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

NEW CASTLE COURT HOUSE PLAZA
NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE
4.0 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS
4.1 THE FAUNA FROM NEW CASTLE COURT HOUSE
4.0 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS
All together 1,323 bones and bone fragments were recovered from two features and a variety of
field contexts at the site of the New Castle Court House plaza (7NC-E-105A). A total of 275
bones were recovered from Feature 19 (SU E) and Feature 20 yielded 759 bones. An additional
289 bones came from small features and unassociated contexts. Although both features appear to
be fill, yard midden, or secondary trash deposits, the assemblages deposits yielded were likely the
remains of meals. The association of these deposits with a Court House allows for potential
comparisons with early tavern assemblages that were often associated with public buildings or
other governmental structures.
In the course of analysis, the processes that impact site formation were considered. The
weathering of the majority of the bones in both features indicates that neither assemblage was
recovered from a sealed or undisturbed context. The fauna from Feature 19 came from a fill
deposit directly overlying the subsoil on the east plaza. This level may have been open to the
elements or the materials deposited at this location after first being disposed of elsewhere. The
assemblage from Feature 20 was similar in appearance. With many weathered and worn bones,
this seems to have been a secondary trash deposit, used to fill a cellar hole or other open space
that was no longer in use. Based on the composition of the faunal assemblages and stratigraphy,
these deposits were short in duration, perhaps single episodes of site cleaning and filling.
Due to the fragmented nature of the assemblages, the number of mammal bones identified was
probably an over-representation of species present. When compared to the smaller and more
fragile bird and fish bones, those of large mammals were far more likely to survive postdepositional
disturbances and environmental changes. Additionally, standard field recovery and
artifact processing favors recovery of the largest animals and body parts. Within Feature 19, a
single context was water-screened (158) and it was from here that bones from smaller animals
and fish were recovered.
The fragmented and weathered remains of the large mammals recovered from Feature 19 (SU E)
suggested this was not a primary deposit or alternately that the bones were exposed to weather or
trampling for some undetermined period of time. There was no discernable pattern of deposition
or bone distribution among the EUs assigned to Feature 19, nor did analysis suggest a particular
use or pattern of waste disposal. Small quantities of turtle, rabbit, and mouse/vole bones indicate
that some of Feature 19 was probably accessible or open to small scavengers for a period of time.
The bones of these animals were recovered in small numbers from EU 27, Level 2 which was
water-screened.
By comparison, Feature 20 was both larger and more interesting with respect to the number of
bones recovered and the species present. With large butchered mammal bones and several species
of fish and birds, much of Feature 20 may have been the remains of meals. In addition to large
food mammals, three common species of fish and three types of food birds were identified. Most
of the bones came from within EU 8 (contexts 43, 44, and 48). Again, fragmentation and
weathering was evident on many of the bones and this assemblage may represent a secondary fill
or trash deposit within the cellar hole. No rodents were recovered from Feature 20, but it was
unlikely the nearly complete box turtle (25 fragments from EU 8 [context 48]) served as food. A
damp and muddy partially filled cellar hole might have provided an accessible place for
hibernation or scavenging (Beisaw 2000).
57