Report of the Archaeological Investigations of the New Castle Court ...

NEW CASTLE COURT HOUSE PLAZA
NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
and/or the site formation processes associated with their deposition. Background and field data
were evaluated, synthesized, and placed in a broader regional perspective based on JMA's
knowledge of regional archeological resources. Historic artifacts, including ceramic, glass, and
metal objects, were identified and analyzed following currently accepted functional and formal
categories. Tobacco pipe bores were measured in increments of 64ths of an inch. Several levels of
artifact analysis were considered appropriate for the investigations, including ceramic and glass
vessel analyses, personal artifact analyses, tobacco pipe analyses, and faunal analyses.
2.4 FAUNAL METHODS
Wherever possible, each bone was identified to species using conventional zooarcheological
techniques (e.g., Grayson 1979, 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984). Measurements of the bones
were taken following von den Driesch (1976). When species identification was not possible,
higher order taxonomic categories such as large or medium mammal were used. In the New
Castle Court House assemblage, the category large mammal was used for bone fragments that
might be attributed to cows, large pigs, and or deer. In most cases, these fragments were likely to
be the remains of cattle. The category sheep/goat was used for almost all caprine remains,
although no goat was identified and deer/sheep was used for those few fragments that could not
been definitively assigned to one species or the other. Where possible, age data was recorded
based on the degree of fusion of long bone epiphyses and eruption and observed wear of teeth
(after Bull and Payne 1982; Grant 1982, Grigson 1982).
The importance of each species was quantified in several ways. The relative abundance of a given
species was calculated by adding all bone fragments identified as that species. This is the NISP or
number of identified specimens per taxon. A major failing of NISP calculations is that they do not
allow for bones from a single animal/cut of meat or for variability in the survival and
identification of certain elements. A second estimate of the relative importance of a species
counted the element or body part most frequently identified. This is the MNI or minimum number
of individuals needed to account for the assemblage (Grayson 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984).
However, counting “individual” animals presents a problem with historic-period assemblages
where larger animals were divided into smaller cuts of meat or there was a preference for specific
kinds of meat cuts. Where possible, identified bones were attributed to specific meat cuts based
on national standards for the fabrication and butchering of animal carcasses (Ashbrook 1955;
Romans et. al. 1895) and analysis of other historic assemblages (e.g., Pipes 1995). With historicperiod
assemblages, the minimum number of meat cuts may be the most meaningful level of
analysis (Schulz and Gust 1983; Lyman 1987).
The potential meat weights of food animals may be calculated using the MNI, but this estimate
does not accurately account for those present as partial animals or smaller cuts of meat. Also,
larger animals (i.e., cow) have a significant weight advantage and may be over-represented. A
more accurate measurement, the biomass, calculated the potential meat weight based on the
weight of the archeological bone. This method assumes that a specific quantity of bone represents
a predictable amount of meat or tissue (Reitz and Cordier 1983). The methods of quantification,
explanation, and interpretation are presented in Section 4.1.
17