Archaeological Collections Assessment: Old Fort Niagara (UB 316, Accession 65.38, Catalog 3210)

APY 514 Spring 2007 Archaeological Collections Assessment Fort Niagara East UB 316A, Accession Number 65.38, Catalog Number 3210 Fort Niagara State Park, Town of Porter, Niagara County, New York State By David Witt and Samantha Wolff Reports of the Archaeological Survey, Volume 39, Number 6, Part Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo May 2007 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction Site Identification Site Location and Setting Summary of Previous Investigations Initial Collections Assessment 1 1 1 4 5 Artifact Processing Methods Cleaning and Stabilizing Labeling and Storage Reconstruction Methods and Results 6 6 6 6 Artifact Analysis Sorting and Tabulating Identification and Classification 6 6 7 Site Description Size Stratigraphy Integrity Significance Assessment 8 8 8 8 8 New York State OPRHP Site Form 17 References Cited 19 ii List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. General location of the site in western New York. Site location on the USGS Fort Niagara New York 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle, 1960. Aerial photograph of Fort Niagara State Park prior to 1965. UB 316 Test Unit Placement. 2 3 4 5 List of Tables Table 1. Site Artifact Summary. 9 List of Photographs Photograph 1: Bowl Fragment with “QMD” Maker’s Mark. Photograph 2: Bowl Fragment with “QMD” Maker’s Mark. Photograph 3: Ironstone Fragment with “QMC” Mark. Photograph 4: Ironstone Fragment with “Royal Best Ironstone China” Mark. Photograph 5: Ironstone with “Syracuse China I-J” Mark. Photograph 6: Whole Machine-made Prescription Bottles. Photograph 7: Machine-made Syrup Bottleneck. Photograph 8: Various Machine-made Bottlenecks. Photograph 9: Machine-made Spring Stopper Bottleneck. Photograph 10: Bottle Base with Unknown Maker’s Mark. Photograph 11: Metal Buckle. Photograph 12: Metal Spoon with “WM A Rogers Nickel Silver” engraved. Photograph 13: Iron Horseshoes. Photograph 14: Worked Bone, Possible Toothbrush Handle. 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 1 INTRODUCTION This project was undertaken as part of a Department of Anthropology at SUNY Buffalo class in Museum Management (APY 514). The purpose of this class was to reevaluate and reassess a heritage collection housed by the university in order to teach graduate students museum laboratory methodologies in cataloging, restoring, and maintaining artifact collections. The collection (UB-316A) being assessed in this report is from the eastern portion of Fort Niagara State Park. It is comprised of historic artifacts including significant amounts of ceramic, glass, various metal objects, and bone, indicating a mixed domestic and military atmosphere. The collection is likely the result of surface surveying conducted during the demolition of military buildings in 1965 and construction of recreational facilities for the park in 1970. Site Identification UB-316A was recovered from the eastern half of Fort Niagara State Park, which consists of Fort Niagara, a military fortification first constructed by the French in 1725 to protect national interests in the Great Lake region (Scott and Scott 1981:20).. This fort was then controlled by the British after a successful siege in 1759 until the end of the Revolutionary War in 1796 (Scott and Scott 1981: 24). It was at this point that the fort was ceded to the Americans, who have held it since then, with the exception of the years 1813 to 1815, when the British captured it during the War of 1812 (Scott and Scott 1981: 24). The Fort went through several cycles of disuse and repair. After the Civil War, military buildings such as barracks, officers’ quarters, kitchens, a quartermaster store, tenting areas, a school, a hospital, and a rifle range were constructed (Scott and Scott 1981: 26). In 1896, Coast Guard Station Niagara was constructed along the shoreline of the Niagara River. The fort was used during the World Wars as a training center and expanded during both war time periods and the interwar period (Scott and Scott 1981: 30). Many buildings in the fort were renovated, and a recreational facility was constructed on the base. The base became a discharge center after War World II, and afterwards was home to various Air Force wings (Scott and Scott 1981: 34). In 1963, Fort Niagara was decommissioned as a military base and beginning in the summer of 1961 Fort Niagara began a process of renovation and conversion into a state park, with 31 buildings destroyed, roads removed or converted into highways, and military practice fields converted into soccer fields and sledding hills (Scott and Scott 1981: 34). Site Location and Setting Locating the original site of the collection was problematic. Accession records and documentation are minimal. The UB reference number, 316, was originally a reference given to all materials recovered from Fort Niagara State Park but housed at the University of Buffalo (personal communication, Pat Scott 2007). However, the designation was rendered moot once it was decided that the materials should remain at the state park. For an unknown reason, the collection housed by the University of Buffalo remained in the possession of the school. To help resolve confusion, the particular collection being studied was given the designation of UB-316A by the authors to differentiate it from any other Fort Niagara collections in existence. Due to the nature of the collection and supporting documents, it is possible to provide two likely scenarios and locations for the original provenience of the collection. UB-316A is most likely a collection of artifacts recovered during the destruction of 31 military buildings in 1965 and subsequent construction of recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and soccer fields up until 1970. These buildings were located throughout the park (Scott and Scott 1981: 34). Evidence for this includes the accession date of 1965, and the statement in Scott and Scott 1981 asserting that “during construction of the swimming pool and other recreational facilities in 1970, walkover surveys were done…. A small surface collection from this reconnaissance is housed at the Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo.” 2 The description of the collection matches the collection itself as “it appears to consist in the main of miscellaneous metal and culinary porcelain, probably broken and discarded military dinnerware” (Scott and Scott 1981: 11). UB-316A could also be a collection recovered from an area of land east of Fort Niagara on the shore of Lake Ontario. This land was bulldozed in preparation for the construction of a new beach in 1965. This construction was related to the previously discussed park renovation (Scott and Scott 1981:35). Evidence for this view includes the meager site notes, which may or may not relate to the collection being studied. Evidence against this is the fact that the material described in the site notes includes objects which were not in the collection. Also, the artifacts were not water-worn, a quality which may indicate that the assemblage was not originally from the shoreline. Figure 1 shows the general location of the site in western New York. Figure 2 depicts the possible site locations on the Fort Niagara, New York USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle of 1960. Figure 3 is an aerial photograph of the fort taken before the 1965 demolition project, which displays many of the buildings destroyed by the renovation and from where the artifacts may have originated. Figure 1. General location of the Fort Niagara East Site (UB 316A, A65.38 C3210) in western New York. 3 Figure 2. Site limits on the 1960 Fort Niagara, New York 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle. Confidential: Site Location Information NOT For Public Release 4 Figure 3. Aerial photograph taken before the 1965 demolition project in Fort Niagara State Park. Summary of Previous Investigations There are two site files associated with Fort Niagara, UB 316 and UB 317. UB 316 was concerned with archaeological surveying undertaken in preparation of the installation of a sanitary sewer within the park in 1981. This project included Phase I and II surveying the eastern portion of the site. Figure 4 is a map showing the placement of test units excavated in the park (Scott and Scott 1981). UB 317 was an archaeological and historical survey of Coast Guard Station Niagara, located on the western margin of the park along the shore of the Niagara River (Scott and Scott 1983). Neither report deals specifically with the artifact collection examined for this report, but they provide in-depth historical surveys of the site. Also, they both briefly reference professional and avocational archaeological walk-over surveys undertaken within the boundaries of the park, which likely correspond to UB 316A . Finally, the area surveyed by UB 316 likely overlaps with the area surveyed by UB 316A, so any conclusions reached in the site reports of UB 316 can be applied to this artifact collection reassessment. 5 Figure 4. UB 316 Test Unit Placement, from Scott and Scott 1981. Initial Collections Assessment The artifact collection was originally believed to correspond to UB 316, a series of archaeological investigations of Old Fort Niagara. However, the collection did not correspond to the site file associated with UB 316. To differentiate the collection from UB 316, the designation UB 316A was given. No information was found regarding the collection corresponding to UB 316A. As such, an initial overview inventory was needed for the collection before any work could be done. Initially, the collection consisted of six boxes of material. Four boxes contained glass and ceramics, cleaned and labeled with catalogue and accession numbers. However, these boxes were not sorted. One box of faunal material was present and the specimens were not cleaned, and were unidentified and unlabeled. One box of metal artifacts was also included. The metal artifacts were rusted and not cleaned, however the majority of the metal artifacts were labeled with catalogue and accession numbers. 6 METHODS Cleaning and Stabilizing The status of artifact types varied widely in terms of cleaning and consequent stabilization due to initial storage. All glass material had been previously cleaned and no stabilization was needed. Much of the ceramic artifacts were not cleaned properly prior to initial storage, requiring further cleaning of the material. This was achieved to satisfaction via washing and light brushing. Bone material had not been previously cleaned and needed considerable attention. Mechanical dry brushing and thorough removal of dirt to feasible levels by the use of dental picks was needed to prevent any further deterioration of bone. Specimens were then bagged separately to prevent additional environmental damage. All of the metal material included in the collection had not been attended to and significant stabilization was needed. Mechanical dry brushing was employed to remove residual dirt, as well as active corrosion of rust that formed on the artifacts. In depth treatment of the metal by electrolysis was not practical at the time, so strips of special anti-desiccation paper were included with each individually bagged artifact to prevent further damage. Labeling and Storage Almost all of the artifacts within the collection were numbered on their surface with catalog and accessioning number. Ceramic, metal, glass, and miscellaneous artifacts were labeled. Bone was not labeled and would not be labeled directly in our analysis. Standard plastic bags were used for storage; each labeled with accession and catalogue numbers and included site identification tags. All bone and metal artifacts were bagged individually to prevent further degradation and stored with the appropriate corresponding material. Glass was divided in terms of typology and identifying features (i.e.: bottle necks, body shards), with diagnostic pieces separated for identification and bagged individually. The same procedure was used for ceramic material. Diagnostic pieces were sorted from general sherds for identification and bagged separately, pieces that fit together were bagged together, and the remainder of ceramics was stored based on material such as coarse earthenware, refined earthenware, and stoneware and morphological classification such as body or rim sherds. Reconstruction Methods and Results Reconstruction efforts are limited to the glass and ceramic pieces of the collection. Glass reconstruction is extremely limited and was not undertaken, considering the morphological distribution of glass being dominated by necks and rims (see Table 1). Ceramic reconstruction was also difficult, with limited success. A small number of ceramic pieces actually fit together; the majority occurring as stray body shards. Those pieces that were able to be reconstructed were limited, often of two or three small pieces that fit together, providing little if any additional information regarding the artifact form. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS Sorting and Tabulating A total of 346 items were counted in the UB 316A artifact assemblage from Old Fort Niagara. The majority of the artifacts are domestic ceramic. The group includes 147 pieces, and is broken down into further subcategories as elaborated in Table 1. Domestic glass comprises the second largest group of artifacts, at 97 pieces, most of which are fragments. While there are no associated floral remains, there are a significant number of faunal remains from 7 the assemblage, including a shell fragment, one piece of worked bone, and 35 pieces of skeletal bone. Thirty items are related to architecture. Other artifact categories include personal- and clothing-associated finds, with three items, transportation-associated artifacts with four items, nine energy-related items, 11 tools or arms artifacts, and one smoking-related item. Table 1 lists the complete artifact assemblage. Identification and Classification Historical Material is broken down into the standard functional categories as developed by Stanley South (1977). This was done because “it is expected that broader cultural processes will likely be revealed at the group level of generalization…. Comparison at the type or style level of classification is expected to reveal answers to questions about nationalistic or ethnic origin, trade routes, culture contact, and idiosyncratic behavior…” (South 1977: 93-94). Domestic Ceramic is dominant, divided further into subcategories of Coarse Earthenware, Stoneware, and Refined Earthenware. Coarse Earthenware was further divided into brownware, redware, greyware, and unrefined earthenware. Stoneware was made up primarily of ironstone (reference Photos 1 - 5), with additional white granite, brown stoneware, grey stoneware, and unknown stoneware. The strong presence of this type of ceramic points to military-issued cooking purposes. Refined Earthenware was similarly subdivided into categories that include whiteware, imposter granite, pearlware, fired earthenware, semi-porcelain, and assorted designs and slips that could not be further identified. Domestic Glass is also abundant. Whole bottles are limited to two artifacts with machine-made identifiable seems being present (Photo 6). The majority is fragments from glassware from drinking or food storage (Photos 7 9). Also present are fragments of a lamp chimney. Personal and clothing finds are limited, including a glass bead and a belt buckle (Photo 11). Additionally present is a silver spoon with the maker’s mark still identifiable as “William Rogers Silversmith” (Photo 12). Architecturally, small nails of an early machine cut (ca. 1815 – 1830s) are dominant in addition to larger hand wrought nails (ca. 19 th century). Flat glass fragments, possibly from a window, are present as well as plaster and mortar fragments and yellow brick. A metal double strap hinge and a water pipe are included as well. Transportation and mechanical artifacts can be interpreted as associated with animals. Discarded horseshoes were found (Photo 13), in addition to a possible buckle for an animal harness (Photo 12). A possible machine part was also found, but no serious attempt has been made to identify it. One piece of a white ball clay pipe fragment was identified. Energy related finds include coal and ash fragments that cannot be easily separated from one another. A portion of a ceramic insulator (water-worn) was identified. Also, fragments of a white granite electrical insulator dating to circa the 1940s were identified. For organic remains, artifacts were limited to faunal remains. One piece of shell fragment was identified, while the majority of the faunal assemblage is bone. One piece of worked bone was identified as a possible handle for a tooth brush (Photo 14). The remainder of the bone is skeletal and associated with dietary refuse. Faunal remains were identified using Schmid 1972 and with the assistance of Marie L. Pipes. Cow is dominant, including portions of the scapula, ulna, humerus, tarsals, and ribs. This is a possible indication of cuts from the hindquarters and racks of rib. Sheep bone includes leg bones. One piece is likely from a turkey long bone, but there is not enough material to indicate usage. Additional bone remains have been identified as coming from a “medium-sized mammal,” the majority of which are unidentifiable (personal communication, Marie L. Pipes 2007). In addition, there are portions of spongy bone and miscellaneous fragments that are unidentifiable. Tools and Arms are confined primarily to ammunition. Shell casings are dominant, the majority of which have headstamps indicating manufacture for the Remington Arms Corporation for a .30-06 caliber designed for a Model 1903 or 1917 Springfield Rifle. The remaining shell casing is also from a .30-06 but the headstamp points to the United States Cartridge Company in Lowell, gun model unknown. Remaining ammunition is likely Civil War Era bullets, two being .45 caliber and the remaining two unknown. Modern finds are limited to a fragment of a hard plastic pipe stem. Unidentified artifacts include three pieces of metal that can not be identified with any level of certainty. 8 SITE DESCRIPTION Size Because the actual location of the site cannot be precisely determined, the size of the site can only be very roughly estimated. This estimation includes two possible project areas and covers approximately one third of Fort Niagara State Park. Neither of these possible project areas can be precisely outlined. Stratigraphy As the collection is believed to have been the result of surface surveying throughout the Fort Niagara State Park, the stratigraphy of the area was not recorded. For a detailed stratigraphy of the area, the reader is referred to Scott and Scott 1981. Integrity We cannot conclusively determine the proportion of the site investigated, nor its area. As such, the collection lacks integrity. Significance Assessment The collection represents the nature of military housing at the fort post-Civil War. The archaeological record verifies the historical records concerning the history of the fort, specifically the construction of barracks and other military housing after the Civil War and subsequent occupation until War World II. It may offer insight on the affluence of military personal during this period of the site’s occupation, as well as illustrate how individuals spent their stipends, addressed health concerns, and what they ate all the while conforming to military standards. However, due to a lack of integrity, the collection has limited significance. 9 Table 1: Listing of Artifacts from Fort Niagara Category Number Type 4 3 1 2 Body Body Body Body 3 7 4 1 88 1 2 8 5 8 10 13 40 Body Body 3 Body, 1 Rim Body Color Markings Possible Use Date 1. DOMESTIC CERAMIC Coarse Earthenware Brownware Redware Greyware Unrefined Earthenware Flower pot fragments Stoneware General White Granite Brown Stoneware Grey Stoneware Ironstone (Unknown) 1 1 Base Half Bowl, Base Rims, Body Base Rims Rims Body 4 Rims, 5 Bases Body Rim Bottle Neck 1 4 8 2 1 17 Rim 3 Body, 1 Rim Body Body Base Body, Rim (1) "IRONSTONE" 3 Body w/ Gothic Calligraphy "GREEN" "Q.M.D." & "Q.M.C." (1) c. 1863 Crockery Possible bowl fragments c. 1904 c. 1899 3 Fitting Fragments = 1 Mug Plate Rims Plate Fragments 2 Possible chamber pot 6 Possible vase (unknown) Refined Earthenware Whiteware Imposter Granite Pearlware Fired Earthenware Semiporcelain Assorted Designs/Slips "Syracuse, China 1-J" c.1886-1898 10 2. DOMESTIC GLASS Lamp Chimney Fragments Fragments 2 80 6 3 31 21 4 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 Rim Clear Body Body 8 Base, 11 Body Body, 1 part.Neck Body, 1 Base Body Body Body Base Body Body Base Base Brown Cobalt Clear Green Olive Blue Pink Amber Pink Clear Clear Blue Cobalt 10 4 1 1 3 1 Prescription Lip Neck Neck Neck Neck Green Clear Clear Green Clear Hutchinson Spring Stopper 1 Neck Clear Thatcher Milk Bottle w/ Capset Milk Bottle w/ Capset 1 1 Clear Clear Whole Bottles 2 1 1 Brown Clear Bottlenecks c. 1870s Enameled Possible Food Storage Pressed Starburst Pattern Possible Bitter Solution Poss. "Niagara Bottle Co." mark unknown Possible Medicinal Machined glass early 20th cent Applied Vessels Hand-blown Machine Made Machine Made w/ crown lip Hand-blown Possible Syrup Bottle Tooled Finish c.1880s-1912 c.1904-1985 c.1910-1950s Continuous Seam Machined use 3. PERSONAL / CLOTHING Bead Belt Buckle Spoon 1 1 1 Glass Metal Silver Blue William Rogers Silversmith c.1897-1929 11 4. ARCHITECTURE Plaster w/ Mortar Background Frag. Mortar w/ Grout Fragment Large Nails Small Nails Flat Glass Fragments Water Pipe Double Strap Hinge Yellow Brick 2 6 4 11 4 1 1 1 Metal Metal Glass Ceramic Metal Brick 2 1 1 Metal Metal Metal 1 White Ball Clay 7 1 1 Mixed Hand Wrought Early Machine Headed Cut Possible Window Glass Clear c. 17-19th cent c.1815-1830s Possible Door Hinge 5. TRANSPORTATION/ MECHANICAL Horseshoe Machine Part Buckle (unknown) Animal Harness 6. SMOKING Pipe Stem Fragment 7. ENERGY Coal & Ash Fragments Ceramic Insulator White Granite Electrical Insulator c.1940s plus 8. FAUNAL/FLORAL Fauna Shell Fragment 1 Worked Bone Skeletal Bone Sheep 1 35 2 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Bone Turkey Cow Possible Tooth Brush Handle Distal Tibia Metatarsal Long bone (Leg) Scapula Ulna Proximal Humerus Humerus Fragments Tarsal Lumbar Vertebrae Rib Proximal End Rib Rib Fragment Unknown Cut Marks Cut Marks Cut Marks Cut Marks Cut Marks 12 Medium-sized Mammal Unidentified 12 1 1 1 1 8 8 5 3 Rib Fragment Humerus Tibia Epiphysis Unknown Cut Marks Spongy Bone Fragments 9. TOOLS/ARMS Shell Casings 7 Metal Metal Civil War Era Bullets 6 1 4 2 2 1 Hard Plastic Metal Metal 10. MODERN Fragment Pipe Stem 11. UNIDENTIFIED Unidentifiable Metal Object 3 Total Objects 343 Remington Arms U.S. Cartridge Company short long .30-06 .30-06 .45 caliber (unknown) 1903 & 1917 13 PHOTOGRAPHS Domestic Ceramics Photographs 1 and 2: Bowl Fragment with “QMD” Maker’s Mark. Photograph 3: Ironstone Fragment with “QMC” Mark. Photograph 5: Ironstone with “Syracuse China I-J” Mark Photograph 4: Ironstone Fragment with “Royal Best Ironstone China” Mark. 14 Domestic Glass Photograph 6: Whole Machine-made Prescription Bottles Photograph 8: Various Machine-made Bottlenecks Photograph 10: Bottle Base with Unknown Maker’s Mark. Photograph 7: Machine-made Syrup Bottleneck Photograph 9: Machine-made Spring Stopper Bottleneck 15 Personal & Clothing Photograph 11: Metal Buckle Photograph 12: Metal Spoon with “WM A Rogers Nickel Silver” engraved. Transportation Photograph 13: Iron Horseshoes 16 Faunal Photograph 14: Worked Bone, Possible Toothbrush Handle 17 NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Official Use Only - Site Identifier UB 316-A Project Identifier Old Fort Niagara East Name Dr. Doug Perrelli Organization UB Survey Date Ma y 2 0 0 7 1. Site Identifier(s) 2. County Address 380 MFAC, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo NY 14261 Phone 716-645-6242 UB 316-A Niagara Town/City/Village/Hamlet Porter 3. Present Owner Address 4. Site Description: Structure/Site (check all appropriate categories) Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident Foundation: above ground below ground not evident Structural subdivisions: none apparent only surface traces visible buried traces detected List construction materials (be as specific as possible): N/ A Grounds: under cultivation X sustaining erosion woodland never cultivated previously cultivated pastureland Slope: flat X gentle moderate steep Soil Drainage: excellent good X fair poor Distance to nearest water from structure (approx) N/ A 5. Site Investigation (append with additional sheets if necessary): Surface - Date 1965 Site Map N/A Collection Subsurface - Date Testing: shovel coring other Excavation: test unit size/ number N/ A upland other floodplain Elevation: 1965-1970 size/number Investigator Dr. Marian White Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): None Present repository of materials: Marian White Museum of Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo 6. Site inventory: a. construction/occupation dates: b. previous owners: c. modifications: 7. Site documentation (append as necessary): a. Historic map references: 1) Name Atlas of Niagara and Orleans Counties Date 1875 Source _Beers, Upton & Co. 18 b. Photography: 1) Photo date 2) Photo date 3) Photo date Location Location Loaction c. Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully): Scott, Stuart A. and Patricia Kay Scott. 1981. F or t Nia ga r a Sta te P a r k—An Ar cha eologica l-Histor ica l Resour ce Study in the Ar ea of P r oposed Sa nita r y Sewer Constr uction 1987. Report. Division for Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites. ---1983. Coa st Gua r d Sta tion Nia ga r a . Report. Archaeological and Historical Survey. d. Persons with memory of site: 1) Name 2) Name Address Address 8. List of material remains other than those used in construction: If prehistoric materials are evident, check here 9. and fill out prehistoric site from Map References (showing location and extent of site): Date Source Date Source USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle: Fort Niagara For Office Use Only - UTM Coordinates: 10. Photography (optional or referenced to report): 11. Eligibility Discussion A. _____ Property appears NR/SR eligible ___X___ Property does NOT appear NR/SR eligible - Identify relevant theme: - Existance of relevant context? Ye s X No (undeveloped) - Discuss Context: B. Specify Eligibility Criteria: Criteria A. ________ Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history. Criteria B. ________ Associated with the lives of significant persons in our past. Criteria C. ________ Embodies the distinct characteristic of a type, period or method of construction. Criteria D. ________ Has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory/history. C. Discussion (provide a brief paragraph summarizing the site): UB 316-A is located within the eastern half of Fort Niagara State Park. However, due to the lack of integrity and context, the precise location of the survey associated with UB 316-A is unknown. As Fort Niagara State Park has already been placed on the National Registry of Historic Places, the location of the survey associated with UB 316A is already protected by legislation. Due to these circumstances, no action concerning NR/SR eligibility is recommended. 19 REFERENCES CITED Brauner, David. 2000 Approaches to Material Culture: Research for Historical Archaeologists. 2nd Edition. The Society for Historical Archaeology. Kovel, R & T. 1986 Kovel’s Dictionary of Marks: Pottery and Porcelain 1850 – Present. Crown Publishers, Inc. Lindsey, Bill. 2006 Historic Bottle Identification. Electronic Document. Bureau of Land Management. Oregon. http:www.blm.gov/historic_bottles/index.html Pipes, Marie L. Personal Communication, April 25, 2007. Schmid, Elisabeth. 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company. Scott, Patricia Kay Personal Communication, February 23, 2007. Scott, Stuart A. and Patricia Kay Scott. 1981 Fort Niagara State Park – An Archaeological – Historical Resource Study in the Area of Proposed Sanitary Sewer Construction 1987. Report. Division for Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites. ----- 1983 Coast Guard Station Niagara. Report. Archaeological and Historical Survey. South, S. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York. Whitten, David. 2006 Historic Bottle Maker’s Marks. Electronic Document. http://www.myinsulators.com/glass-factories/bottlemarks.html