 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 embossed 44 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 molded 45 2 3 12 TP-6 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 5 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 46 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 10 1 47 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 11 2 vessel glass 48 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 2 vessel glass 49 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 vessel glass 50 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 51 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 4 1 sun-colored amethyst 52 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 33 33 53 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ARC MTL HRD UNK 9 9 54 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 55 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ATU MTL BCL PUL 1 1 Pull tab 56 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC MTL CLC OTH 1 1 57 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC MTL UNK MSC 4 1 miscellaneous metal

280

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

58 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 12 59 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 60 2 3 12 TP-6 2 FAU ORG FAU TOO 1 1 Tooth 61 2 3 12 TP-6 2 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 62 2 3 12 TP-6 2 MSC ORG FLO PIT 52 fruit pits 63 2 3 12 TP-6 2 ENT PLA TOY OTH 16 toy fragments 64 2 3 12 TP-6 2 WCM RUB OTH OTH 1 1 eraser 65 2 3 12 TP-6 2 CLC TXT FBR OTH 1 1 Scotty dog pattern Yes embossed and gilded, 66 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC CER ETH PLT 3 1 mends 67 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 undecorated whiteware 68 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 gilded, hand painted Yes 69 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 painted 70 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC CER ETH UNK 3 1 Terra cotta fragments 71 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC CER ETH BRK 2 1 72 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ENT CER TOY MBL 2 2 clay marble Yes 73 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC CER POR OTH 1 1 blue ceramic tile 74 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC ORG OTH OTH 3 1 roofing slate? 75 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 10 1 76 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 68 miscellaneous bottle glass 77 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 embossed; "TR…S..." 78 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 stippled 79 2 4 15 TP-6 3 HLT GLS LIG CLR 31 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass

valve mark on base; patina, 80 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 bubbles in glass 81 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 82 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 15 1 vessel glass 83 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 84 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB BLK 1 1 vessel glass 85 2 4 15 TP-6 3 NFC GLS OTH MLK 2 1

281

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

86 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 5 1 vessel glass 87 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 Mason jar lid liner 88 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 86 Fragments 89 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 9 9 fence staples 90 2 4 15 TP-6 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 6 5

miscellaneous metal; 91 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 18 possible urethral irrigator Yes 92 2 4 15 TP-6 3 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 93 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 35 94 2 4 15 TP-6 3 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 95 2 4 15 TP-6 3 MSC ORG FLO PIT 3 2 fruit pits 96 2 4 15 TP-6 3 PRE LIT DEB FLK 1 1 obsidian flake Yes 97 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 turquois glazed 98 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 gilded rim 99 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 100 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC CER ETH UNK 2 1 Terra cotta fragments 101 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 hand-painted polychrome Yes 102 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER POR UNH 3 1 undecorated porcelain 103 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 blue transfer print Yes 104 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC CER POR UNH 2 2 unidentified 105 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ENT CER TOY MBL 1 1 clay marble Yes 106 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 108 1 107 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 29 1 vessel glass 108 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 molded or embossed 109 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 stippled 110 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 applied color label 111 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 8 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass

Bottle neck and partial finish; small medicine 112 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 NFC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 bottle; fully automatic

282

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

113 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 8 1 114 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 13 2 vessel glass 115 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 13 1 vessel glass 116 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS UNB MLK 1 1 vessel glass 117 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC GLS DEC MLK 5 1 molded floral design 118 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ENT GLS TOY MBL 1 1 yellow/colorless marble Yes 119 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 87 wire nails 120 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 121 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 4 4 122 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 CLT MTL CLC CSP 1 1 possible garter clasp 123 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 CLT MTL JEL OTH 1 1 catholic pendant Yes 124 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 10 3 miscellaneous metal 125 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1

not in association with bird 126 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 bones

part of a bird found all in 127 2 5 14 13 TP-7 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 61 1 association; possibly chicken Yes 128 2 6 17 TP-16 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 129 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 5 1 Terra cotta fragments 130 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 11 1 drainage tile 131 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 3 vessel glass 132 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 133 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 light green 134 2 6 17 TP-16 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 135 2 6 17 TP-16 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 136 2 6 17 TP-16 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bolt 137 2 6 17 TP-16 1 FCC MTL BCL PUL 1 1 aluminum pull tab 138 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 1 miscellaneous metal 139 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC PLA UNK UNK 1 1 140 2 6 17 TP-16 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 2

283

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

141 2 6 17 TP-16 1 FAU ORG FAU TOO 1 1 rodent tooth 142 2 6 17 TP-16 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 fruit pits 143 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 18 1 turquois glazed 144 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 145 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 blue glazed whiteware 146 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER POR UNH 3 2 undecorated porcelain 147 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 3 1 Terra cotta fragments 148 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ARC CER ETH BRK 5 1

ceramic insulator tube; 149 2 7 18 TP-16 2 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 electrical 150 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 3 1 embossed; "ME…E…/…ARK"; same as 151 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FCC GLS JAR CLR 5 2 264 152 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 32 1 vessel glass 153 2 7 18 TP-16 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 11 1 Lightbulb 154 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 155 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 vessel glass 156 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 157 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 158 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC GLS UNB BLK 1 1 vessel glass 159 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 55 160 2 7 18 TP-16 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 5 5 161 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 7 3 miscellaneous metal 162 2 7 18 TP-16 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 7 163 2 7 18 TP-16 2 CLT ORG BUT SHL 2 2 164 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC ORG FLO PIT 5 3 fruit pits 165 2 7 18 TP-16 2 CLT PLA CLT BUT 1 1

rubber washer; "5/8 US 166 2 7 18 TP-16 2 MSC RUB OTH OTH 1 1 RUBBER CO" 167 2 8 23 TP-22 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile

284

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

168 2 8 23 TP-22 1 ARC CER ETH BRK 1 1 169 2 8 23 TP-22 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 colorless vessel 170 2 8 23 TP-22 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 colorless vessel 171 2 8 23 TP-22 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 172 2 9 20 TP-19 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 turquois glazed 173 2 9 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated 174 2 9 18 TP-16 2 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 gilded rim 175 2 9 18 TP-16 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 176 2 9 18 TP-16 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 vessel glass 177 2 9 18 TP-16 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 2 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 178 2 9 18 TP-16 2 MED GLS OTH GRN 1 1 Vasoline glass, molded 179 2 9 18 TP-16 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 180 2 9 18 TP-16 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staples 181 2 9 18 TP-16 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 ferrous washer 182 2 10 28 TP-27 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated whiteware 183 2 10 28 TP-27 1 ARC CER ETH BRK 1 1 184 2 10 28 TP-27 1 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 185 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 6 2 vessel glass 186 2 10 28 TP-27 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 187 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC GLS UNK AME 1 1 188 2 10 28 TP-27 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 17 189 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Tack 190 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 miscellaneous metal 191 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 2 2 Walnut shell, fruit pit 192 2 10 28 TP-27 1 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 193 2 10 28 TP-27 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 one burned 194 2 10 28 TP-27 1 MSC PLA UNK UNK 5 2 possibly toy fragment 195 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 36 1 turquois glazed 196 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 undecorated whiteware 197 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 Green glazed whiteware

285

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

198 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 Undecorated 199 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ARC CER OTH OTH 1 1 Ceramic tile 200 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 77 2 vessel glass 201 2 11 25 TP-19 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 12 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 202 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ARC GLS FLT AQU 21 1 203 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC GLS UNB AQU 21 1 vessel glass 204 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 9 1 205 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC GLS UNB AME 3 1 vessel glass 206 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC GLS DEC MLK 5 1 green milkglass/ jadite? 207 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 68 208 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 6 6 Hardware 209 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 3 3 fence staples 210 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC MTL UNK UNK 1 1 copper plate 211 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 25 1 miscellaneous metal 212 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 4 1 undentified aluminum 213 2 11 25 TP-19 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 2 1 fruit pits 214 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FAU ORG FAU SHL 1 1 Egg shell 215 2 11 25 TP-19 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 7 3 plastic toy vehicle fragments 216 2 12 29 TP-27 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated 217 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC CER POR UNH 2 2 unidentified porcelain 218 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ARC CER ETH BRK 8 1 219 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 2 1 220 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 6 2 vessel glass 221 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 16 1 vessel glass 222 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC GLS UNV MLK 2 1 unidentified vessel 223 2 12 29 TP-27 2 FCC GLS JRL MLK 2 1 224 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 225 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 6 1 vessel glass 226 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ARC MTL HRD SPK 1 1 227 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 47

286

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

228 2 12 29 TP-27 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 fence staples 229 2 12 29 TP-27 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 9 1 miscellaneous metal 230 2 12 29 TP-27 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 17 231 2 12 29 TP-27 2 FAU ORG MAR SHL 7 232 2 12 29 TP-27 2 CLT ORG BUT SHL 2 2 233 2 14 32 TP-27 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated whiteware 234 2 14 32 TP-27 3 MSC CER POR UNH 4 1 Unidentified, burned? 235 2 14 32 TP-27 3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 blue glazed rim; burned 236 2 14 32 TP-27 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 8 1 237 2 14 32 TP-27 3 MSC GLS UNK AQU 9 3 238 2 14 32 TP-27 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 embossed 239 2 14 32 TP-27 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 2 vessel glass 240 2 14 32 TP-27 3 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 bluish milkglass 241 2 14 32 TP-27 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 34 242 2 14 32 TP-27 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 9 243 2 14 32 TP-27 3 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1

embossed, panel bottle; 244 2 14 35 TP-16 4 MED GLS UNB CLR 11 1 DUPLICATE 374 245 2 15 33 TP-27 4 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal 246 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 82 1 turquoise-glazed whiteware 247 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 utilitarian vessel, whiteware 248 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 9 1 undecorated whiteware yellow glazed and edge- 249 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 molded 250 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 hand painted polychrome 251 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER POR UNH 4 1 undecorated 252 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 unidentifiable

black-glazed, possibly 253 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC CER STN UNH 1 1 utilitarian 254 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC CER ETH BRK 12 1

287

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

255 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC CER ETH OTH 8 1 terracotta 256 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 10 1 257 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 6 3 vessel glass

Panel bottle, embossed 258 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MED GLS UNB AQU 1 1 "…SBU…"; bubbles in glass Yes 259 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 83 260 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 HLT GLS LIG CLR 21 1 lightbulb glass 261 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MED GLS UNB CLR 5 2 paneled bottle 262 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 threaded jar lip all shards mend; "TRADE 263 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS JAR CLR 5 1 M…" 264 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 3 1 embossed; same as 151

embbossed; 265 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 "…Y_P/…GRED…/…ARCH..." tiny lightbulb; Christmas 266 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 light? 267 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 jar base, embossed "KERR GLASS MFG CORP/ SAND SPRINGS OK/ 11"; valve 268 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 mark Yes 269 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 7 2 vessel glass 270 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 3 1 271 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNK AME 1 1 272 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC GLS UNK MLK 1 1 273 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL HRD SPK 2 2 274 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 61 275 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 292 unidentified hardware 276 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 7 7 Screws 277 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 10 8 bolts 278 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ENT MTL TOY OTH 1 1 toy car/truck, orange paint 279 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staple

288

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

280 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC MTL CAN OTH 1 1 can key 281 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FCC MTL BCL CCP 4 3

aluminum; car radio 282 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC MTL UNK OTH 1 1 antenna attachment 283 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 74 Miscellaneous metal 284 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 "WRA CO./.32…W" Yes 285 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 87 87 286 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ARC OTH OTH OTH 4 1 roofing slate? 287 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC PLA UNK UNK 1 1 bakelite?

plastic toy truck fragments; 288 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 ENT PLA TOY OTH 13 1 "MADE IN USA/PYRO" 289 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 MSC UNK UNK UNK 3 1 unidentified material; paint? 290 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 FAU ORG FAU SHL 17 1 egg shell 291 2 16 30 TP-16/22 3 CLT ORG BUT SHL 2 1 292 2 17 34 TP-27 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 293 2 18 31 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 15 1 turquoise-glazed whiteware 294 2 18 31 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 Unidecorated whiteware

green interior/brown 295 2 18 31 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 exterior glaze 296 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 terracotta 297 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 34 1 298 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNK AQU 6 1 299 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 34 1 vessel glass 300 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 301 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 1 vessel glass 302 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 molded, green milkglass 303 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 34 304 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 40 305 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 door hinge pin 306 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 3 3 fence staple

289

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

307 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 "BRYANT" metal fastener 308 2 18 31 TP-19 3 FCC MTL CAN OTH 1 1 can key 309 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD EWR 1 1 copper wire 310 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Unidentified aluminum 311 2 18 31 TP-19 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 15 1 Miscellaneous metal 312 2 18 31 TP-19 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 13 13 313 2 18 31 TP-19 3 ENT PLA TOY OTH 2 1 possibly toy wheel/toys 314 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 7 2 edge molded 315 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 25 1 turquoise-glazed whiteware 316 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 9 2 undecorated whiteware

flatware; partial Homer Laughlin mark "…LAUGHLIN/…BLIC" [maker of FiestaWare, est. 1871, 317 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 Ohio] Yes 318 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC GLS FLT AQU 32 1 319 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNB AQU 13 1 vessel glass 320 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 66 1 vessel glass 321 2 19 35 TP-16 4 HLT GLS LIG CLR 11 1 lightbulb glass 322 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 vessel glass 323 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 324 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNB BLK 1 1 vessel glass 325 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 326 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 very thin; painted yellow 327 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC CER POR UNH 4 2 undecorated 328 2 19 35 TP-16 4 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 ceramic insulator 329 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC CER ETH UNK 4 1 terracotta 330 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC CER POR HND 1 1 gilded lid or foot? 331 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 73 332 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL HRD MSC 73 Unidentified hardware 333 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 tacks

290

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

334 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 335 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 54 54 336 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 fish bone 337 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC MTL MSC UNK 74 1 Miscellaneous metal 338 2 19 35 TP-16 4 CLT ORG BUT SHL 2 2 two-hole; women's clothing 339 2 19 35 TP-16 4 PRE LIT DEB FLK 1 1 Basalt flake 340 2 20 24 13/21 TP-22 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 35 1 turquoise-glazed whiteware 341 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated 342 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated

transfer printed blue 343 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 underglaze

white clay figurine or brick- 344 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC CER OTH DEC 2 1 a-brac 345 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 Redware 346 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 2 1 terracotta 347 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC CER ETH BRK 2 1 348 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 8 1 drainage tile 349 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 6 1 350 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC GLS UNK AQU 2 1 vessel glass

Embossed, canning jar 351 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FCC GLS JAR AQU 2 1 fragment 352 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 8 1 vessel glass 353 2 20 24 TP-22 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 2 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 354 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 4 1 vessel glass 355 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 vessel glass 356 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 357 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 4 1 vessel glass 358 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 20 17 359 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 Screws 360 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 tacks

291

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

361 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staple 362 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 bolt and washer 363 2 20 24 TP-22 2 TLM MTL TOL UNK 1 1 364 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 ferrous bolt 365 2 20 24 TP-22 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 28 366 2 20 24 TP-22 2 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 walnut shell 367 2 20 24 TP-22 2 ENT RUB TOY OTH 1 1 rubber toy wheel

unrefined whiteware with makers mark; 368 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 "…13/…/20…/25/97…" possible K.T.&K mark; 369 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER ETH PLT 1 1 "T&K." 370 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 underglaze blue 371 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 hand-painted, burned Yes 372 2 19 35 TP-16 4 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 edge molded 373 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS UNK CLR 3 1 melted 374 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass

copper hat pin with crescent 375 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL JEL OTH 1 1 moon Yes 376 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 pipe elbow 377 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 Screws 378 2 19 35 TP-16 4 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 bolts 379 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 12 1 undecorated whiteware 380 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FCC CER ETH PLT 6 1 gilded plate whiteware 381 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 2 edge molded, whiteware 382 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 Undecorated painted; possibly 383 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC CER POR DOL 1 1 doll/figurine 384 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC CER ETH OTH 4 1 terracotta 385 4 21 36 TP-6 5 ARC GLS FLT AQU 3 1 386 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC GLS UNB AQU 8 1 vessel glass

292

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO applied bottle lip, tooling 387 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 marks 388 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 81 1 vessel glass

base embossed, "…LASS 389 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FCC GLS JAR CLR 5 1 MFG. CO./…D ORE"

canning jar fragments, 390 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FCC GLS JAR CLR 5 1 embossed 391 4 21 36 TP-6 5 HLT GLS LIG CLR 7 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 392 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 393 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 394 4 21 36 TP-6 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 16 395 4 21 36 TP-6 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 ferrous spike 396 4 21 36 TP-6 5 ARC MTL HRD UNK 4 1 Unidentified hardware 397 4 21 36 TP-6 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Screws 398 4 21 36 TP-6 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 8 1 Miscellaneous metal 399 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 22 400 4 21 36 TP-6 5 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 401 4 22 38 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 undecorated whiteware 402 4 22 38 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 Edge molded whiteware

brown exterior/green 403 4 22 38 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 interior glaze 404 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 25 1 405 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 vessel glass 406 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 15 1 vessel glass 407 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 AMB, threaded lip 408 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 Embossed vessel 409 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 1 vessel glass 410 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 12 411 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 21 Unidentified hardware 412 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC MTL UNK UNK 3 2 Copper

293

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

413 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bolt 414 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 nut, square 415 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Cotter pin 416 4 22 38 TP-19 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 11 1 Miscellaneous metal 417 4 22 38 TP-19 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 418 4 22 38 TP-19 3 ATU PLA OTH OTH 1 1 plastic pipestem 419 4 23 41 TP-40 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 420 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC CER POR UNH 2 1 undecorated porcelain 421 4 23 41 TP-40 1 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 hand-painted red 422 4 23 41 TP-40 1 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 blue transfer print 423 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC CER ETH UNK 2 1 terracotta 424 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 8 3 vessel glass 425 4 23 41 TP-40 1 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 426 4 23 41 TP-40 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 427 4 23 41 TP-40 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 vessel glass 428 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC GLS UNB AQU 4 2 vessel glass 429 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC GLS UNB MLK 1 1 vessel glass 430 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 green milkglass/ jadite? 431 4 23 41 TP-40 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 18 432 4 23 41 TP-40 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 Screws 433 4 23 41 TP-40 1 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 Eyelet 434 4 23 41 TP-40 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 nut 435 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 2 Miscellaneous metal 436 4 23 41 TP-40 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 12 437 4 23 41 TP-40 1 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 438 4 23 41 TP-40 1 MSC ORG UNK UNK 1 1 stone, unidentified artifact

brown exterior/green 439 4 24 43 TP-19 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 interior glaze 440 4 24 43 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 vessel glass 441 4 24 43 TP-19 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 4 2 vessel glass

294

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

442 4 24 43 TP-19 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 443 4 24 43 TP-19 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 15 15 444 4 24 43 TP-19 3 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 445 4 24 43 TP-19 3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 15 Unidentified hardware 446 4 24 43 TP-19 3 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 copper 447 4 24 43 TP-19 3 FCC MTL TOL OTH 3 1 cherry pitter Yes 448 4 24 43 TP-19 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 4 1 Miscellaneous metal 449 4 24 43 TP-19 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 450 4 25 45 TP-19 5 MSC GLS UNK YEL 1 1 yellow glass 451 4 25 45 TP-19 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 10 1 Miscellaneous metal 452 4 25 45 TP-19 5 TLM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 clothes pin spring 453 4 25 45 TP-19 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 7 454 4 25 45 TP-19 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 455 4 26 48 TP-16 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 456 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 melted 457 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 7 3 vessel glass 458 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC GLS UNB AQU 20 2 vessel glass 459 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 Crown finish; partial finish 460 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC GLS UNB BLK 1 1 vessel glass 461 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC GLS UNK MLK 1 1 462 4 26 48 TP-16 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 29 463 4 26 48 TP-16 5 ARC MTL HRD UNK 21 unidentified hardware 464 4 26 48 TP-16 5 ARC MTL HRD WIR 3 1 465 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 white metal, possible valve 466 4 26 48 TP-16 5 FCC MTL BCL CCP 1 1 bottle cap; crown cap 467 4 26 48 TP-16 5 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 copper eyelet 468 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 16 1 copper, miscellaneous metal 469 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 60 Miscellaneous metal 470 4 26 48 TP-16 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 4 471 4 26 48 TP-16 5 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1

295

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

472 4 26 48 TP-16 5 MSC UNK UNK UNK 2 1 unidentified chalky disk 473 4 27 42 TP-6 6 FCC CER ETH PLT 1 1 gilded whiteware, unrefined 474 4 27 42 TP-6 6 MSC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 vessel glass 475 4 27 42 TP-6 6 ARC GLS FLT AQU 4 1 476 4 27 42 TP-6 6 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 477 4 28 47 TP-19 6 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 gilded 478 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware Whiteware, undecorated, partial MM; 479 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 "…//HAN…/…UG…" 480 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 Edge molded whiteware 481 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER ETH HND 2 1 whiteware vessel handle 482 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER POR HND 1 1 gilded handle 483 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 red-painted vessel green porcelain with gilded 484 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 rim 485 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC CER POR UNH 3 2 possible vessel 486 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT CER POR DOL 2 1 doll parts, face 487 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC CER ETH UNK 2 2 terracotta 488 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile 489 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 25 1 490 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 28 2 vessel glass 491 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC GLS JAR AQU 2 1 Embossed 492 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 71 vessel glass

Embossed vessel; partial 493 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS AMB CLR 4 3 marks; AMB suction scar 494 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 5 1 stippled 495 4 29 44 TP-40 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 24 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 496 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 bottle lip

single thread bottle neck, 497 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 lip; AMB

296

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO glass applicator/ eye 498 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MED GLS OTH CLR 1 1 dropper 499 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 7 1 vessel glass 500 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 11 1 vessel glass 501 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS AMB GRN 5 1 AMB 502 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC GLS JRL MLK 2 1 503 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC GLS UNK MLK 1 1 green milkglass/ jadite? 504 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT GLS TOY MBL 9 9 glass marbles Yes 505 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL HRD SPK 2 2 spikes 506 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 98 507 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 6 6 Screws 508 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 5 5 Fence staples 509 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 4 4 nuts and bolts 510 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 thumb tacks 511 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC MTL CAN OTH 1 1 can key 512 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT MTL CLC SPN 4 3 513 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC MTL HRD UNK 1 1 small winged screw 514 4 29 44 TP-40 2 HLT MTL OTH EWR 2 2 fiber insulated wire 515 4 29 44 TP-40 2 HLT MTL LIG OTH 1 1 lightbulb base 516 4 29 44 TP-40 2 TLM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 clothes pin spring 517 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC MTL HRD HND 1 1 ferrous handle 518 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FCC MTL BCL CCP 24 4 519 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 "CORBIN/ RFD" lock Yes 520 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARC MTL HRD UNK 104 Unidentified hardware 521 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 Eyelet 522 4 29 44 TP-40 2 WCM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 metal pencil eraser clasp

"DWM/K/K" cartridge, 523 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 centerfire 0.39 in/9.9 mm Yes 524 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC MTL OTH COI 1 1 1944 wheat penny Yes 525 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT MTL CLC OTH 2 2 "GARRICK" cuff links Yes

297

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

526 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT MTL JEL OTH 1 1 cufflink 527 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT MTL TOY OTH 1 1 metal toy car 528 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC ME MSC UNK 55 Miscellaneous metal 529 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 94 530 4 29 44 TP-40 2 FAU ORG MAR SHL 2 1 531 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT ORG CLC BUT 5 4 2-hole Yes 532 4 29 44 TP-40 2 WCM ORG OTH OTH 3 1 graphite

plastic button with metal 533 4 29 44 TP-40 2 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 shank; mens clothing Yes 534 4 29 44 TP-40 2 TLM PLA BCL TWS 1 1 "CLOROX" cap 535 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT PLA TOY OTH 7 1 plastic toy fragments 536 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT PLA OTH OTH 1 1 Record fragment 537 4 29 44 TP-40 2 MSC PLA UNK UNK 8 1 melted plastic with cloth 538 4 29 44 TP-40 2 ENT RUB TOY OTH 1 1 possibly rubber ball 539 4 29 44 TP-40 2 PRE LIT DEB FLK 1 1 Flaked CCS Yes 540 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 MSC GLS UNK BRN 1 1 541 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 2 1 542 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 543 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 ARC MTL HRD UNK 3 1 Unidentified hardware 544 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 545 4 30 51 50 TP-16 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 2 1 plastic toy car fragments 546 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 5 1 undecorated whiteware hand-painted, gilded 547 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 flatware 548 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 Undecorated porcelain 549 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ENT CER POR TOY 1 1 toy saucer 550 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC CER POR UNH 5 1 Undecorated porcelain 551 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 61 1

vessel glass; mason jar 552 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS JAR AQU 8 1 fragments

298

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

553 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 bottle lip, no seams 554 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 17 4 vessel glass 555 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 stippled

embossed; "…AN…/NOT TO…"; possibly soda or 556 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 mineral water bottle 557 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 2 1 vessel glass 558 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB BRN 5 1 vessel glass 559 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 press-molded diamonds 560 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNB COB 1 1 square bottle, mold made 561 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ATU GLS UNB BLK 1 1 562 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 green milkglass/ jadite? 563 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 564 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC GLS UNK AQU 1 1 Melted 565 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 74 Unidentified hardware 566 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 112 567 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 3 3 Screws 568 4 31 53 TP-40 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Fence staple 569 4 31 53 TP-40 3 TLM MTL TOL UNK 1 1 possible awl 570 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 22 Miscellaneous metal

nut, for bike valve?; from a 571 4 31 53 TP-40 3 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 lighter 572 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FCC MTL CAN UNL 17 1 external friction can 573 4 31 53 TP-40 3 CLT MTL CLC CSP 2 1 socks/ garter clasp Yes 574 4 31 53 TP-40 3 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 shank-style 575 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 82 576 4 31 53 TP-40 3 FAU ORG MAR SHL 10 oyster 577 4 32 56 52 TP-16 1 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 578 4 32 56 52 TP-16 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 579 4 32 56 52 TP-16 1 MSC GLS UNB MLK 1 1 vessel glass

299

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

580 4 32 56 52 TP-16 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 581 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 turquoise-glazed whiteware 582 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 HLT GLS LIG CLR 2 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 583 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 584 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 585 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 ARC MTL HRD UNK 4 2 Unidentified hardware 586 4 33 54 TP-22/16 Sec. 54 FAU ORG FAU BON 4 587 4 34 49 TP-7 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 7 1 undecorated whiteware 588 4 34 49 TP-7 3 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 decal 589 4 34 49 TP-7 3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 34 1 590 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 26 2 vessel glass 591 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 13 1 vessel glass 592 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 8 1 vessel glass 593 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 embossed; "…BE…" 594 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 1 vessel glass 595 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC GLS UNB MLK 1 1 vessel glass 596 4 34 49 TP-7 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 24 597 4 34 49 TP-7 3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 21 Unidentified hardware 598 4 34 49 TP-7 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 nut 599 4 34 49 TP-7 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Bolt 600 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 ferrous wire 601 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 18 Miscellaneous metal

small nut, tire valve?; from a 602 4 34 49 TP-7 3 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 lighter 603 4 34 49 TP-7 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 46 604 4 35 58 TP-16 6 ARC GLS FLT AQU 2 1 605 4 35 58 TP-16 6 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 melted, unidentified 606 4 35 58 TP-16 6 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 607 4 35 58 TP-16 6 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal

300

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

green rim, restaurant ware; 608 4 36 57 TP-40 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 decal 609 4 36 57 TP-40 4 ARC GLS FLT AQU 91 1 610 4 36 57 TP-40 4 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 611 4 36 57 TP-40 4 MSC GLS UNK OTH 1 1 opal glass vessel 612 4 36 57 TP-40 4 MSC GLS UNK BRN 2 1 embossed, "…EO…" 613 4 36 57 TP-40 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 12 614 4 36 57 TP-40 4 ARC MTL HRD UNK 9 Unidentified hardware 615 4 37 60 TP-7 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 616 4 37 60 TP-7 4 ARC MTL HRD UNK 2 2 Unidentified hardware 617 4 37 60 TP-7 4 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 1 Miscellaneous metal 618 4 37 60 TP-7 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 619 4 38 59 SP-2 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated whiteware 620 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC CER ETH UNK 1 1 terracotta 621 4 38 59 SP-2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 2 1 622 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNK AQU 6 3 623 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 10 1 vessel glass 624 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 Melted 625 4 38 59 SP-2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 626 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNB AME 7 1 vessel glass

Rectangular bottle base; 627 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 medicine bottle; bubbles 628 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS DEC CLR 1 1 629 4 38 59 SP-2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 vessel glass 630 4 38 59 SP-2 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 631 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 632 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 1 vessel glass 633 4 38 59 SP-2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 634 4 38 59 SP-2 ARC MTL NAI CUT 2 2 635 4 38 59 SP-2 ARC MTL HRD UNK 4 2

301

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

636 4 38 59 SP-2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 10 1 Miscellaneous metal 637 4 38 59 SP-2 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 638 4 38 59 SP-2 FAU ORG MAR SHL 3 639 4 39 61 SP-3 FCC CER POR UNH 6 1 undecorated, flatware 640 4 39 61 SP-3 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 decal 641 4 39 61 SP-3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 Edge molded 642 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC CER ETH OTH 6 1 drainage tile 643 4 39 61 SP-3 ARC GLS FLT AQU 7 1 644 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 13 1 vessel glass 645 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 646 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 ribbed vessel 647 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS AMB CLR 4 1 AMB, threaded lip 648 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 neck and lip 649 4 39 61 SP-3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 650 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 vessel glass 651 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 652 4 39 61 SP-3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 1 653 4 39 61 SP-3 ARC MTL HRD UNK 6 1 Unidentified hardware 654 4 39 61 SP-3 FCC MTL BCL CCP 4 2 655 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 9 Miscellaneous metal 656 4 39 61 SP-3 FCC MTL CAN JRL 1 1 zinc canning jar lid fragment 657 4 39 61 SP-3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal 658 4 39 61 SP-3 FAU ORG FAU BON 8 659 4 40 64 SP-5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 660 4 41 63 SP-4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 ironstone 661 4 41 63 SP-4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 11 2 vessel glass 662 4 41 63 SP-4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 stippled 663 4 41 63 SP-4 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 vessel glass

vessel glass; mason jar lid 664 4 41 63 SP-4 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 fragment

302

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

665 4 41 63 SP-4 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 666 4 41 63 SP-4 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 667 4 41 63 SP-4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 668 4 41 63 SP-4 ARC MTL HRD WIR 3 1 669 4 41 63 SP-4 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 670 4 42 65 SP-6 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated whiteware

unidentified flat glass; 671 4 42 65 SP-6 OTH GLS OTH CLR 1 1 eyeglass lens fragment 672 4 42 65 SP-6 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 673 4 42 65 SP-6 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 embossed, "…CO…" 674 4 42 65 SP-6 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 675 4 42 65 SP-6 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 676 4 42 65 SP-6 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 1 Miscellaneous metal 677 4 42 65 SP-6 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 678 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 ironstone 679 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 vessel glass 680 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 ARC GLS FLT AQU 5 1 681 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 tooled finish 682 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC GLS UNB COB 1 1 vessel glass 683 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 684 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 melted 685 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 ARC MTL NAI WIR 13 686 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 687 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 ARC MTL HRD UNK 15 1 Unidentified hardware 688 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC MTL MSC UNK 11 1 Miscellaneous metal 689 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 1 Miscellaneous metal 690 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 691 4 43 74 Balk removal 1 8–64 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 walnut shell 692 4 44 66 SP-7 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 gilded edge, decal 693 4 44 66 SP-7 FCC CER ETH UNH 5 1 undecorated whiteware

303

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

694 4 44 66 SP-7 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 Undecorated porcelain 695 4 44 66 SP-7 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 hand painted blue yes 696 4 44 66 SP-7 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 gilded flatware 697 4 44 66 SP-7 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 Ceramic insulator; "F.P…." 698 4 44 66 SP-7 ARC GLS FLT AQU 7 1 699 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNK AQU 10 3 700 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 stippled 701 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB CLR 24 1 vessel glass 702 4 44 66 SP-7 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 molded bottle 703 4 44 66 SP-7 ATU GLS UNK BRN 6 1 704 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 vessel glass 705 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB MLK 4 1 vessel glass 706 4 44 66 SP-7 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 vessel glass 707 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 708 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC GLS UNB OTH 1 1 red, embossed "PEPA…" 709 4 44 66 SP-7 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 4 710 4 44 66 SP-7 ARC MTL HRD UNK 2 1 Unidentified hardware 711 4 44 66 SP-7 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 square nut 712 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC MTL MSC UNK 31 1 Miscellaneous metal

small, red-painted 713 4 44 66 SP-7 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 decorative bell yes 714 4 44 66 SP-7 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 715 4 45 71 SP-9 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 716 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC GLS UNB AQU 3 2 vessel glass 717 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 vertical ribs

AMB vessel base, 718 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 embossed, "…UA:…//300…" 719 4 45 71 SP-9 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 vessel glass 720 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC GLS UNV GRN 1 1 molded vessel 721 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 vessel glass

304

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

722 4 45 71 SP-9 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 723 4 45 71 SP-9 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 hex nut 724 4 45 71 SP-9 FCC MTL BCL CCP 1 1 725 4 45 71 SP-9 MSC MTL MSC UNK 36 1 Miscellaneous metal

"SHIRLEY PRESIDENT" 726 4 45 71 SP-9 CLT MTL CLC CSP 1 1 suspenders clasp yes 727 4 45 71 SP-9 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 728 1 81 114 SP-25 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 729 1 81 114 SP-25 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 vessel glass Canning jar lid liner 730 1 81 114 SP-25 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 fragment 731 1 81 114 SP-25 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 732 1 81 114 SP-25 MSC PLA MSC MSC 1 1 small plastic cap 733 1 81 114 SP-25 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal 734 1 77 111 SP-24 MSC GLS UNK AME 1 1 735 1 77 111 SP-24 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 736 1 77 111 SP-24 MSC CER ETH OTH 2 1 terracotta 737 1 77 111 SP-24 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 738 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Chain link 739 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 1 Miscellaneous metal 740 1 75 106 SP-23 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 nail shank

one galvanized, flat-head 741 1 75 106 SP-23 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 wood screw

multiple nail shanks; one 742 1 75 106 SP-23 ARC MTL NAI WIR 6 3 complete 743 1 75 106 SP-23 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 744 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC GLS UNK AQU 1 1 745 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC GLS UNB GRN 4 1 746 1 75 106 SP-23 FCC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 thick, soda bottle 747 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 2

305

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

748 1 75 106 SP-23 ARC GLS FLT AQU 3 3 749 1 75 106 SP-23 FCC GLS AMB BRN 3 1 mold seam

hand painted yellow and 750 1 75 106 SP-23 ENT CER POR TOY 1 1 burnt sienna Y 751 1 75 106 SP-23 ENT CER POR DOL 1 1 bisque doll face fragment Y 752 1 75 106 SP-23 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 terracotta

melmac plate fragments; 753 1 75 106 SP-23 FCC PLA OTH PLA 2 1 blue floral decal decoration Y 754 1 83 115 TP-83 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal 755 1 85 117 SP-26 ATU OTH OTH OTH 1 1 Cigarette filter 756 1 85 117 SP-26 FAU ORG FAU BON 4 4 757 1 85 117 SP-26 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 terracotta 758 1 85 117 SP-26 ARC MTL NAI TAK 2 2 roofing tacks 759 1 85 117 SP-26 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 Miscellaneous metal 760 1 85 117 SP-26 MSC MTL HRD UNK 4 Miscellaneous metal 761 1 85 117 SP-26 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 762 1 85 117 SP-26 ARC GLS FLT CLR 1 1 763 1 85 117 SP-26 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1

panel bottle fragments; 764 1 85 117 SP-26 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 embossed "…OL…/…E…" 765 1 82 113 TP-7/19 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 766 1 82 113 TP-7/19 MSC GLS UNV CLR 2 1 767 1 78 112 TP-7/19 TLM MTL TOL OTH 1 1 electric drill bit 768 1 78 112 TP-7/19 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 769 1 78 112 TP-7/19 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 770 1 78 112 TP-7/19 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 terracotta 771 1 78 112 TP-7/19 ENT PLA OTH OTH 1 1 Record fragment 772 1 78 112 TP-7/19 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 773 1 78 112 TP-7/19 MSC GLS UNV AQU 2 1 774 1 78 112 TP-7/19 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1

306

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

775 1 78 112 TP-7/19 ARC GLS FLT AQU 3 1 776 1 78 112 TP-7/19 ARC GLS FLT CLR 3 1 777 1 78 112 TP-7/19 MSC GLS UNV GRN 1 1 778 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC MTL HRD UNK 1 1 779 1 89 126 TP-40 ARC MTL NAI WIR 5 5 780 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 Miscellaneous metal 781 1 89 126 TP-40 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 782 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 terracotta 783 1 89 126 TP-40 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1

thick, bubbles; possibly 784 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC GLS UNB AME 2 1 mold blown 785 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 786 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1

two different marbles; one sky blue, one blue and 787 1 89 126 TP-40 ENT GLS TOY MBL 2 2 brown with bubbles Y 788 1 89 126 TP-40 MSC PLA TOY OTH 1 1 possibly toy fragment 789 1 88 121 TP-118 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 5

Unknown item/material; 790 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC OTH OTH OTH 1 1 possibly green paint 791 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC RUB OTH OTH 1 1 rubber washer 792 1 88 121 TP-118 2 FCC PLA OTH OTH 1 1 Lollipop stick? 793 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC MTL OTH EWR 1 1 cable AV output 794 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC MTL OTH WIR 5 1 795 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 2 Miscellaneous metal 796 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 797 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC MTL OTH WIR 1 1 non-ferrous wire fragment 798 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Fence staple various nails; three 799 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 5 galvanized

307

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

800 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 melted 801 1 88 121 TP-118 2 CLT GLS BED OTH 1 1 glass bead 802 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS UNV AQU 3 1 803 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC GLS FLT AQU 1 1 804 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS UNB GRN 7 1 possibly AMB 805 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS OTH OTH 2 1 mirror fragments 806 1 88 121 TP-118 2 ARC GLS FLT CLR 9 1 807 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 14 1 808 1 88 121 TP-118 2 MSC GLS UNV BRN 5 2 809 1 87 119 TP-118 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 2 810 1 87 119 TP-118 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 6 Miscellaneous metal 811 1 87 119 TP-118 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 812 1 87 119 TP-118 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 6 1 813 1 87 119 TP-118 1 MSC GLS UNV AQU 1 1 814 1 86 116 HT-107 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 5 4 815 1 86 116 HT-107 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 8 Miscellaneous metal 816 1 86 116 HT-107 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 817 1 86 116 HT-107 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 3 2 818 1 86 116 HT-107 2 MSC GLS UNV BRN 1 1 819 1 86 116 HT-107 2 ATU GLS UNV OLV 2 1 820 1 86 116 HT-107 2 MSC GLS UNV GRN 1 1 821 1 79 110 TP-83 4 ARC MTL NAI CUT 4 2 822 1 79 110 TP-83 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 823 1 79 110 TP-83 4 MSC GLS UNV MLK 2 1

hand-tooled prescription 824 1 79 110 TP-83 4 MED GLS SAB CLR 1 1 (bead) finish; patina Y

ironstone bowl with scalloped finish, all from 825 1 79 110 TP-83 4 FCC CER ETH BWL 13 1 same vessel; REFIT Y

308

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO large metal rod, machinery 826 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 part 827 1 74 105 SP-22 FAU ORG FAU BON 10 828 1 74 105 SP-22 FCC PLA TOL OTH 1 1 plastic knife handle

painted blue rock; possibly 829 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC OTH OTH OTH 1 1 quartz 830 1 74 105 SP-22 ARC MTL NAI WIR 35 12 various nails fragments

one threaded bottle cap and one snap-on cap embossed 831 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC MTL BCL OTH 3 2 "SEAL" 832 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC MTL MSC UNK 22 1 Miscellaneous metal 833 1 74 105 SP-22 FCC MTL BCL OTH 2 2 aluminum pull tab Ceramic sewer pipe 834 1 74 105 SP-22 ARC CER ETH OTH 6 1 fragments

decal decorated, yellow whiteware; red and green 835 1 74 105 SP-22 FCC CER ETH PLA 3 1 floral pattern 836 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS UNB CLR 40 1 837 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS UNB AQU 16 1 838 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS UNV COB 1 1 839 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS UNB BRN 3 1 840 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 ghost seam

threaded mason jar lip 841 1 74 105 SP-22 MSC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 fragment 842 1 72 97 SP-20 FAU ORG FAU BON 23 843 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC MTL OTH WIR 1 1 wire fragment 844 1 72 97 SP-20 ATU PLA OTH OTH 1 1 plastic cigar tip 845 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 walnut shell 846 1 72 97 SP-20 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Small wood screw 847 1 72 97 SP-20 FCC MTL BCL CCP 1 1 bottle cap 848 1 72 97 SP-20 OTH MTL OTH COI 1 1 Penny; "199…" Y

309

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

849 1 72 97 SP-20 ARC MTL NAI WIR 19 10 various nail fragments

Possible bottle cap fragment 850 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC MTL MSC UNK 5 5 "SINCLAIR?" in cursive script

green and brown floral 851 1 72 97 SP-20 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 motif decal

decal decorated whiteware; 852 1 72 97 SP-20 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 grey/silver floral motif 853 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 854 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC GLS UNB AQU 4 1 855 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC GLS UNK YEL 1 1 856 1 72 97 SP-20 MSC GLS UNK CLR 5 1 857 1 73 100 SP-21 ARC MTL HRD OTH 5 5 bolts and screws 858 1 73 100 SP-21 MSC MTL BCL OTH 1 1 metal cap 859 1 73 100 SP-21 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 metal clip 860 1 73 100 SP-21 ARC MTL NAI WIR 11 11 861 1 73 100 SP-21 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 chain segment 862 1 73 100 SP-21 FCC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 863 1 73 100 SP-21 FCC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 864 1 73 100 SP-21 FCC GLS UNB BRN 2 1

small washer and a piece of 865 1 73 100 SP-21 MSC MTL MSC MSC 2 2 wire 866 1 73 100 SP-21 FCC CER ETH PLT 2 1 scalloped edge molding 867 1 73 100 SP-21 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 peach pit 868 1 69 104 103 TP-16 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 1 869 1 68 93 TP-82 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 1 870 1 68 93 TP-82 MSC ORG FLO SHL 2 1 walnut shell 871 1 68 93 TP-82 FCC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 872 1 68 93 TP-82 FCC CER ETH PLT 1 1 undecorated whiteware 873 1 67 96 SP-19 MSC GLS UNK UNK 2 1 orange glass fragments

310

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

four-hole plastic button; 874 1 67 96 SP-19 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 undecorated 875 1 67 96 SP-19 FCC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 partially embossed "…AS…" 876 1 67 96 SP-19 FCC GLS UNB CLR 17 1 877 1 67 96 SP-19 FCC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 878 1 67 96 SP-19 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 879 1 67 96 SP-19 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 finishing wood nails 880 1 67 96 SP-19 ARC MTL HRD OTH 3 1 Hardware 881 1 67 96 SP-19 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 walnut shell 882 1 67 96 SP-19 MSC MTL MSC MSC 1 1 flat copper fragment 883 1 66 92 SP-17 FCC GLS UNB GRN 5 1 884 1 66 92 SP-17 FCC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 885 1 66 92 SP-17 FCC GLS UNB AQU 3 1 886 1 66 92 SP-17 FCC GLS UNB CLR 11 1 887 1 66 92 SP-17 MSC GLS JAR MLK 3 1 undecorated 888 1 66 92 SP-17 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 889 1 66 92 SP-17 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 "S" hook 890 1 66 92 SP-17 ARC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 fragment 891 1 66 92 SP-17 ENT MTL OTH OTH 1 1 Fishing barrel snap swivel 892 1 66 92 SP-17 FAU ORG FAU BON 14 893 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC ORG FLO SHL 21 21 black walnut shell 894 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC ORG FLO PIT 17 17 peach pit 895 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 896 1 65 94 TP-83 HLT GLS LIG CLR 2 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 897 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC GLS UNK CLR 21 1 unidentified flat glass

partial mold seam; 898 1 65 94 TP-83 ATU GLS AMB BRN 9 1 automatic bottle 899 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC GLS UNB AQU 4 1 bubbles 900 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC GLS UNB AME 4 1 sun-colored amethyst 901 1 65 94 TP-83 CLT GLS CLC BUT 1 1 four-hole, undecorated

311

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

902 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 possibly flower pot 903 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated

undecorated, transfer print 904 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 partial logo "…NEL…" 905 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC CER STN UNH 1 1 undecorated

centerfire "W.R.A.Co/38 906 1 65 94 TP-83 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 S&W SPL" Yes 907 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 one snap; one butterfly clasp pin back "PAT NOS/ 908 1 65 94 TP-83 CLT MTL CLC SNP 2 2 2308412" 909 1 65 94 TP-83 ENT MTL TOY OTH 1 1 toy shovel 910 1 65 94 TP-83 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 911 1 65 94 TP-83 ENT PLA TOY OTH 1 1 toy car hood 912 1 65 94 TP-83 ARC MTL NAI WIR 11 11 913 1 65 94 TP-83 WCM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 pencil lead fragment 914 1 65 94 TP-83 ATU MTL CAN BEE 1 1 Coors beer can Y 915 1 65 94 TP-83 FAU ORG MAR SHL 2 1 Shell 916 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 aluminum fragment 917 1 65 94 TP-83 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 burned whiteware 918 1 65 94 TP-83 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 cut nail shaft 919 1 65 94 TP-83 MSC MTL MSC UNK 14 14 Miscellaneous metal 920 1 65 94 TP-83 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1

wine/champagne bottle 921 1 64 95 SP-18 ATU GLS AMB GRN 1 1 frag; bubbles 922 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC GLS UNB AQU 6 1 923 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 924 1 64 95 SP-18 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 2 925 1 64 95 SP-18 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 4 926 1 64 95 SP-18 ARC MTL HRD UNK 1 1 927 1 64 95 SP-18 WCM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 paper clip

312

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

928 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC GLS UNB BRN 4 1 929 1 64 95 SP-18 HLT GLS LIG CLR 3 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 930 1 64 95 SP-18 MSC GLS UNK CLR 4 1 unidentified flat glass 931 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC GLS UNB AME 1 1 sun-colored amethyst 932 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC GLS JRL MLK 3 1 Mason jar lid liner 933 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware

transfer printed blue 934 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 underglaze painted; possibly 935 1 64 95 SP-18 MSC CER POR DOL 1 1 doll/figurine 936 1 64 95 SP-18 FCC CER POR UNH 10 2 undecorated porcelain 937 1 64 95 SP-18 FAU ORG MAR SHL 2 1 Shell; possibly clam 938 1 64 95 SP-18 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 rim-fire, .22 short 939 1 64 95 SP-18 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 1 940 1 63 90 SP-16 FCC GLS UNB BRN 2 1 941 1 63 90 SP-16 MSC GLS UNK CLR 3 1 flat glass 942 1 63 90 SP-16 FCC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 943 1 63 90 SP-16 MSC GLS UNK AQU 2 1 unidentified flat glass 944 1 63 90 SP-16 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 945 1 63 90 SP-16 ARC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 galvanized steel wire 946 1 63 90 SP-16 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 miscellaneous metal 947 1 63 90 SP-16 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 4 948 1 63 90 SP-16 ARC MTL HRD MSC 1 1 Unidentified hardware 949 1 63 90 SP-16 FAU ORG FAU BON 6 6 miscellaneous glove 950 1 62 91 TP-82 3 CLT LEA OTH OTH 2 1 fragments 951 1 62 91 TP-82 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 952 1 62 91 TP-82 3 FCC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 953 1 62 91 TP-82 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 5 1 undecorated whiteware 954 1 62 91 TP-82 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 5 5 miscellaneous metal 955 1 62 91 TP-82 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 7

313

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

956 1 61 89 TP-6/TP-16 cleanup FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 957 1 61 89 TP-6/TP-16 cleanup ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 3 958 1 61 89 TP-6/TP-16 cleanup MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 lug finish 959 1 61 89 TP-6/TP-16 cleanup FCC GLS UNB CLR 9 1 960 1 61 89 TP-6/TP-16 cleanup MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 flat glass miscellaneous glove 961 1 60 88 TP-82 2 CLT LEA OTH OTH 20 1 fragments 962 1 60 88 TP-82 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 963 1 60 88 TP-82 2 MSC GLS UNB BRN 1 1 964 1 60 88 TP-82 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile 965 1 60 88 TP-82 2 CLT MTL CLC OTH 2 2 two rivets Mason jar lid liner; "GENUINE BOYD CAP/ FOR 966 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 MASON JARS" Yes 967 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 8 1 undecorated whiteware 968 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated porcelain 969 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FCC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 970 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FCC GLS UNB CLR 34 3 971 1 60 88 TP-82 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 1

metal button, curvilinear decoration, some leather 972 1 60 88 TP-82 2 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 still attached Yes 973 1 60 88 TP-82 2 MSC MTL MSC UNK 16 16 miscellaneous metal 974 1 60 88 TP-82 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 12 12 975 1 59 85 TP-82 1 ATU MTL TOL OTH 2 1 lighter parts gold gilded decoration; 976 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 burned porcelain insulator 977 1 59 85 TP-82 1 HLT CER LIG OTH 2 1 fragments

undecorated whiteware; 978 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER ETH SAU 5 1 partial refit

pink rose floral motif decal 979 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER POR UNH 5 1 over glaze

314

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

980 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER POR UNH 4 1 celadon Yes bead finish; possible medicine bottle; son 981 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MED GLS UNB CLR 2 1 colorred ameythist 982 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC PLA MSC UNK 1 1 green plastic fragment 983 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated porcelain 984 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 Possible cup 985 1 59 85 TP-82 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 25 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 986 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS UNB CLR 60 4 987 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS AMB AQU 38 3 AMB 988 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC GLS UNK CLR 71 1 flat glass 989 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC GLS UNB BRN 6 1 990 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 Crown finish; AMB 991 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS UNB AME 108 3 sun-colored amethyst decorated whiteware; 992 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 burned 993 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1

decorated plastic button 994 1 59 85 TP-82 1 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 with plastic shank Yes 995 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 Mason jar lid liner fragment 996 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MED GLS UNB CLR 1 1 embossed graduated vessel Yes 997 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 walnut shell 998 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 6 1 999 1 59 85 TP-82 1 CLT MTL CLC PIN 2 1 safety pin 1000 1 59 85 TP-82 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 metal wheel 1001 1 59 85 TP-82 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 1002 1 59 85 TP-82 1 TLM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 clothes pin spring 1003 1 59 85 TP-82 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 22 22 miscellaneous metal 1004 1 59 85 TP-82 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 8 8 1005 1 59 85 TP-82 1 OTH MTL OTH COI 1 1 1910 wheat penny Yes 1006 1 59 85 TP-82 1 OTH MTL OTH COI 1 1 1909 dime Yes

315

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1007 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC ORG FLO PIT 5 2 peach pit 1008 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 Terra cotta fragment 1009 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC GLS UNK AQU 2 1 flat glass 1010 1 58 86 TP-83 1 FCC GLS UNB AQU 3 2 1011 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 1012 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1013 1 58 86 TP-83 1 FCC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 Crown finish; AMB 1014 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC GLS AMB BRN 1 1 AMB; flat finish 1015 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC GLS UNB BRN 6 1 1016 1 58 86 TP-83 1 ENT GLS TOY MBL 1 1 brown with white swirls Yes 1017 1 58 86 TP-83 1 FCC MTL CAN OTH 1 1 Aluminum can pull ring 1018 1 58 86 TP-83 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 miscellaneous metal 1019 1 58 86 TP-83 1 OTH PLA OTH UNK 3 1 miscellaneous plastic ring 1020 1 58 86 TP-83 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 19 19 1021 1 58 86 TP-83 1 FCC GLS UNV CLR 8 1 tumbler fragments

porcelain button fragment; 1022 1 58 86 TP-83 1 CLT CER CLC BUT 1 1 four-hole 1023 1 57 87 SP-15 ARC MTL NAI WIR 9 9 1024 1 57 87 SP-15 FAU ORG FAU BON 4 4 1025 1 57 87 SP-15 FCC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 1026 1 57 87 SP-15 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated porcelain 1027 1 57 87 SP-15 MSC GLS UNK CLR 4 1 flat glass

Hexagonal base fragment; 1028 1 57 87 SP-15 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 patina 1029 1 56 81 SP-14 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 2 miscellaneous metal 1030 1 56 81 SP-14 ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 7 1031 1 56 81 SP-14 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 undecorated whiteware 1032 1 56 81 SP-14 FCC CER STN UNH 1 1 brown glazed interior 1033 1 56 81 SP-14 FCC GLS UNB CLR 14 1 1034 1 56 81 SP-14 MSC GLS UNK AQU 4 2 flat glass

316

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1035 1 56 81 SP-14 MSC GLS UNB BRN 3 2 1036 1 56 81 SP-14 FCC GLS UNB AME 2 1 1037 1 56 81 SP-14 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 1038 1 55 80 TP-7 5 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 flat glass 1039 1 54 79 TP-6/TP-16 Balk removal FAU ORG FAU BON 7 7 1040 1 54 79 TP-6/TP-16 Balk removal ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 4 1041 1 54 79 TP-6/TP-16 Balk removal FCC GLS UNB CLR 34 1 1042 1 54 79 TP-6/TP-16 Balk removal MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile 1043 1 54 79 TP-6/TP-16 Balk removal FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 1044 1 53 87 SP-13 MSC GLS UNB COB 1 1 1045 1 53 87 SP-13 MSC GLS UNK AQU 2 1 flat glass

Suspender clasp; "CROWN MAKE [in cursive]/ PAT JUNE 1046 1 53 87 SP-13 CLT MTL CLC CSP 1 1 7, 1881" Yes 1047 1 53 87 SP-13 FCC GLS UNB CLR 11 1 1048 1 53 87 SP-13 FCC CER ETH UNH 7 1 undecorated whiteware 1049 1 53 87 SP-13 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 1050 1 53 87 SP-13 MSC MTL MSC UNK 1 1 miscellaneous metal 1051 1 53 87 SP-13 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 1052 1 52 77 SP-12 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 zipper 1053 1 52 77 SP-12 MSC MTL MSC UNK 9 9 miscellaneous metal 1054 1 52 77 SP-12 ARC MTL NAI WIR 8 2 1055 1 52 77 SP-12 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 rimfire; .22 regular "U" 1056 1 52 77 SP-12 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1057 1 52 77 SP-12 MSC GLS UNB BRN 2 1 1058 1 52 77 SP-12 MSC GLS UNB AQU 4 1 1059 1 52 77 SP-12 FCC GLS UNB AME 1 1 sun-colored amethyst 1060 1 52 77 SP-12 FCC GLS UNB CLR 8 1 1061 1 51 69 TP-40 5 FCC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 1062 1 51 69 TP-40 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1

317

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1063 1 51 69 TP-40 5 MSC MTL MSC UNK 4 4 miscellaneous metal 1064 1 51 69 TP-40 5 ENT CER TOY MBL 1 1 clay marble Yes 1065 1 51 69 TP-40 5 PRE LIT FLA OTH 1 1 obsidian flake; shatter Yes 1066 1 50 76 75 TP-7 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 1067 1 49 70 SP-8 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1068 1 48 68 67 TP-40 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1069 1 48 68 67 TP-40 MSC MTL MSC UNK 2 2 miscellaneous metal 1070 1 48 68 67 TP-40 ATU GLS AMB BRN 1 1 AMB 1071 1 48 68 67 TP-40 MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 flat glass 1072 1 48 68 67 TP-40 ARC MTL NAI WIR 3 2 1073 1 48 68 67 TP-40 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 1074 1 48 68 67 TP-40 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1075 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC CER OTH DEC 1 1 decorated brick-a-brac Yes 1076 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC GLS UNK CLR 3 1 melted glass 1077 1 47 73 SP-11 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 1 1078 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 1079 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC GLS UNK CLR 8 1 flat glass 1080 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1081 1 47 73 SP-11 WCM OTH OTH OTH 6 1 slate chalkboard fragments 1082 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC GLS UNB AQU 3 1 1083 1 47 73 SP-11 MSC MTL MSC UNK 34 4 miscellaneous metal

ceramic insulator tube; 1084 1 46 72 SP-10 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 electrical; brown glaze 1085 1 46 72 SP-10 ARC MTL HRD OTH 5 5 Hardware 1086 1 46 72 SP-10 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated porcelain 1087 1 46 72 SP-10 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 undecorated whiteware 1088 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC MTL MSC UNK 9 4 miscellaneous metal 1089 1 46 72 SP-10 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 2 1090 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC MTL OTH WIR 2 1 ferrous wire fragment 1091 1 46 72 SP-10 TLM MTL OTH OTH 1 1 clothes pin spring

318

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1092 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 melted glass 1093 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC GLS UNB CLR 46 1

panel bottle fragments; 1094 1 46 72 SP-10 MED GLS UNB AQU 2 1 embossed "…E/2" 1095 1 46 72 SP-10 FCC GLS UNB AME 4 1 1096 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC GLS UNK CLR 13 1 flat glass 1097 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC GLS UNB AQU 3 1 1098 1 46 72 SP-10 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 1099 1 46 72 SP-10 MSC GLS UNB BRN 10 1

embossed "…TIC/…ER"; 1100 1 46 72 SP-10 MED GLS UNB BRN 2 1 possibly bitters bottle 1101 1 46 72 SP-10 FCC GLS JAR AQU 1 1 mason jar rim 1102 1 46 72 SP-10 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 3 1103 1 71 108 TP-107 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1104 1 71 108 TP-107 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1

copper wire with fragments 1105 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ARC MTL HRD EWR 1 1 of insulator 1106 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 176 10 miscellaneous metal 1107 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ARC MTL HRD EWR 2 2 electrical wire 1108 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 74 30

electrical wire insulation 1109 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ARC RUB OTH OTH 13 1 fragments 1110 1 70 99 TP-83 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 17 17 1111 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 metal cap 1112 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 walnut shell 1113 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1114 1 70 99 TP-83 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 4 1 undecorated whiteware 1115 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ENT CER POR DOL 1 1 doll/ figurine fragment, face 1116 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 10 1 embossed starburst 1117 1 70 99 TP-83 3 FCC GLS UNB AQU 5 1 bubbles; patina

319

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1118 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 3 1 1119 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 9 1 flat glass 1120 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNV MLK 6 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1121 1 70 99 TP-83 3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 1122 1 70 99 TP-83 3 MSC GLS UNB BRN 3 1 1123 1 70 99 TP-83 3 CLT FBR OTH OTH 1 1 fabric fragment Yes 1124 2 11 25 TP-19 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 18 18 1125 3 119 156 TP-142 7 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 1126 3 124 158 TP-127 cleanup FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 1127 3 121 138 137 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 1128 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 5 5 1129 3 120 157 TP-142 8 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 1130 3 118 155 TP-142 6 FAU ORG FAU BON 12 12 1131 3 115 153 TP-142 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 3 1132 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 1133 3 103 139 TP-130 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 10 10 1134 3 111 151 SP-28 FAU ORG FAU BON 9 9 1135 3 102 136 TP-127 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 24 24 1136 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 9 9 1137 5 94 129 TP-118 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 26 26 1138 5 95 132 TP-127 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 1139 5 93 128 TP-127 1 FAU ORG FAU BON 3 3 1140 5 91 124 TP-118 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 16 16 1141 5 90 123 HT-107 4 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 1142 5 96 122 HT-107 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 50 50 1143 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 97 97 1144 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FAU ORG FAU BON 43 43 1145 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 8 8

320

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

Panel bottle fragments; "…YMECTS…/...R, COLO…" on front; "…FULL MEASURE" 1146 2 19 35 TP-16 4 MSC GLS JAR CLR 11 1 on side panel 1147 5 90 123 HT-107 4 MSC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 1148 5 90 123 HT-107 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 1149 5 91 124 TP-118 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 1150 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 25 2 1151 5 91 124 TP-118 3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 3 2 1152 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC GLS UNB GRN 3 1 1153 5 91 124 TP-118 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 4 1 1154 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 34 1 1155 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 11 1156 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC MTL MSC UNK 5 1157 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC MTL HRD OTH 3 3 screws 1158 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC MTL NAI WIR 21 1159 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 walnut shell 1160 5 91 124 TP-118 3 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 catfish spine 1161 5 91 124 TP-118 3 MSC PLA UNK UNK 6 2 1162 5 91 124 TP-118 3 ENT PLA TOY MBL 1 1 pink marble 1163 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 2 1 Terra cotta fragment porcelain insulator 1164 5 93 128 TP-127 1 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 fragments "CAP23/GENUINE PORCELAIN LINED" nearly 1165 5 93 128 TP-127 1 FCC GLS JRL MLK 15 1 complete 1166 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1167 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC GLS DEC OTH 1 1 red glass fragment 1168 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC GLS JAR AQU 11 1 1169 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 18 1 1170 5 93 128 TP-127 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 10 1

321

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1171 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 single thread bottle lip frag 1172 5 93 128 TP-127 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 fence staples and washer 1173 5 93 128 TP-127 1 ARC MTL HRD WIR 2 2 steel wire fragments 1174 5 93 128 TP-127 1 FCC MTL BCL CCP 2 1 1175 5 93 128 TP-127 1 FCC MTL CAN JRL 1 1 zinc canning jar lid 1176 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC MTL NAI WIR 27 1177 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC MTL MSC UNK 4 miscellaneous metal 1178 5 93 128 TP-127 1 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 4-hole button 1179 5 93 128 TP-127 1 OTH MTL OTH COI 1 1 1985 penny maroon; possibly linoleum 1180 5 93 128 TP-127 1 ARC OTH OTH OTH 1 1 tile 1181 5 93 128 TP-127 1 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 plastic button 1182 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC RUB OTH OTH 5 1 rubber washer 1183 5 93 128 TP-127 1 MSC ORG FLO SHL 8 5 walnut shells 1184 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC GLS UNV CLR 6 1 vessel glass 1185 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC GLS UNV AQU 1 1 vessel glass 1186 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ATU GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1187 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 1188 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC GLS UNV CLR 2 1 possibly large bowl 1189 5 94 129 TP-118 4 FCC MTL CAN OTH 6 1 can fragments 1190 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staples 1191 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ARC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 woven wire fragment 1192 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC MTL UNK MSC 15 1 miscellaneous metal 1193 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ARC MTL NAI CUT 3 3 1194 5 94 129 TP-118 4 TLM MTL TOL OTH 1 1 small garden hoe head Yes 1195 5 94 129 TP-118 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 14 14 1196 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC RUB OTH OTH 1 1 rubber washer 1197 5 94 129 TP-118 4 TLM OTH TOL OTH 1 1 whetstone Yes 1198 5 94 129 TP-118 4 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 walnut shells

322

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO undecorated whiteware; multiple partial maker's 1199 5 95 132 TP-127 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 18 3 marks

blue underglaze transfer print; polychrome over 1200 5 95 132 TP-127 2 FCC CER POR UNH 6 2 glaze decalcomania Yes 1201 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 8 1 possibly flower pot 1202 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 sun-colored amethyst 1203 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 20 1 unidentified flat glass possibly blown in mold; unknown makers mark of 5 dots in a cross shaped 1204 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 8 1 pattern Yes 1205 5 95 132 TP-127 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 32 1

Mason jar lid liner and unidentified milkglass vessel 1206 5 95 132 TP-127 2 FCC GLS JRL MLK 8 2 fragments

vessel glass; some hand- 1207 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 106 3 blown fragments 1208 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC GLS UNB BLU 4 1

partial blown in mold bottle 1209 5 95 132 TP-127 2 ATU GLS UNB GRN 1 1 base 1210 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC MTL NAI WIR 53 1211 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC MTL UNK MSC 9 miscellaneous metal 1212 5 95 132 TP-127 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 nut, round 1213 5 95 132 TP-127 2 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 Eyelet 1214 5 95 132 TP-127 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 4 4 fence staples 1215 5 95 132 TP-127 2 CLT MTL CLC OTH 1 1 Copper eyelet 1216 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC MTL HRD WIR 3 1 woven wire fragments 1217 5 95 132 TP-127 2 CLT OTH CLC BUT 1 1 wood button 1218 5 95 132 TP-127 2 WCM OTH OTH OTH 3 1 slate chalkboard fragments 1219 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC ORG FLO SHL 2 1 walnut shells

323

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1220 5 95 132 TP-127 2 MSC ORG FLO PIT 32 20 fruit pits; peach or nectarine 1221 5 96 122 HT-107 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 12 1 undecorated whiteware painted; possibly 1222 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC CER POR OTH 1 1 doll/figurine 1223 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 vessel glass 1224 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 vessel glass 1225 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC GLS UNB BLK 1 1 vessel glass 1226 5 96 122 HT-107 3 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lightbulb fragment 1227 5 96 122 HT-107 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 Vessel glass 1228 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 Vessel glass 1229 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 unidentified flat glass 1230 5 96 122 HT-107 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 Screws 1231 5 96 122 HT-107 3 MSC MTL NAI WIR 3 nail shafts 1232 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 1233 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile

unglazed tan-bodied 1234 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 earthenware 1235 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC CER ETH OTH 4 1 possibly flower pot 1236 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC CER POR UNH 2 1 decal decorated rim

"T.S.&T."; Taylor, Smith, and Taylor, Chester, W. Virginia; Lu-Ray Pastels, U.S.A. (1938–1950s) (Lehner 1237 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 1988:461–462) Yes 1238 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 4 1 unidentified flat glass 1239 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 unknown vessel 1240 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 partial green ACL 1241 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNB AME 2 1 Vessel glass 1242 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1 1243 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 1244 5 98 131 TP-130 1 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 possible light bulb fragment

324

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1245 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 partial white ACL 1246 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 1247 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 miscellaneous bottle finish 1248 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS DEC CLR 3 1 1249 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS DEC CLR 4 4 1250 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS UNB BRN 3 1 1251 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 double threaded jar finish painted decorative vessel 1252 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS DEC CLR 1 1 frag 1253 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNB CLR 5 1 1254 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 melted glass 1255 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 mason jar finish 1256 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNV CLR 83 3 1257 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC GLS UNK CLR 12 1 unidentified flat glass 1258 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ATU GLS UNB BRN 31 2 1259 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bolt 1260 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 fence staples 1261 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Machinery screws 1262 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 ferrous washer 1263 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 nonferrous plate 1264 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 tire valve 1265 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC MTL UNK MSC 3 miscellaneous metal 1266 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL NAI WIR 59 59 1267 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bolt

possibly instrument 1268 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 mouthpiece 1269 5 98 131 TP-130 1 MSC OTH OTH OTH 1 1 string fragment 1270 5 98 131 TP-130 1 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 Shell 1271 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ENT PLA OTH OTH 5 1 Record fragment yellow wheels; same as 1272 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 6 5 1388

325

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

four-hole plastic button; 1273 5 98 131 TP-130 1 CLT PLA CLC BUT 1 1 undecorated 1274 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 1 1 toy fragment 1275 5 98 131 TP-130 1 ENT PLA TOY OTH 29 10 plastic toy fragments 1276 5 98 131 TP-130 1 PRE LIT DEB FLK 1 1 chert flake Yes 1277 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 edge molded whiteware polychrome floral ceramic 1278 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARC CER POR OTH 1 1 tile 1279 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 gold gilded decoration

undecorated whiteware; 1280 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 8 1 burned

polychrome floral decalcomania; same set as 1281 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER ETH PLA 3 1 1282

polychrome floral decalcomania; same set as 1282 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER ETH BWL 3 1 1281 1283 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 undecorated 1284 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 possibly celadon 1285 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC GLS JRL MLK 1 1 Mason jar lid liner fragment

hand-tooled prescription 1286 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MED GLS SAB CLR 3 1 finish; patina 1287 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 8 1 1288 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 vessel glass 1289 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 1290 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 44 2 vessel glass 1291 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNB BLU 2 1 vessel glass 1292 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 crown finish 1293 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 12 1 unidentified flat glass 1294 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 7 1 blown in mold 1295 5 99 134 TP-127 3 FCC GLS UNV MLK 10 1 326

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1296 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC MTL HRD WIR 1 1 ferrous wire 1297 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 ferrous washer 1298 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARC MTL NAI CUT 3 3 cut nail shaft 1299 5 99 134 TP-127 3 TRN MTL NAI OTH 1 1 horseshoe nail Yes 1300 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 fence staples 1301 5 99 134 TP-127 3 HLT MTL OTH STV 1 1 cast iron stove part 1302 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC MTL MSC MSC 2 miscellaneous metal 1303 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 38 20 wire nails 1304 5 99 134 TP-127 3 MSC MTL MSC MSC 189 miscellaneous metal 1305 5 99 134 TP-127 3 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 rim-fire, .22 short; "H" 1306 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC CER POR UNH 1 1 1307 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated ironstone 1308 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 floral decal 1309 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ENT CER POR DOL 9 1 bisque doll face fragment 1310 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 hand painted floral motif polychrome decal 1311 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 6 1 whiteware 1312 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated ironstone 1313 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER STN UNH 1 1 tan glazed stoneware 1314 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC CER STN OTH 1 1 salt-glazed stoneware 1315 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 gold gilded decoration 1316 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ENT CER TOY MBL 1 1 clay marble 1317 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ATU GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1318 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 12 1 1319 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC GLS SAB AQU 6 1 hand tooled neck fragment 1320 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 1321 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 unidentified flat glass hand tooled prescription 1322 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MED GLS SAB AQU 5 1 finish 1323 5 100 133 TP-118 5 HLT MTL OTH WIR 3 1 fiber insulated wire 1324 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC MTL CAN OTH 21 1 can fragments

327

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1325 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 141 141 wire nails 1326 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC MTL MSC MSC 329 miscellaneous metal 1327 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 unidentified metal plate

barrel hoop; 40 cm (16 inch) 1328 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 diameter 1329 5 100 133 TP-118 5 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 2-hole button 4-hole button; "SWEET 1330 5 100 133 TP-118 5 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 ORR" Yes 1331 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staples 1332 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC MTL BCL CCP 2 2 bottle cap; crown cap 1333 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 ferrous washer 1334 5 100 133 TP-118 5 CLT MTL CLC PIN 1 1 safety pin 1335 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Wood screw 1336 5 100 133 TP-118 5 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1

hexagonal wrench; 7/16 and 1337 5 100 133 TP-118 5 TLM MTL TOL UNK 1 1 8/16th 1338 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 metal bracket with screw 1339 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 metal ring 1340 5 100 133 TP-118 5 HLT MTL OTH WIR 1 1 fiber insulated wire 1341 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL NAI CUT 7 7 1342 5 100 133 TP-118 5 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 1343 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC MTL CAN JRL 1 1 zinc jar lid 1344 5 100 133 TP-118 5 FCC MTL CAN JRL 1 1 1345 5 100 133 TP-118 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 Wood screw 1346 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 skeleton key Yes 1347 5 100 133 TP-118 5 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 peach pit 1348 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC CER ETH BRK 1 1 Yellow brick fragment blue transfer print underglaze; chinoiserie 1349 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 pattern 1350 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 molded pattern

328

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1351 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1352 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC CER POR UNH 2 1 decal decorated 1353 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 1354 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC CER ETH OTH 27 1 possibly flower pot

AMB; Owens-Illinois "20/O- I-in-Diamond/3 [on 1355 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ATU GLS AMB BRN 32 1 bottom]/5 [on right]" 1356 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 1357 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 29 1 unidentified flat glass 1358 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 2 1 single thread bottle lip frag 1359 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 1360 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MED GLS AMB CLR 1 1 AMB prescription finish 1361 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS DEC CLR 1 1 1362 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 possibly milk bottle finish 1363 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 possibly lightbulb 1364 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV AME 4 1 sun colored amythest press molded, diamond 1365 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS DEC MLK 1 1 pattern 1366 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 12 1 unidentified flat glass 1367 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV AQU 7 1

purple glass, possibly 1368 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV OTH 1 1 decorative ornament 1369 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV CLR 1 1 partial bottle base; "…279…" 1370 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC GLS OTH CLR 1 1 tumbler base; "…67-4"

AMB mason jar rim 1371 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC GLS JAR CLR 1 1 fragment; single thread

Mason jar lid liner; 1372 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC GLS JRL MLK 4 1 "Porcelain lined" 1373 5 101 135 TP-130 2 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 1374 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNK MLK 2 2

329

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

single thread; jar fragment; 1375 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS AMB MLK 1 1 AMB

colorless mason jar lid; 1376 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC GLS JRL CLR 4 1 "RUBBER AT ARROW…" 1377 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC GLS AMB CLR 4 1 polychrome AMB decal 1378 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNV BLU 1 1 press molded, diamond 1379 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS DEC CLR 2 1 pattern 1380 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 AMB; stippled 1381 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 AMB; single thread jar finish 1382 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 1383 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 103 3 vessel glass 1384 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ENT GLS TOY MBL 1 1 black marble Yes 1385 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC RUB OTH OTH 44 1 textured rubber fragments maroon; possibly linoleum 1386 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC OTH OTH OTH 2 1 tile 1387 5 101 135 TP-130 2 CLT SHL CLC BUT 3 2 2-hole shell buttons yellow wheels; same as 1388 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ENT PLA TOY OTH 4 4 1272

toy fragments; multiple different toys, airplane, 1389 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ENT PLA TOY OTH 50 same as 1390

toy fragments; multiple different toys, airplane 1390 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ENT PLA TOY OTH 14 propeller; same as 1389

pink pigment cosmetic with 1391 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC OTH OTH OTH 1 1 ceramic base 1392 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 peach pit 1393 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 fence staples 1394 5 101 135 TP-130 2 CLT MTL CLC BUT 2 1 illegible mark; "HANK"? 1395 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD EWR 2 2 electrical parts with wire 1396 5 101 135 TP-130 2 CLT MTL CLC GRM 4 2 grommets

330

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1397 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC MTL BCL CCP 1 1 crown cap fragment 1398 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 skeleton key fragment 1399 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 3 3 ferrous washer 1400 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 handle undecorated metal soup 1401 5 101 135 TP-130 2 FCC MTL OTH OTH 2 1 spoon 1402 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 2 2 Wood screw 1403 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD OTH 4 4 bolt 1404 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL OTH OTH 1 1 furniture corner

spark plug; "CHAMPION/REG U.S. PAT. 1405 5 101 135 TP-130 2 TRN MTL HRD OTH 1 1 OFF./J-4/MADE IN USA" unidentifiable metal 1406 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fragment 1407 5 101 135 TP-130 2 CLT MTL CLC PIN 1 1 safety pin 1408 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL HRD WIR 2 2 steel wire fragments 1409 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL UNK MSC 3 3 miscellaneous metal 1410 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL UNK MSC 1 1 copper tube 1411 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 s-hook 1412 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 hinge 1413 5 101 135 TP-130 2 MSC MTL UNK MSC 105 miscellaneous metal 1414 5 101 135 TP-130 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 117 100 1415 3 102 136 TP-127 4 CLT PLA OTH OTH 1 1 plastic comb tooth 1416 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 10 1 vessel glass 1417 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB AQU 2 1 vessel glass 1418 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 1419 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 bottle lip; AMB 1420 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 bubbles in glass 1421 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB MLK 2 1 vessel glass 1422 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC GLS UNB AQU 4 1 vessel glass 1423 3 102 136 TP-127 4 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1

331

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1424 3 102 136 TP-127 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 29 20 1425 3 102 136 TP-127 4 MSC MTL UNK MSC 76 miscellaneous metal 1426 3 103 139 TP-130 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 vessel glass mason jar fragment; 1427 3 103 139 TP-130 3 FCC GLS JAR AME 1 1 "…TO…" 1428 3 103 139 TP-130 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 7 1 vessel glass medicine bottle; "1 OZ" horizontally, 1429 3 103 139 TP-130 3 MED GLS UNB CLR 2 1 "…AN…"/"…TE…" 1430 3 103 139 TP-130 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 7 1 unidentified flat glass 1431 3 103 139 TP-130 3 ENT GLS TOY MBL 1 1 orange and white marble Yes 1432 3 103 139 TP-130 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staples 1433 3 103 139 TP-130 3 FCC MTL BCL CCP 3 2 bottle cap; crown cap 1434 3 103 139 TP-130 3 FCC MTL CAN OTH 1 1 can key metal wheel; 3.5 inch 1435 3 103 139 TP-130 3 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 diameter 1436 3 103 139 TP-130 3 MSC MTL UNK MSC 9 miscellaneous metal 1437 3 103 139 TP-130 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 43 25 1438 3 103 139 TP-130 3 FAU ORG MAR SHL 4 1 Shell 1439 3 104 141 TP-130 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 5 3 1440 3 104 141 TP-130 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 vessel glass 1441 3 104 141 TP-130 4 CLT MTL CLC BUT 1 1 4-hole silver metal 1442 3 105 140 TP-127 5 MSC CER ETH OTH 1 1 drainage tile refit; Homer Laughlin, East Liverpool, OH (c. 1900) (Lehner 1989:247); same 1443 3 105 140 TP-127 5 FCC CER ETH BWL 10 1 motif as 1452 Yes 1444 3 105 140 TP-127 5 ARC MTL HRD EWR 1 1 telephone wire fragment 1445 3 105 140 TP-127 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 14 3 1446 3 105 140 TP-127 5 MSC MTL UNK MSC 7 miscellaneous metal

vessel glass; possibly hand 1447 3 105 140 TP-127 5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 blown in mold

332

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

calcined large mammal, 1448 3 105 140 TP-127 5 FAU ORG FAU BON 2 2 small mammal bone 1449 3 106 145 TP-130 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 1450 3 106 145 TP-130 5 ARC MTL HRD MSC 2 2 Unidentified hardware 1451 3 106 145 TP-130 5 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bolt

gold gilded decoration; 1452 3 107 146 TP-127 6 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 same motif as 1443 1453 3 108 143 TP-142 1 OTH MTL OTH COI 1 1 Penny; "1975" 1454 3 109 148 SP-27 MSC MTL UNK MSC 1 miscellaneous metal 1455 3 109 148 SP-27 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 1456 3 109 148 SP-27 ARC CER POR OTH 1 1 grey flooring tile 1457 3 109 148 SP-27 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 1458 3 109 148 SP-27 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 melted glass 1459 3 109 148 SP-27 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 unidentified flat glass 1460 3 109 148 SP-27 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 plum pit 1461 3 110 147 TP-142 2 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 burned 1462 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC CER POR DEC 1 1 molded rim fragment 1463 3 110 147 TP-142 2 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1464 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 unidentified flat glass 1465 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1466 3 110 147 TP-142 2 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 vessel glass 1467 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 vessel glass 1468 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC GLS UNK CLR 5 1 thick glass; possibly glass tile 1469 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC GLS UNB CLR 19 3 vessel glass 1470 3 110 147 TP-142 2 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 3 1471 3 110 147 TP-142 2 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 shaft fragment 1472 3 110 147 TP-142 2 FCC PLA BCL CCP 1 1 crown cap liner 1473 3 110 147 TP-142 2 OTH PLA OTH OTH 1 1 miscellaneous plastic circle 1474 3 110 147 TP-142 2 MSC ORG FLO SHL 1 1 black walnut shell

333

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

brown glazed interior and exterior; possibly from 1475 3 111 151 SP-28 ATU CER STN UNH 1 1 chinese liquor bottle 1476 3 111 151 SP-28 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1477 3 111 151 SP-28 ATU GLS UNB OLV 1 1 hand blown 1478 3 111 151 SP-28 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 1479 3 111 151 SP-28 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1 vessel glass 1480 3 111 151 SP-28 MSC GLS UNB AQU 1 1 vessel glass 1481 3 111 151 SP-28 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 1482 3 111 151 SP-28 ARC MTL NAI WIR 13 8 1483 3 111 151 SP-28 MSC MTL UNK MSC 2 miscellaneous metal 1484 3 111 151 SP-28 MSC MTL UNK MSC 3 miscellaneous metal 1485 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 unidentified flat glass 1486 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 MSC GLS UNV CLR 5 1 1487 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 1488 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 1489 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 1490 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 ARC MTL HRD MSC 2 2 Unidentified hardware 1491 3 112 150 TP-130 & 140 MSC MTL UNK MSC 1 miscellaneous metal 1492 3 113 152 SP-29 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 1493 3 113 152 SP-29 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 1494 3 113 152 SP-29 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass 1495 3 113 152 SP-29 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 barrel hoop fragment 1496 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 undecorated porcelain 1497 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 decal decorated whiteware

Partial makers mark 1498 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 "…PORCELAIN/…CO…" 1499 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC CER POR OTH 1 1 white flooring tile green underglaze transfer 1500 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 print

334

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1501 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated whiteware 1502 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB GRN 2 1 stippling on exterior 1503 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass "…IN…" embossed on 1504 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 outside 1505 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 embossed exterior 1506 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ATU GLS UNB OLV 6 1 blown in mold 1507 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 7 1 1508 3 114 149 TP-142 3 HLT GLS LIG CLR 5 1 lamp/ lightbulb glass 1509 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 sun-colored amethyst 1510 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS AMB CLR 1 1 AMB 1511 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS JRL CLR 1 1 mason jar lid 1512 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 crown finish 1513 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ATU GLS UNB BRN 6 1 pressed glass; sunburst 1514 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS DEC CLR 1 1 motif 1515 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 14 1 unidentified flat glass 1516 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB AQU 7 1 possibly panel flask 1517 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 3 1

AMB; "KERR GLASS MFG 1518 3 114 149 TP-142 3 FCC GLS JAR CLR 2 1 CO./CHICAGO IL" 1519 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 1520 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 29 1 1521 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 burned 1522 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 4 1 vessel glass 1523 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 1524 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 opal glass vessel 1525 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1526 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC MTL HRD MSC 5 5 Unidentified hardware 1527 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 shaft fragment 1528 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC MTL NAI WIR 6 2

335

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1529 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARM MTL AMM CRT 1 1 rim-fire, .22 short 1530 3 114 149 TP-142 3 HLT MTL OTH OTH 1 1 Battery with battery core U-ring with bolt; approx. 4.5 inches long by 3.5 inches 1531 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 wide 1532 3 114 149 TP-142 3 MSC MTL UNK MSC 20 miscellaneous metal 1533 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC CER ETH BRK 1 1 Brick 1534 3 114 149 TP-142 3 ARC ORG OTH OTH 3 1 roofing slate? blue transfer print 1535 3 115 153 TP-142 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 underglaze 1536 3 115 153 TP-142 4 FCC CER ETH UNH 10 1 undecorated whiteware 1537 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNB AME 1 1 vessel glass 1538 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1539 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 owens suction scar 1540 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNB GRN 11 1 vessel glass 1541 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1542 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 burned 1543 3 115 153 TP-142 4 ATU GLS AMB GRN 1 1 owens suction scar 1544 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 1545 3 115 153 TP-142 4 ATU GLS UNB BRN 2 1 1546 3 115 153 TP-142 4 ATU GLS UNB BRN 21 1 1547 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNK CLR 14 1 unidentified flat glass 1548 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC GLS UNB CLR 45 1 1549 3 115 153 TP-142 4 FCC MTL CAN JRL 5 1 zinc canning jar lid fragment 1550 3 115 153 TP-142 4 ARC MTL NAI WIR 11 6 1551 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC MTL UNK MSC 46 miscellaneous metal 1552 3 115 153 TP-142 4 ARC MTL HRD MSC 5 Unidentified hardware 1553 3 115 153 TP-142 4 MSC ORG FLO PIT 1 1 peach pit blue transfer print 1554 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 underglaze 1555 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 3 1 undecorated whiteware 1556 3 117 154 TP-142 5 HLT CER LIG OTH 1 1 ceramic insulator fragment

336

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1557 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 edge molded whiteware 1558 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 polychrome floral decal

whiteware cup handle; 1559 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 undecorated 1560 3 117 154 TP-142 5 TRN GLS OTH AQU 2 1 safety glass from car 1561 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNK CLR 13 1 unidentified flat glass 1562 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNK CLR 4 1 burned 1563 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNB AQU 2 2 vessel glass 1564 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNB CLR 24 1 vessel glass 1565 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 1566 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNK CLR 5 1 unidentified flat glass 1567 3 117 154 TP-142 5 ATU GLS UNB BRN 5 1 1568 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNB BLU 1 1

bottle base, "DURAGLAS" 1569 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC GLS AMB GRN 1 1 cursive; 1570 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC GLS UNB AME 4 1

rivets from men's clothing; 1571 3 117 154 TP-142 5 CLT MTL CLC OTH 3 3 same as 1599 Yes 1572 3 117 154 TP-142 5 FCC MTL CAN JRL 2 1 zinc jar lid fragment 1573 3 117 154 TP-142 5 ARC MTL HRD MSC 7 Unidentified hardware 1574 3 117 154 TP-142 5 MSC MTL UNK MSC 3 miscellaneous metal 1575 3 117 154 TP-142 5 ARC MTL NAI CUT 1 1 1576 3 117 154 TP-142 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 large wire nail 1577 3 117 154 TP-142 5 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 large wire nail 1578 3 118 155 TP-142 6 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 yellow glaze 1579 3 118 155 TP-142 6 FCC CER ETH UNH 2 1 undecorated whiteware 1580 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNV AQU 1 1 vessel glass 1581 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass 1582 3 118 155 TP-142 6 HLT GLS LIG CLR 1 1 lightbulb fragment 1583 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass

337

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1584 3 118 155 TP-142 6 ATU GLS UNB BRN 5 1 1585 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNK CLR 7 1 unidentified flat glass

possibly heinz sauce bottle 1586 3 118 155 TP-142 6 FCC GLS OTH CLR 2 1 fragments 1587 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1588 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNK CLR 2 1 unidentified flat glass 1589 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC GLS UNB CLR 2 1 vessel glass 1590 3 118 155 TP-142 6 TRN MTL NAI OTH 1 1 horseshoe nail 1591 3 118 155 TP-142 6 OTH MTL OTH OTH 1 1 melted lead; same as 1607 1592 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC MTL UNK MSC 2 miscellaneous metal 1593 3 118 155 TP-142 6 ENT MTL TOY OTH 1 1 toy car/truck fragment 1594 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC MTL HRD HND 1 1 ferrous handle 1595 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC MTL HRD WIR 3 1 ferrous wire 1596 3 118 155 TP-142 6 ARC MTL NAI WIR 5 5 1597 3 118 155 TP-142 6 MSC MTL UNK MSC 7 miscellaneous metal 1598 3 118 155 TP-142 6 CLT MTL CLC CSP 1 1 unknown swivel

rivets from men's clothing; 1599 3 118 155 TP-142 6 CLT MTL CLC OTH 2 1 same as 1571 miscellaneous plastic 1600 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MSC PLA UNK OTH 1 1 fragment 1601 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MSC GLS UNV AQU 4 1 vessel glass 1602 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MSC GLS UNK AQU 2 1 unidentified flat glass 1603 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MSC GLS UNK CLR 3 1 unidentified flat glass 1604 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MSC GLS UNB CLR 8 1 vessel glass 1605 3 119 156 TP-142 7 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 vessel glass 1606 3 119 156 TP-142 7 ARC MTL HRD MSC 1 1 Unidentified hardware 1607 3 119 156 TP-142 7 OTH MTL OTH OTH 2 2 melted lead; same as 1591 1608 3 119 156 TP-142 7 ARC MTL NAI WIR 112 95 1609 3 119 156 TP-142 7 ARC MTL HRD MSC 5 1 Unidentified hardware 1610 3 119 156 TP-142 7 ARC MTL HRD MSC 1 1 Unidentified hardware

338

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1611 3 119 156 TP-142 7 MED MTL OTH OTH 2 1 possibly safety razor head Yes

painted porcelain; greeen 1612 3 120 157 TP-142 8 FCC CER POR UNH 1 1 floral motif 1613 3 120 157 TP-142 8 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 1614 3 121 138 137 TP-127 FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 red decal rim 1615 3 121 138 137 TP-127 MSC GLS UNK OTH 1 1 opal glass vessel 1616 3 121 138 137 TP-127 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 1617 3 121 138 137 TP-127 MSC GLS UNK CLR 1 1 unidentified flat glass 1618 3 121 138 137 TP-127 MSC GLS UNV MLK 1 1 unknown milkglass vessel 1619 3 121 138 137 TP-127 ATU GLS UNB BRN 1 1 vessel glass

blown in mold mason jar 1620 3 121 138 137 TP-127 FCC GLS JAR AQU 1 1 fragment; "…58…" 1621 3 121 138 137 TP-127 MSC MTL UNK MSC 1 miscellaneous metal 1622 3 121 138 137 TP-127 ARC MTL NAI WIR 2 2 1623 3 121 138 137 TP-127 ENT PLA OTH OTH 1 1 Record fragment 1624 3 122 159 SP-30 FAU ORG FAU BON 1 1 large mammal 1625 3 122 159 SP-30 ATU GLS AMB BRN 1 1 stippled base

ACL on exterior; 1626 3 122 159 SP-30 MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 "…ONE…/…244…" 1627 3 122 159 SP-30 ATU GLS UNB BRN 3 1 vessel glass 1628 3 122 159 SP-30 MSC MTL UNK MSC 7 miscellaneous metal 1629 3 122 159 SP-30 ARC MTL NAI WIR 1 1 1630 3 123 160 SP-31 ATU GLS UNB BRN 28 1 vessel glass 1631 3 123 160 SP-31 ATU GLS AMB BRN 1 1 crown finish 1632 3 123 160 SP-31 MSC GLS UNK CLR 11 1 unidentified flat glass 1633 3 123 160 SP-31 ATU GLS AMB BRN 3 1 vessel glass 1634 3 123 160 SP-31 MSC GLS AMB AQU 19 1 owens suction scar

"CORELLE/BY CORNING" (1970s per Wikipedia); 1635 3 123 160 SP-31 FCC GLS OTH UNH 1 1 milkglass tableware shard

339

Appendix D: Artifact Catalog

ART NO. BOX BAG PD FEATURE UNIT LEVEL CMBD CLASS MATERIAL FORM TYPE QUANT. MNI COMMENTS PHOTO

1636 3 123 160 SP-31 ARC MTL NAI WIR 4 3 1637 3 123 160 SP-31 MSC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 bike valve cap 1638 3 123 160 SP-31 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 fence staples 1639 3 123 160 SP-31 ARC MTL HRD OTH 1 1 square nut 1640 3 123 160 SP-31 ENT PLA TOY OTH 2 2 toy fragments 1641 3 123 160 SP-31 FAU ORG MAR SHL 1 1 Shell 1642 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up FCC CER ETH UNH 1 1 floral decal 1643 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up ARC MTL NAI WIR 7 4 1644 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up MSC MTL UNK MSC 10 miscellaneous metal 1645 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up MSC GLS UNB CLR 1 1 vessel glass 1646 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up ATU GLS UNB GRN 1 1 vessel glass

Owens Illinois mark "O-I-in- diamond" mark "4441-G/3" 1647 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up FCC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 below 1648 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up FCC MTL CAN JRL 1 1 zinc jar lid with glass liner Yes

bottle base, "BOISE/IDAHO" 1649 3 124 158 TP-127 clean-up FCC GLS AMB AQU 1 1 on base Yes

340

References

Abrisketa, Olatiz González 2012 Basque Pelota: A Ritual, An Aesthetic. Translated by Mariann Vaczi. Center for Basque Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Adams, William Hampton and Sarah Jane Boling 1989 Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three Georgia Costal Plantations. Historical Archaeology 23(1):69–96. Agbe-Davies, Anna S. 2007 Practicing African American Archaeology in the Atlantic World. In Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the African Diaspora. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Toyin Falola, editors. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Agbe-Davies, Anna S. and Claire Fuller Martin 2013 “Demanding a Share of Public Regard”: African American Education at New Philadelphia, Illinois. Transforming Anthropology 21(2):103–121. Agee, James and Walker Evans 1941 [2014] Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Alberti, Benjamin 2006 Archaeology, Men, and Masculinities. In Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Pgs. 401- 434. Edited by Sarah Nelson, AltaMira Press, New York. Alegria, Henry 1987 75 Years of Memories. Caxton Printers, Boise. Allmendinger, Blake 2005 Imagining the African American West. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2): 157–211 Asher, Robert and Charles H. Fairbanks 1971 Excavation of a Slave Cabin: Georgia, U.S.A. Historical Archaeology 5:3–17. American Anthropological Association

341

References

1998 AAA Statement on Race. http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 Accessed April 26, 2017. Anderson, Ann 2000 Snake Oil, Hustlers, and Hambones: The American Medicine Show. McFarland & Co., Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina. Atalay, Sonya 2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(3&4):280–310. 2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley. Atalay, Sonya, Lee Rains Clauss, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch 2014 Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Baker, Vernon G. 1980 Archaeological visibility of Afro-American Culture: An Example from Black Lucy’s Garden, Andover, Massachusetts. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro- American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler. Pgs. 29–37. Baywood Press, Farmingdale, New York. Barber, Edwin Atlee 1910 Hard-Paste Porcelain (Oriental). Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art, Pennsylvania. Barile, Kerri S. 2004 Race, the National Register, and Cultural Resource Management: Creating an Historic Context for Postbellum Sites. Historical Archaeology, 38(1):90–100. Barlow, Roland S. 1992 The Vanishing American Outhouse. Windmill, El Cajon, California. Barnes, Frank C. 2006 Cartridges of the World. 11th ed. Gun Digest Books, Iola, Wisconsin. Barth, Frederik 1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by F. Barth. Pages 9–38. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.

342

References

Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on Western Apache Landscape. In Senses of Place, Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, editors. Pgs. 53–90. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Bastian, Beverly E. 1999 Elmwood: The Archaeology of Twentieth-Century African-American Pioneers in the Great North Woods. In I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University of Virginia Press: Charlottesville. Pages 283–295. Battle-Baptiste, Whitney 2007 “In This Here Place: Interpreting Enslaved Homeplaces. In Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the African Diaspora. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Toyin Falola, editors. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2011 Black Feminist Archaeology. LeftCoast Press, Walnut Creek. Baudrillard, Jean 1981 [1994] Simulacra and Simulation. English translation, 1994. The University Press of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Beaudry, Mary C. 1993 Public Aesthetics versus Personal Experience: Worker Health and Well-Being in 19th- Century Lowell, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology, 27(2):90–105. Beltrán, Gonzalo Aguirre 1979 Regions of Refuge. Society for Applied Anthropology. SfAA Monograph Series #12. Society for Applied Anthropology, Washington, D.C. Bertram, John 2014 Interview, 17 June. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Bertram, John and Pat Walsh 1973 River Street Neighborhood Plan. River Street Community Design Center, Boise. Document on file at the Boise Public Library, Boise. Bieter, Mark and John Bieter 2014 Boise’s Wrigley Field. In Becoming Basque: Ethnic Heritage on Boise’s Grove Street. Pages 65–83. Investigative Boise Community Research Series, Boise State University, Boise. Bieter, John and Dennis O’Dell

343

References

2014 Trails to Idaho. In Becoming Basque: Ethnic Heritage on Boise’s Grove Street. Pages 14–30. Investigative Boise Community Research Series, Boise State University, Boise. Bird, Annie Laurie 1934 Boise: The Peace Valley. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. Bonasera, Michael C. and Leslie Raymer 2001 Good for What Ails You: Medicinal Use at Five Points. Historical Archaeology 35(3):49–64. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo 1997 Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation. American Sociological Review 62(3):465–480. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Brandon, Jamie C. 2009 A North American Perspective on Race and Class in Historical Archaeology. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster. Pgs. 3–16. Springer, New York. Bridges, Sarah T. and Bert Salwen 1980 Weeksville: The Archaeology of A Black Urban Community. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, Pgs. 38–47. Baywood Publishing Co, Farmingdale, NY Buckner, Dorothy 1981 Interview by Mateo Osa, 23 January. Manuscript and audio tape, Lee Street Historic District Project: OH#562, Reel #375. Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Butler, B. Robert 1966 A Guide to Understanding Idaho Archaeology. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello. Calvert, Karin 1992 Children in the House, 1890 to 1930. American Home Life, 1880-1930: A Social History of Spaces and Services. Pgs. 75-93. Edited by Jessica H. Foy and Thomas J. Schlereth. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. Cameron, Mindy

344

References

1971 Renewal Asked on River Street at Boise Parlay. The Idaho Statesman, October 8. Document on file at the Idaho State Historical Archives, Boise. Casey, Edward S. 1996 How to Get from Space to Place. In Senses of Place. Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, editors. Pgs. 13–52. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Cashin, Sheryll 2008 Race, Class, Real Estate. Race, Poverty, and the Environment 15(2):56–58. City of Boise 2017 Boise River Greenbelt Bicycle Scavenger Hunt. http://parks.cityofboise.org/media/992067/GB_ScavengerHunt_Clues.pdf Accessed February 23, 2017. Clack, Timothy 2009 Thinking Through Memoryscapes: Symbolic Environmental Potency on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Thinking Through the Environment: Green Approaches to Global History, Timo Myllyntaus, editor. Pgs. 115–134. White Horse Press, United Kingdom. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T.J. Ferguson 2004 Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):5–27. 2008 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson, editors. Pgs. 1–32. AltaMira Press, Lanham. Cook, Lauren J., Rebecca Yamin, John P. McCarthy 1996 Shopping as Meaningful Action: Toward a Redefinition of Consumption in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 30(4):50-65. Coontz, Stephanie. 1992 The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. BasicBooks, New York, New York. Corning Museum of Glass 2017 Pyrex in the 1970s. http://blog.cmog.org/2016/01/14/pyrex-in-the-1970s/ Accessed April 27, 2017. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz 1983 More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. Basic Books, New York.

345

References

Cox, Beatrice R. 2007 The Archaeology of the Allensworth Hotel: Negotiating the System in Jim Crow America. African Diaspora Archaeology Network Newsletter, 10(3):Article 6. Croll, Paul R. 2007 Modeling Determinants of White Racial Identity: Results from New National Survey. Social Forces, 86(2):613–642. Darwin, Charles 1999 [1858] The Origin of Species. Reissue edition. Bantam Classics, New York. 2016 [1871] The Descent of Man. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Davidson, James Michael 2004 Mediating Race and Class through the Death Experience: Power Relations and Resistance Strategies of an African American Community, Dallas, Texas (1869–1907). Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin. Document on file on ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Deagan, Kathleen A. and Landers, Jane. 1999 Fort Mosé : Earliest Free African American Town in the United States. In I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University of Virginia Press: Charlottesville. Pages 261–282. Deetz, James 1996 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books/Doubleday, New York. DeGraaf, Lawrence B. 1980 Race, Sex, and Region: Black Women in the American West, 1850-1920. Pacific Historical Review, 49(2):185–313. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1988 Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Reprint. The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1992 Indians, Archaeologists, and the Future. American Antiquity 57(4):595–598. Demo, Pam 2006 Boise’s River Street Neighborhood: Lee, Ash, and Lover’s Lane/Pioneer Streets, the South Side of the Tracks. Ms., Department of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow. Dickson, Lynda F.

346

References

1997 Lifting as we Climb: African American Women’s Clubs of Denver, 1890—1925. In Writing the Range: Race, Class, and Culture in the Women’s West, edited by Elizabeth Jameson and Susan Armitage. Pgs. 372—392. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Dixon, Kelly J. 2005 Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 2006a Sidling up to the Archaeology of Western Saloons: Historical Archaeology Takes on the Wild of the West. World Archaeology, 38(4):576–585. 2006b Survival of Biological Evidence on Artifacts: Applying Forensic Techniques at the Boston Saloon, Virginia City, Nevada. Historical Archaeology, 40(3):20–30. 2014 Historical Archaeologies of the American West. Journal of Archaeological Research, 22:177–228. Drucker, Leslie M. 1981 Socioeconomic Patterning at an Undocumented Late 18th Century Lowcountry Site: Spiers Landing, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology, 15(2):58–68. Druss, Mark and Claudia Druss 1992 Test Excavations on Borah Street: Historic Archaeology in Downtown Boise. Basin and Range Research, Boise. Document on file at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Boise. Dry Goods Reporter 1915 The Dry Goods Reporter, September 4, 1915. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=0ps7AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reade r&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1 Accessed April 25, 2017. Edwards-Ingram, Ywone 1997 Toward ’True Acts of Inclusion’: The ’Here’ and the ’Out There’ Concepts in Public Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 31(3):27–35. Epperson, Terrence W. 2001 'A Separate House for The Christian Slaves, One for the Negro Slaves': The Archaeology of Race and Identity in Late Seventeenth-Century Virginia. Race and the Archaeology of Identity, Charles E. Orser, Jr., editor. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Etlinger, Charles 1987 “Black Roots Go Deep in Idaho.” The Idaho Statesman February 16, 1987:1. Feld, Steven and Keith H. Basso, editors 1996 Senses of Place. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

347

References

Fennell, Christopher C. 2007 Crossroads and Cosmologies: Diasporas and Ethnogenesis in the New World. University of Florida Press, Tallahassee. Fennell, Christopher C., Terrance J. Martin, and Paul A. Shackel, editors 2010 New Philadelphia: Racism, Community, and the Illinois Frontier. Historical Archaeology 44(1). Ferguson, Leland 1980 Looking for the Afro in Colono-Indian Pottery. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 14-28. Baywood Publishing Co, Farmingdale, NY 1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650–1800. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1999 “The Cross Is a Magic Sign”: Marks on Eighteenth-Century Bowls from South Carolina. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor. Pgs. 116–131. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Ferguson, T.J. 2009 Improving the Quality of Archaeology in the United States through Consultation and Collaboration with Native Americans and Descendant Communities. In Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future. Edited by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe. Pgs. 169–193. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Flamming, Douglas 2009 African Americans in the West. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara. Foucault, Michael 1980 Power/Knowledge. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton, United Kingdom. Franklin, Maria 1997 “Power to the People”: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black Americans. Historical Archaeology 31(3)36—50. Frankenberg, Ruth (editor) 1997 Displacing Whiteness. Duke University Press, Durham. Fullilove, Mindy Thompson 2009 Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America and What We Can Do About It. One World/Ballantine, New York.

348

References

Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretations of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York. Gibb, James G. 1997 Necessary but Insufficient: Plantation Archaeology Reports and Community Action. Historical Archaeology 31(3):51–64. Giddens, Anthony 1979 Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Glasrud, Bruce A. and Laurie Champion, editors 2000 The African American West: A Century of Short Stories. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Goodman, John (compiler) 1998 Common Cartridge Case and Shotshell Base Headstamps. In Late Historic Artifacts Field Recording and Dating Guide. Workshop on Historical Artifact Identification. Arizona Archaeological Council, Pueblo Grande Museum, Phoenix. Goodwin, Jessica 2014 Drawing from the Well: The Material Life of the Jacobs Family, Boise, Idaho, 1864– 1907. Thesis submitted to the College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow. Document on file on ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Gorsline, Meg 2016 An Archaeology of Accountability: Recovering and Interrogating the “Invisible” Race. In The Archaeology of Race in the Northeast, edited by Christopher N. Matthews and Allison Manfra McGovern. Pgs. 291–312. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Gramsci, Antonio 1972 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. International Publishers, New York. Greer, Shelley, Rodney Harrison, and Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002 Community-Based Archaeology in Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):265–287. Grote, Tom 1981 “River Street Poses Dilemma.” The Idaho Statesman, August 13,1981:1A. Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson

349

References

2008 Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Pgs. 33–51. Duke University Press, Durham. Hall, Thomas D. 1983 Peripheries, Regions of Refuge, and Nonstate Societies: Toward a Theory of Reactive Social Change. Social Science Quarterly 64(3):582–597. Hardesty, Donald L. 1991 Toward an Historical Archaeology of the Intermountain West. Historical Archaeology, 25(3):29–35. Hart, Arthur A. 1989 Life in Old Boise. Boise City Celebrations, Boise. 1977 National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Boise Historic District/Old Boise. Document on file at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Boise. Hartigan, Jr., John 1997 Establishing the Fact of Whiteness. American Anthropologist, 99(3):495–505. 2005 Odd Tribes: Toward a Cultural Analysis of White People. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. Hartmann, Douglas, Joseph Gerteis, and Paul R. Croll 2009 An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many? Social Problems, 56(3):403–424. Harvey, David 1996 Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hayman, Erma 1980 Interview by Mateo Osa, 17 December. Manuscript and audio tape, Lee Street Historic District Project: OH#563. Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Hayward, Clarissa Rile 2013 How Americans Make Race: Stories, Institutions, Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett 2000 “The Little Spots allow’d Them”: The Archaeological Study of African American Yards. Historical Archaeology, 34(2):38–55. Hegmon, Michelle

350

References

2003 Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(2):213–243. Hill, Sharon 2015 Interview, June 9. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Hodder, Ian, editor 2012 Archaeology Theory Today. Second Edition. Polity Books, United Kingdom. Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson 1991 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. First Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Hood, J. Edward 2009 Social Relations and the Cultural Landscape. In Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. Pgs. 121—146. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Hoy, Suellen 1995 Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness. Oxford University Press. New York. Hoyt, Thomas C. 2010 Children of Fire: A History of African Americans. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York. Hume, Ivor Noël 1968 Historical Archaeology. Knopf, New York. Hummel, Charles and Jim Woodward 2010 Quintessential Boise: An Architectural Journey. College of Social Sciences and Public Affairs, Boise State University, Boise. Hyra, Derek S. 2008 The New Urban Renewal: The Economic Transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Idaho Statesman 1979a Let’s Build It. Friday, May 4. Document on file at the Idaho State Historic Society, Boise. 1979b Boise on the Move. Thursday, May 17. Document on file at the Idaho State Historical Society, Boise.

351

References

Ingold, Tim 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. Routledge, London. Isenberg, Nancy 2016 White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America. Viking, New York. Jacobson, Matthew Frye 1998 Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Jones, Siân 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London. Jones, Stephen L. 1985 The African American Tradition in Vernacular Architecture. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor. Pgs 195–214. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. Revised Edition. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa. Joseph, J.W. 1989 Pattern and Process in the Plantation Archaeology of the Lowcountry of Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology, 23(1):55–68. Katz, William Loren 1996 The Black West: A Documentary and Pictorial History of the African American Role in the Westward Expansion of the United States. Simon and Schuster, New York. Kenny, Michael G. 1999 A Place for Memory: The Interface between Individual and Collective History. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41(3): 420–437. King, Thomas F. 2012 Cultural Resource Law and Practice. Fourth Edition. AltaMira Press, Lanham. Klein, Terry H. 1991 Nineteenth-Century Ceramics and Models of Consumer Behavior. Historical Archaeology, 25(2):77–91.

352

References

Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh J. 2008 Collaboration Means Equality, Respect, and Reciprocity: A Conversation about Archaeology and the Hopi Tribe. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson, editors. Pgs. 151– 169. AltaMira Press, Lanham. LaRoche, Cheryl J. and Blakey, Michael L. 1997 Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology 31(3):84–106. Larsen, Eric L. 2003 Integrating Segregated Urban Landscapes of the Late-Nineteenth and Early-Twentieth Centuries. Historical Archaeology, 37(3):111–123. Leavitt, Judith Waltzer and Ronald L. Numbers 1978 Sickness and Health in America: An Overview. In Sickness and Health in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and Public Health. Pages 3-10. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Lees, William B. and Kathryn M. Kimery-Lees 1979 The Function of Colono-Indian Ceramics: Insights from Limerick Plantation, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 13:1–13. Lefebvre, Henri 1991 The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Lehner, Lois 1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Leone , Mark P., Parker B. Potter, Jr., Paul A. Shackel, Michael L. Blakey, Richard Bradley, Brian Durrans, Joan M. Gero, G. P. Grigoriev, Ian Hodder, Jose Luis Lanata, Thomas E. Levy, Neil A. Silberman, Robert Paynter, Mario A. Rivera and Alison Wylie 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology, 28(3):283–302. Levenstein, Harvey 2003 Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Lightfoot, Kent

353

References

1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity, 60(2):1999–217. Limerick, Patricia N. 1987 The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, New York, and London, United Kingdom. Little, Barbara J. 2007 Archaeology and Civic Engagement. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement. Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, editors. AltaMira Press, Lanham. Little, Barbara J. and Larry J. Zimmerman 2010 In the Public: Creating a More Activist, Critically Engaged Archaeology. In Voices in American Archaeology. Edited by Wendy Ashmore, Dorothy T. Lippert, and Barbara J. Mills. Pgs. 131–158. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Lockhart, Bill 2004 The Dating Game: Owens-Illinois Co. Electronic document, https://www.blm.gov/historic_bottles/pdffiles/OwensIll_BLockhart.pdf Accessed April 27, 2017. 2006 The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container Glass. Historical Archeology, 40(2):45–56. Lomnitz, Larissa Adler 1988 Informal Exchange Networks in Formal Systems: A Theoretical Model. American Anthropologist, 90(1):42–55. Longstreth, Richard W., editor 2008 Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Madry, Dick 2014 Interview, 16 June. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Mallios, Seth and Jamie Lennox 2014 Nate Harrison as Person, Myth, and Legend: Archaeological History and the Apotheosis of a Nineteenth-Century African American in San Diego County. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage, 3(1):51–80. Massey, James C. and Shirley Maxwell

354

References

1999 House Styles in America: The Old-House Journal Guide to the Architecture of American Homes. Dovetail Publishers, United States. Matthews, Christopher N. and Allison Manfra McGovern 2016 The Archaeology of Race in the Northeast. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. McAlester, Virginia Savage 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. Second Revised Edition. Knopf, New York. McCarter, Brian 1975 A Rebuilding Process for the River Street Neighborhood, Boise, Idaho. Comprehensive project submitted to the Department of Landscape Architecture, Boise State University, Boise. Document on file at the Albertsons Library, Boise. McDavid, Carol 1997 Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. Historical Archaeology 31(3):114–32. 2002 Archaeologies That Hurt; Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology. World Archaeology, 34(2):303–314. 2007 Beyond Strategy and Good Intentions: Archaeology, Race, and White Privilege. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, Edited by Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel. Pgs. 67–88. AltaMira Press, Lanham. 2011a From "Public Archaeologist" to "Public Intellectual": Seeking Engagement Opportunities Outside Traditional Archaeological Arenas. Historical Archaeology 45(1):24–32. 2011b When is “Gone” Gone? Archaeology, Gentrification, and Competing Narratives about Freedmen’s Town, Houston. Historical Archaeology 45(3):74–88. McDermott, Monica and Frank L. Samson 2005 White Racial and Ethnic Identity in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 31:254–261. Melosi, Martin V. 2000 The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Mercier, Laurie and Carole Simon-Smolinsk 1990 Idaho’s Ethnic Heritage: Historical Overview, Volume 1. Ethnic Heritage Project, Boise, Idaho. Document on file at the Idaho State Archives, Boise, Idaho.

355

References

Meskell, Lynn 2008 Memory Work and Material Practices. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, editors. Pgs. 233–243. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Miller, Daniel 1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom. Mills, Barbara J. and William H. Walker 2008 Introduction: Memory, Materiality, and Depositional Practice. Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, editors. Pages 3¬24. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Mills, Peter, and Kathleen Kawelu 2013 Decolonizing Heritage Management in Hawai‘i. Advances in Anthropology 3:127–132. Moore, Sue Mullins 1985 Social and Economic status on the coastal Plantation: An Archaeological Perspective. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa Singleton, editor. Pgs. 141–160. Academic Press, Orlando. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1985 [1877] Ancient Society. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Morehouse, Barbara Jo 1990 Landscape as Text: A Sociogeographic Study of the Santa Cruz River Area within the Vicinity of Tucson, Arizona. Thesis submitted to the Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of Arizona, Tucson. Document on file at the University of Arizona Special Collections, Tucson. Mouer, L. Daniel, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Stephen R. Potter, Susan L. Henry Renaud, Ivor Noel Hume, Dennis J. Pogue, Martha W. McCartney, and Thomas E. Davidson 1999 Colonoware Pottery, Chesapeake Pipes, and “Uncritical Assumptions”. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor. Pgs. 93–115. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Mueller, Jackson Cossitt 2009 Individual Agency and Military Structure: Personal Artifacts from 1890s Fort Missoula. Thesis submitted to the University of Montana, Missoula. Document file on University of Montana ScholarWorks.

356

References

Mullings, Leith 2005 Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 34:667–693. Mullins, Paul R. 1999a Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture. Plenum Publishers, New York. 1999b Race and the Genteel Consumer: Class and African American Consumption, 1850–1930. Historical Archaeology, 33(1):22–38. 2017 Imagining Conformity: Consumption and Homogeneity in the Postwar African American Suburbs. Historical Archaeology, 51(1):88–99. Murphy, Robert F. and Yolanda Murphy 1986 Northern Shoshone and Bannock. In Handbook of North American Indians: Great Basin, Volume 11. Pgs. 262—283. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Murray, Tim 2011 Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology 40:363–378. Nassauer, Joan Iverson 1995 Culture and Changing Landscape Structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4):229¬237. Oliver, Mamie O. 1995 Idaho Ebony: Boise’s Black Baptists: Heritage, Hope, Struggle. Idaho African American Heritage Society, Inc., Boise. Orser, Jr., Charles E. 1992 Beneath the Material Surface of Things: Commodities, Artifacts, and Slave Plantations. Historical Archaeology 26(3):95–104. 1994 The Archaeology of African-American Slave Religion in the Antebellum South. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4:33–45. 2004 Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 2007 The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Orser, Jr., Charles E. and Nekola, Annette M.

357

References

1985 Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy: An Example from a Piedmont Plantation in South Carolina. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa A. Singleton, editor. Pgs. 67–96. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Osa, Mateo 1981 Lee Street Historic District: Survey of Lee Street Neighborhood Project Summary, Boise. Manuscript No. 93. Document on file at the Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Otto, John Solomon 1980 Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History. Robert L. Schyler, editor. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale. Pgs. 3–13. 1984 Cannon’s Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Panich, Lee 2013 Archaeologies of Persistence: Reconsidering the Legacies of Colonialism in Native North America. American Antiquity, 78(1):105–122. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory, 1(1):73–98. Paynter, Robert 2001 The Cult of Whiteness in Western New England. In Race and the Archaeology of Identity. Charles E. Orser, editor. Pgs. 125–142. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Perkins, Ellen Stevens 1980 Interview by Mateo Osa, 16 December. Manuscript and audio tape, Lee Street Historic District Project: OH#561. Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Perry, Warren and Robert Paynter 1999 Artifacts, Ethnicity, and the Archaeology of African Americans. In I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University of Virginia Press: Charlottesville. Pages 299–310. Praetzellis, Mary and Adrian Praetzellis, editors 2004 Putting the “There” There: Historical Archaeologies of West Oakland. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

358

References

Purser, Margaret 1991 ‘‘Several paradise ladies are visiting in town’’: Gender Strategies in the Early Industrial West. Historical Archaeology, 25(4): 6–16. 1992 Consumption as Communication in Nineteenth-Century Paradise Valley, Nevada. Historical Archaeology. 26(3):105–116. Raab, L. Mark and Albert C. Goodyear 1984 Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. American Antiquity, 49(2):255–268. Reichl, Alexander J. 1997 Historic Preservation and Progrowth Politics in U.S. Cities. Urban Affairs Review 32(4):513–535.Rice, Lee II 2014 Interview, 19 June. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Riordan, Timothy B. and William Hampton Adams 1985 Commodity Flows and National Market Access. Historical Archaeology, 19(2):5–18. Ripley, Rick 1978 Consultant tells B.R.A. to retain old buildings. The Idaho Statesman, November 18, 1978. Document on file at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Boise. Robbins, William G. 1994 Colony and Empire: The Capitalist Transformation of the American West. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Roediger, David R. 1991 The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. Verso, London, United Kingdom. 2005 Working Towards Whiteness: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs. Basic Books, New York. Rome, Adam 2001 Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Ross, Douglas E. 2011 Factors Influencing the Dining Habits of Japanese and Chinese Migrants at a British Columbia Salmon Cannery. Historical Archaeology, 45(2):68–96.

359

References

Russell, Aaron E. 1997 Material Culture and African American Spirituality at the Hermitage. Historical Archaeology 31(2):63–80. Sahlins, Marshall 1988 Cosmologies of Capitalism: The Trans-Pacific Sector of ‘the World System’. Proceedings of the British Academy 74:1–51. 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. Pages 151– 176. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Amityville, New York. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2005 Poverty Point as Structure, Event, and Process. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(4):335–364. Sauer, C. O. 1925 The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2:19–53. Schablitsky, Julie 2006 Genetic Archaeology: The Recovery and Interpretation of Nuclear DNA from a Nineteenth-Century Hypodermic Syringe. Historical Archaeology, 40(3):8–19. Schulz, Peter D., and Sherri M. Gust 1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century Sacramento. Historical Archaeology, 17(1):4453. Shackel, Paul A. and Barbara J. Little 1992 Post-Processual Approaches to Meanings and Uses of Material Culture in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology. 26(3):511. Shackel, Paul A. 1995 Terrible Saint: Changing Meanings of the John Brown Fort. Historical Archaeology 29(4):11–25. 2011 New Philadelphia: An Archaeology of Race in the Heartland. University of California Press, Berkeley. Shackel, Paul A., Paul R. Mullins, and Mark S. Warner

360

References

1998 Annapolis Pasts: Contributions from Archaeology in Annapolis. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Shelby, Jennifer 2014 Remaking Grove. In Becoming Basque: Ethnic Heritage on Boise’s Grove Street. Pages 186–203. Investigative Boise Community Research Series, Boise State University, Boise. Silliman, Stephen 2001 Agency, Practical Politics and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology, 1(2):190–209. 2010 Crossing, Bridging, and Transgressing Divides in the Study of Native North America. In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400–1900. Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell, editors, pp. 258–276. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Singleton, Theresa A., editor. 1985 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. 1999 “I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Singleton, Theresa A. 2007 Facing the Challenges of a Public African American Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 31(3):146–152. Smith, Laurajane 2004 Archaeological Theory and the ‘Politics’ of the Past. In Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. Pgs. 33–57. Routledge, New York. Smith, Michael E. 2011 Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18(3):167–192. Solari, Elaine-Maryse 2001 The Making of an archaeological site and the unmaking of a community in West Oakland, California. In The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Adventures in Slumland, Alan Mayne and Tim Murray, editors. Pgs. 22–38. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sorenson, George Niels 2012 Iron Riders: The Story of the 1890s Fort Missoula Buffalo Soldier Corps. Pictorial Historic Publishing, Missoula. Spencer, Herbert

361

References

1860 The Social Organism. Westminster Review, 17:51–68. Stacy, Susan M. 1993 When the River Rises: Flood Control on the Boise River, 1943–1985. Institute of Behavioral Science Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1995 River Street Area Reconnaissance Survey. Prepared for the Boise City Historic Preservation Commission. Document on file at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, Boise. Stein, Pat H. 1990 Homesteading in Arizona, 1862-1940: A Guide to Studying, Evaluating, and Preserving Historic Homesteads. Arizona State Parks Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix, Arizona. Steinbeck, John 1937 Of Mice and Men. Penguin Publishing Company, New York. 1939 The Grapes of Wrath. The Viking Press, New York. Stevens, Gigi 2015 Interview, June 8. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Stewart, Andrew M., Darren Keith, and Joan Scottie 2004 Caribou Crossings and Cultural Meanings: Placing Traditional Knowledge and Archaeology in Context in an Inuit Landscape. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 11(2):183—211. Stewart, Bessie 1980 Interview by Mateo Osa, 17 January. Manuscript and audio tape, Lee Street Historic District Project: OH#565, Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Stine, Linda France 1995 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century Farmsteads: Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity, and Race. Historical Archaeology 24(4):3749. Stine, Linda France, Cabak, Melanie A., and Groover, Mark D. 1996 Blue Beads as African American Cultural Symbols. Historical Archaeology 30(3): 49– 75. Stottman, M. Jay

362

References

2000 Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Privy Architecture and the Perception of Sanitation. Historical Archaeology 34(1):3961. 2014 From the Bottom Up: Transforming Communities with Public Archaeology. In Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects, edited by Sonya Atalay, Lee Rains Clauss, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch. Pgs. 179–196. LeftCoast Press, Walnut Creek. Tarr, Joel A., J. McCurley, F. C. McMichael, and T. F. Yosie 1984 Water and Wastes: A Retrospective Assessment of Wastewater Technology in the U. S., 1800–1932. Technology and Culture 25(2):226–263. The Clorox Company 2017 Bottle Guide. https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/who-we-are/our-heritage/bottle-guide/ Accessed April 27, 2017. Thomas, Brian W. 2002 Struggling With the Past: Some Views of African-American Identity. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 6(2):143–151. Taylor, Quintard 1998 In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West 1528–1990. W. W. Norton, New York. 2012 Facing the Urban Frontier: African American History in the Reshaping of the Twentieth- Century American West. The Western Historical Quarterly, 43(1):4–27. Taylor, Jr., Quintard and Shirley Ann Moore, editors 2003 African American Women Confront the West: 1600–2000. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Terrell, III, Warner 2014 Interview, June 16. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. The Basque Block 2017 About Auzolan. http://www.thebasqueblock.com/boiseko/About-Auzolan Accessed February 23, 2017. Thomas, Doris 1981 Interview by Mateo Osa, 6 January. Manuscript and audio tape, Lee Street Historic District Project: OH#558, Idaho Oral History Center, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Thomas, Kenneth

363

References

2015 Interview, June 10. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Tilley, Christopher 2006 Introduction: Identity, Place, Landscape, Heritage. Journal of Material Culture, 11(1/2):7–32. Tonkin, Elizabeth 1992 Narrating our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Totoricagüena, Gloria P.

2004 Boise Basques: Dreamers and Doers. Center Basque Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Toulouse, Julian Harrison 1972 Bottle Makers and their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York, New York. 1977 Fruit Jars: A Collectors’ Manual with Prices. Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph 1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, Boston. Tuan, Yi-Fu 1974 Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia University Press, New York. Turner, Frederick Jackson 1920 The Frontier in American History. Henry Holt and Company, New York. Valentine, David 2016 What Lurks Beneath: A Brief History of Boise City Solid Waste Management. Presentation given at the Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno, Nevada. VanBueren, Thad 2002 Contemplating Household Transitions: Investigations at the Carnduff Dump (CA-SMA- 368/H) in San Mateo County, California. Office of Cultural Resource Studies, District 4, California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California. Vélez-Ibáñez, Carlos G. 2004 Regions of Refuge in the United States: Issues, Problems, and Concerns for the Future of Mexican-Origin Populations in the United States. Human Organization 63(1):1–20.

364

References

Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi 1994 Getting Ahead: Social Mobility among the Urban Poor. Sociological Perspectives, 37(2):157–182. Vernon, Richard 1988 Apalachee Colono-Indian Ware as a Reflection of Demography, Economics and Acculturation. Historical Archaeology 22(1):76–82. Voss, Barbara L. 2008 The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wacquant, Loïs 2010 Urban Desolation and Symbolic Denigration in the Hyperghetto. Social Psychology Quarterly 73(3):215–219. Wacquant, Loïs and William Julius Wilson 1989 The Cost of Racial and Class Exclusion in the Inner City. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 501, Pgs. 8–25. Waite, Thornton n.d. “Boise: On the Main Line at Last.” The Streamliner. Union Pacific Historical Society, Cheyanne, Wyoming. Walker, Deward E. 1978 Indians of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. Walker, Mark 2008 Aristocracies of Labor: Craft Unionization, Immigration, and Working-Class Households. Historical Archaeology, 42(1):108–132. Warner, Mark 1998 Food and the Negotiation of African American Identities in Annapolis, Maryland and the Chesapeake. Dissertation presented to the Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Watkins, Joe 2001 Indigenous Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Watkins, Joe and T.J. Ferguson

365

References

2005 Working with and Working For Indigenous Communities. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, vol. 2, edited by D.G. Herbert Maschner and C. Chippendale. Pgs. 1372–1406. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Wegars, Priscilla 1982 ‘The Very Latest Rage’: Design Trends in Twentieth-Century Ceramics. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Wells, Merle W. and Arthur A. Hart 2000 Boise: An Illustrated History. American Historical Press, United States. Wheaton, Thomas R. and Patrick H. Garrow 1985 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in the Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa Singleton, editor. Pgs. 239–269. Academic Press, Orlando. Wheeler, Lois and Jack 2015 Interview, June 17. Manuscript and audio recording, River Street Digital History Project, Idaho State Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. White, H.P. and B.D. Munhall 1963 Cartridge Headstamp Guide. H.P. White Laboratory, Bel Air, Maryland. White, Richard 1991 “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own:” A New History of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. White, III, William A. 2008 Results of Data Recovery and Site Evaluation Excavations at the Japanese Gulch Site, 45SN398, Mukilteo, Washington. Prepared for SoundTransit. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle. 2016 Living on the South Side of the Tracks: The River Street Digital History Project and Boise, Idaho. CreateSpace, United States. Wiek, Terry 1997 The Archaeology of Maroon Societies in the Americas: Resistance, Cultural Continuity, and Transformation in the African Diaspora. Historical Archaeology 31(2):81–92. Wiese, Andrew 2004 Places of their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

366

References

Wilcox, Michael 2011 Saving Indigenous Peoples from Ourselves: Separate but Equal Archaeology is not Scientific Archaeology. American Antiquity 75(2):221–227. Wiley, Maya 2004 Overcoming Structural Racism. Race, Poverty & the Environment 13(1):35–37. Wilkie, Laurie A. 1996 Glass-Knapping at a Louisiana Plantation: African American Tools? Historical Archaeology 30(4):37–49. 1997 Secret and Sacred: Contextualizing the Artifacts of African American Magic and Religion. Historical Archaeology 31(4):81–106. 2004 Considering the Future of African American Archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 38(1):109–123. Williams, Jacqueline B. 1992 The Way We Ate: Pacific Northwest Cooking, 1843-1900. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington. Wolf, Eric 1997 Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wylie, Alison 2002 Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Things. University of California Press, Berkeley. Yeoman, R.S. 2005 A Guide Book of United States Coins. 58th Edition. Whitman Publishing, LLC, United States. Zarkin, David 1968 “Variety of Zoning in Vicinity of Boise River Street Complicates Maintaining Standards in Residences.” Idaho Daily Statesman, March 12, 1968. Document on file at the Idaho State Historical Archives, Boise. Zedeño, Maria Nieves 1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory Formation: An Example from the Puebloan Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(1):67–103. Zedeño, Maria Nieves and Derek Anderson

367

References

2010 Agency and Politics in Hunter-Gatherer Territory Formation. Revista de Arqueologia 23(1):10–29.

368