Category Archives: Historical Archaeology Class Blog (Winter ’17)

Research Findings: What to do with them in collaborative archaeology

Posted on by
Reply

Knowledge is a systems of place and people, and that has no disciplinary boundaries

–Dr. Chip Colwell, 02/16/2017

First breakout session – Twitter account @preserveseminar

The second workshop of the “Preserving the Past Together” seminar series had a guest key note speaker, Dr. Chip Colwell, senior curator of anthropology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. I walked in half way through the lecture and was glad to see the room was full of people because the types of the conversations that are occurring throughout this series need to be discussed more often. It shouldn’t just be for individuals in the archaeology field, but also among those in museums, history, cultural resource management and any discipline that is involved with some type of historical preservation, including tribal preservation.

One conversation that arose was the creation of knowledge and what to do with it. Sure, there is some public outreach to educate people about new discoveries.  But more often than not, the information does not reach the community it should be reaching. Several of the panelists addressed the importance of sharing the knowledge with the community related to the space where the knowledge is produced. Academics shouldn’t share their knowledge just among themselves, but back with the community itself. This is probably one of the last, but equally important steps to take when working in a collaborative archaeology project, a main theme in the overall series.

Two other important aspect of collaborative archaeology that I took from this seminar  were knowing how to listen and knowing when to step away from the collective. There are more workshops in the making that will be produced this academic year, but if there is one word that can sum up all of these themes and topics its respect.

Achieving meaningful collaborations

Posted on by
Reply

In the second workshop of the Preserving the Past Together Seminar Series, there were presentations separated by break out sessions. What stood out to me was the conversations that we had during the break out sessions. I was in a group with several people that worked for tribes, people that worked for the state in planning, heritage managers and a few others. I believe we were all there with a similar vision in mind for the future; restoring sovereignty and authority to indigenous peoples in respect to their cultural heritage, acknowledging the fact that colonialism has never ended. However the perspectives and attitudes of all the individuals participating was vastly varied. The students in the group were excited and optimistic that we were having these discussions and we were focusing on these topics in our classes. While many individuals working for the tribe seemed to share optimism with the students, they were the first ones to point out that they are still felt very helpless when it came to working with people outside the tribe, weather it be firms or universities. They pointed out that they could create barriers for outsiders to pass, but they could not stop any work from being done on tribal related cultural property, it would be done eventually – no matter what. While this was a bit disheartening to hear, it is a sign that there is still a long road ahead of us to refining and strengthening this collaborative system. From my own experience in our educational system I feel confident that the future will bring stronger relationships and more care for the culture of those around us. It is exciting to be alive during a critical turning point for cultural preservation in north america and to be part of these invaluable discussions.

What can glass tell us?

Posted on by
Reply

Swift’s Pharmacy bottle – courtesy the Burke Museum

One of the things I love about archaeology is how a single artifact can open a window into time. This unassuming, small Blake style medicine bottle with a prescription lip belongs to the Burke Museum and is approximately 100 years old. There is still residue of some kind within, but it is difficult to tell what kind of medicine it may have once contained. However, with a little bit of research into historical records, it is possible to find some information.

The narrow mouth and neck means that it was likely not for tablet medication, and instead once held a liquid. Though difficult to see in the photograph, this bottle’s inscription provided a wealth of knowledge and allowed for the possibility of a more precise date. The embossed face of the bottle reads: “Swift’s Pharmacy 2nd Ave. & Pike St. Seattle Wash.” Swift’s Pharmacy was not as widespread as Seattle’s famous Bartell’s throughout the city, but it did have multiple locations through at least the 1940’s.

Seattle Star April 1907 –  courtesy University of Washington libraries

This advertisement from the Seattle Star in April 1907 indicates the recent move to the corner of 2nd and Pike, allowing us to infer that the bottle was not manufactured before Swift’s Pharmacy completed this relocation. Furthermore, the markings on the bottom of the bottle W.T Co. C U.S.A. means that the bottle was manufactured by the Whitall Tatum & Co. of New Jersey. The particular mark was in use until 1924. In addition, George Bartell eventually bought this location from Swift’s Pharmacy owner Louis Swift. A photo from the MoHAI’s digital collection dated 1926 shows Swift’s Pharmacy gone from the northwest corner of 2nd and Pike, and a Bartell Drugs in its place.

So what can this bottle tell us? It can show that sometime between 1907 and 1924, a customer may have walked into Swift’s Pharmacy in the Eitel building on the northwest corner of Pike Street and 2nd Avenue in Seattle. Perhaps the pharmacist who prepared the medication was Ed W. Smith, who was Swift’s head prescription clerk in 1911. Whatever the scenario may have been, it provides an example as to how a single artifact can produce an image of time, place, and behavior.

 

The Mystery of the Melted Bottle

Posted on by
Reply

Despite their age, most of the bottles that I worked with this week were largely whole and undamaged; I was able to observe their color, feel the seams, and discern maker’s marks with only a moderate amount of difficulty. I was finally gaining confidence in my bottle-identification skills, when I came to the last bottle in my assemblage, catalog number 45KI765/M-4. It was a heavily damaged bottle, its original shape, color and label barely discernible.

 

45KI765/M-4

I hardly knew where to begin. Normally I would identify the finish, bottle shape and use type first, but the neck and finish were missing, the shape had been completely distorted, and any decoration or label that once existed was obscured by an unidentified dried substance. I decided to try and find any feature on the bottle that might make it stand out, and the only possibility that I came up with was to somehow identify the embossed label. I tried a few different techniques; I felt the letters with my fingers and held it up to the light at different angles; I photographed it on my phone and adjusted the color and contrast; and I used a piece of paper and a pencil to try to create a stencil. Finally, after much effort, I put together “ZAREMB” on the top of the label, “SPR” in the middle, and “SEATTLE WA” on the bottom. Armed with the little information I gleaned from the label, I resorted to the best archaeological tool I could think of to solve this mystery: the internet.

After reading about various different people named Zaremba (there was an opera singer, a Russian composer, and a family of Polish nobility) I finally found the right combination of letters and was able to determine that the bottle came from Zarembo Mineral Springs Company. It once contained mineral water from the Alaskan island of Zarembo and was marketed as a health drink from 1900-1920. Presumably, it was dumped at the site by an individual who was perhaps hoping to improve their health by consuming the magical healing waters of Alaska (or maybe they were just thirsty).
                          (The Pacific Monthly, Volume 14 1905:611)

While this was all very fascinating, I was a little bit disappointed that this mysterious bottle and all of my effort hadn’t let me to something more interesting, a sinister poison perhaps, or an illicit concoction. Oh well, there’s always next time.

-TO

 

 

 

Lordly Liquor

Posted on by
1

The bottle that I thought was most interesting from my selection was a squat liquor bottle. The shape has a lot of character, as it has a uniquely bloated neck. It doesn’t have any seams, but the valve mark and striations seem to suggest a turn paste mould.

The wax or paper label still present on the bottle’s finish gives the most insight into its origin. It reads “House of Lords SCOTCH WHISKEY.” Evidently, the House of Lords was a line of whiskey marketed by the UK based Edradour liquor company through at least the 1970s. Below is a comparison of a bottle of this line from the 1970s and this one, likely from between the 1870s and approximately 1916.

The bottle was manufactured by the Edradour liquor company based in the United Kingdom, which still sells fine liquor today. However, all of the modern liquor bottles are clear or lightly tinted, unlike the dark coloration of this bottle, which may suggest it contained liquor meant for domestic sale.

This liquor in these bottles was probably consumed in the United Kingdom in public settings, such as pubs, or in the private parlors. These days, a bottle of Edradour liquor is between 15 and 400 euros, with the majority of the bottles costing between 40 and 70 euros.

Here are the two bottles of similar shape and function from perhaps 100 years apart. On the right there is a 1970s House of Lords scotch whiskey bottle and below is the c1900 House of Lords scotch whiskey. As you can see, the 1970s one still has the bulbous neck, but is clear and has a paper label on the body (still). It’s shorter and has more square shoulders, yet the similarities are still quite visible.

Snider’s Catsup – The Flavor of The Past

Posted on by
9

When looking at the historic bottles from a dump site used in the 19th and early 20th century, I identified one bottle specifically as a Catsup bottle. This bottle has many characteristics that identify it as a Catsup bottle. First
off, the finish, or mouth part, is what is referred to as a screw thread finish, which indicates the kind of cap that screws on and off, which is what a sauce bottle would have.

Another hint is the size and shape. The long neck, sloping shoulders, and carrying capacity looks very similar to a current ketchup bottle. The manufacture method, which can be determined by looking at the two vertical seams on the bottle, is indicative of a mouth-blown, two-part post mould. One can determine that is mouth blown because the seams don’t continue through to the finish.

 

And if all of this information isn’t convincing that this is a Catsup bottle, the maker’s mark on the bottom doesn’t hurt.

Snider’s Catsup. Advertisement. VintageAdBrowser. 2012. Accessed Feb 13, 2017. http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/food-ads-1900s.

When researching Snider’s Catsup bottles, I found an advertisement that shed light on how this product was marketed and used. The ad says hotels, clubs, restaurants, hotels, and even homes choose Snider’s Catsup. This shows a targeting towards mostly non-residential businesses. The advertisement also provides two recipes, which is something most people would now consider slightly odd for a sauce bottle. It also mentions Cincinnati, U.S.A, which is either indicative of where the bottles were made, or where the ad was marketed (I was not able to discern).

Overall, catsup/ketchup was, and still is, an important accessory to the American diet, as shown by it’s abundance in the historical and archaeological record.

Poppin’ Bottles: Ν.Καλλικούνη

Posted on by
Reply

When Team No Sleep began splitting up the glassware collection assigned to us to see who would date what portion I was secretly hoping I would get the aqua-colored, vertically embossed bottle. Although it was just the body, the foreign language written on it caught my attention.

Glasswares from the Atlantic/Central Bus Base Expansion. Broke aqua-colored bottle on right is the focus of this post.

Using a Greek alphabet to search for the brand, I learned that the company has been passed down for five generations since 1850. The name of the company is Callicounis and they sell a variety of liquors. They have a video that shows their process of distillation and have scenes of pouring them into the manufactured bottles. Callicounis seems to pride itself in its drink, and boast that its Cognac N.Kallikouni won gold medals at the 1900 Paris International Exhibition. Adding in the fact it was imported, I assume it may have been a little pricey to get a hold of. There may have been a well established bar near by, or a household that was well off that disposed of the bottle in the dump.

One of the stores in Greece for Ν.Καλλικούνη

From the page, I got the impression it is local only to Greece, meaning the bottle was manufactured in Europe. I had no luck finding a European glass bottle dating catalog, so I unfortunately had to depend on the Society for Historical Archaeology Bottle Index, which is based in the US. According to the site and only have the body of the bottle, it must have been manufactured between 1890 to 1915, which aligns with its time of popularity.

H.J. HEINZ CO.

Posted on by
Reply

This embossed glass food bottle (45KI765/M-42) was made between 1888-1946, although given the time that the site was filled was 1929, it most likely was manufactured between 1888 and 1929. I was unable to find which exact Heinz product it contained, although it most likely was a condiment, given the company. Despite the fact that the bottle bares resemblance e to one manufactured from 1876-1888, it does not have a “F&J” embossed on the side of it leading me to believe that it was manufactured after John, Heinz’ brother sold his shares of the company in 1888. Heinz then renamed the business the H.J. Heinz Co. which is the embossed lettering on the side of the bottle. This bottle was most likely used in a household or a restaurant, and considering that the other bottles in the dump indicate a household rather than a business, this leads me to believe that the bottle most likely was used in a household.

Heinz’s Long Lost Competitor

Posted on by
3

Curtice Brothers Preservers, Rochester, NY

Pictured here is an early twentieth century ketchup bottle produced by the Curtice Brothers Company, which was founded in 1868 in Rochester, New York. Although you have probably never heard of Curtice Brothers, their ketchup once rivaled the more well-known Heinz in the early twentieth century. The story of their descent into the recesses of popular memory is bound up with early government food safety regulations, but I’ll get to that in a moment…

The bottle itself was mouth blown and made in a two piece mold with a cup bottom, likely manufactured by the Berney-Bond Glass Company based in Pennsylvania.1 The finish (the lip of the bottle) is externally threaded so that a cap could have been screwed on it and was made using the “improved tooled finishing” method, meaning that most of the finish was created in the mold itself with just minor tooled touches to ensure that the cap would fit.2 This is evident in the seam on the finish, which nearly reaches the mouth, but you can see where the tool turned the seam.

Evidence of “improved tooled” finish

Also visible on the bottle is the maker’s seal on the shoulder reading “Curtice Brothers / Preservers / Rochester, N.Y.” within a circle. Vertical ridges line the sides of the body with an open space for the label, which would have marketed the company’s Blue Label Ketchup. An example of one of Curtice Brothers’ ads from around 1910 is shown below.

Circa 1910 ad for Blue Label Ketchup (Source: MSU Campus Archaeology Program)

The Curtice Brothers’ Blue Label Ketchup was a casualty of one of the first federal consumer protection regulations, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, a precursor to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration. This Act sought to inform and protect consumers from drugs and additives that were perceived as dangerous. One of those dangerous additives was benzoate of soda, then a common preservative in many condiments, including Curtice Brothers’ ketchup. Unfortunately for the company in the long run, Curtice Brothers refused to change their ketchup recipe as they believed benzoate of soda was necessary and posed no threat. On the other side of the argument was Heinz Company, which began producing ketchup using a different recipe that omitted benzoate of soda but sold at a higher price. Despite initial successful legal pushback (note the language of the above ad referencing the endorsement of the US government), ultimately public opinion and government regulation against the additive won out and Curtice Brothers “Blue Label Ketchup” lost its market share to Heinz.3

  1. Society for Historical Archaeology, “Bottle Typing/Diagnostic Shapes.” https://sha.org/bottle/food.htm#Catsup
  2. Soceity for Historical Archaeology, “Bottle Finishes & Closures.” https://sha.org/bottle/finishes.htm
  3. Smith, Adam F., 1996. Pure Ketchup: A History of America’s National Condiment, with Recipes. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.