Happy October y’all! We are happy to announce that we will be once again hosting our Haunted Tour event following last year’s hiatus. While we may have missed last year, 2024 represents the tenth anniversary of Apparitions & Archaeology, a long lasting collaboration between the …
Holly Long I love tea; I drink it every single day. It is warm, hydrating, and is known for healing properties. But the tea leaves most drink today are imported and are not indigenous to North America and are rarely grown here. Tea leaves, not …
This past summer, the Campus Archaeology program had the opportunity to offer a field school to archaeology students from MSU and across the state—our first field school since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Directly taking part in ongoing CAP research into life in the mid-century MSU campus, 18 students spent five weeks gaining exposure to a variety of archaeological research techniques including pedestrian survey, shovel-testing, unit excavation, archival research and laboratory work. This blogpost recounts the activities of the field school and provides a brief summary of the results of the fieldwork and research projects undertaken by our students.
Choosing the Research Area
The on-campus component of this year’s field school focused on Cherry Lane Park, an open space on the western edge of campus slated for development of a athletics facility. The Campus Archaeology Program’s interest in this area of campus was two-fold. On one hand, an upcoming construction project in this area of campus prompted CAP to assess what archaeological materials might be disturbed by future development. Secondly, this area of campus fit into CAP’s emergent research interest in the material culture of campus in the mid-twentieth century and postwar era—a period of rapid change for the institution.
Specifically, MSU’s post-war era was marked by rapidly changing demographics—with increasing numbers of women students, greater numbers of children living in campus residences—and concurrent leaps in enrollment and programming as the institution moved from a relatively specialized agricultural college to the university we know today. Many of these changes can be at least partially attributed to the impact of the G.I. Bill, which provided financial support to returning veterans and their families enrolled in higher education.
In the years following the end of World War Two, campus infrastructure was dramatically expanded to accommodate the influx of veteran students, including a massive ‘temporary housing area’—a patchwork of trailers, pre-furbished structures, and barracks-style apartments—stretching across much of west campus. As many students came to the college with families, this era also marked the beginning of substantial campus investment in family-student housing options that would later become permanent in spaces like Spartan Village and University Village over the coming decades.
An aerial photograph of the temporary housing area taken shortly after residential units were installed, 1946. Photo faces roughly south, center right of frame features the intersection of Harrison Road and Shaw Lane. Image Courtesy of the MSU Archives and Historical Collections
Fieldwork at Cherry Lane Park
Today, a substantial part of this former temporary housing area for veteran students and their families overlaps with Cherry Lane Park, including barrack’s style family apartments and the ‘Faculty Bricks’. CAP’s selection of this area as the site of our 2022 field school thus sought to assess whether deposits from this era would be impacted by upcoming construction and to recover material culture related to this transitional moment in the development of Michigan State University.
TA Reid Ellefson-Frank prepares students to perform a pedestrian survey of Cherry Lane Park.
The summer’s fieldwork began with a pedestrian survey across Cherry Lane Park, through which students learned to systematically comb through the campus landscape looking for surface artifacts and landform features associated with the temporary housing area. While artifacts that could be confidently dated to this period were few and far between, student’s attention to landforms and vegetative changes allowed us to identify the location of structural footprints and former road grades associated with mid-century student and faculty residences, and in turn improved our geo-referencing of historical imagery. This exercise also provided a chance to students to familiarize themselves with the spatiality of temporary housing area and—combined with historical aerial photography and maps—orient themselves within the site.
Students Izzy Wickle, Celeste Adaway, and Kinsey Skjold shovel-testing in the field.
Following the pedestrian survey, students participated in shovel-testing in a few strategically chosen areas of Cherry Lane Park believed to have been minimally disturbed since their usage as part of the temporary housing area. Despite the importance of within the world of professional archaeology, it is rarely emphasized in field school settings in favor of a focus on unit excavations. Given that we had no knowledge of how intact artifact deposits and features from the temporary housing area would be, this was a necessary step in research but–importantly–also provided us the means to train students in an important field method they would encounter regularly if they choose to pursue archaeology.
Students Stephen Bush and Alex Withey record strata after digging a shovel-test.
While some material culture from the era we were interested in investigating was recovered, the results of our shovel-testing efforts largely indicated a dirth of intact deposits related to the temporary housing area within the tested areas. Though not particularly exciting results, students were thus exposed to one of the inconvenient realities of fieldwork— archaeology is almost just as much about ‘negative’ data and where thingsare not as it is about where (and what) things are.
Students Levi Webb and Ahnna Swanson practicing mapping skills.
Back in McDonel Hall, students were introduced to methods within historical archaeology laboratory work, including the identification and dating of glass containers and ceramic vessels. Specifically, students worked with artifacts from the Service Road landfill, a 1950s-early 1960s campus landfill along Service Road which CAP staff recovered in the summer of 2020 (see more about the Service Road collection here or here). This collection includes a diversity of refuse from various spaces on campus, including residential, academic, and dining related items. After gaining some experience in the cataloging process, students worked on groups research projects that combined artifact analysis and archival research to elucidate specific aspects of life on the mid-century campus. We hope to integrate the insights of these projects into some of CAP’s digital outreach platforms in the coming months.
Collaborations & Off-Campus Fieldwork
Dr. Duane Quates guides students prior to demonstrating processes associated with geophysical survey.
Outside of our research on the mid-century campus, students also participated in fieldwork off-campus in the vicinity of the Rose Lake USDA-NRCS Field Office. Guided by two professional archaeologists (and Michigan State alumni) Duane Quates and Christopher Valvano, as well as recent MSU graduate Gabrielle Moran, students participated in various phases of research at two sites associated with pre-contact occupations including unit excavations, geophysical survey, and shovel testing. This collaboration allowed us to broaden the scope of our field school and introduce students to additional professional skillsets that we may not have had the capacity to offer in our on-campus research. Multiple field school students have continued to work with Duane and Christopher after the end of the field school to gain further experience and guidance as they explore the possibility of working within professional archaeology—an outcome we view as an abundantly clear sign of an effective collaborative undertaking.
Dr. Christopher Valvano and Gabrielle Moran instruct students in unit excavation techniques.
Our field school was also fortunate to have two representatives of the Gun Lake Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Cultural Resources Specialist Kaila Akina and THPO intern Onyleen Zapata join us to participate and observe our summer fieldwork. We were incredibly fortunate to have their help and perspectives during their visit, and look forward to other avenues of future collaboration and capacity building between the Campus Archaeology Program and the Gun Lake THPO.
Out of the field, the CAP was also fortunate to feature guest lectures from a variety of professionals in the world of archaeology and associated fields, including Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer Dr. Sarah Surface-Evans, Gun Lake Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Lakota Hobia (Gun Lake THPO) and colleagues, MSU NAGPRA Program Manager Dr. Jessica Yann, our collaborators at Rose Lake (Dr. Duane Quates and Dr. Christopher Valvano), UM-Flint Professor Dr. Bev Smith, and then-current MSU Campus Archaeologist Jeff Burnett. Topics of lectures comprised a broad swath of topics, including discussion of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), working as an archaeologist for state/federal agencies, zooarchaeology, and the history of race, racism, ethnicity and gender at Michigan State University.
The Campus Archaeology Program would like to extend our sincere gratitude to everyone who helped make this field school possible and an engaging learning experience for our students, including (but absolutely not limited to) everyone mentioned in this blog post. On a personal level, I’d like to also thank all the field school students who collectively made my first official teaching assistant position at the university a pleasant and rewarding experience, and extend a special thanks to my two fellow TAs Alex Kelley and Reid Ellefson-Frank (note: do not forget to refrigerate your unit stakes).
First things first — Thanking our former Campus Archaeologist As we move into the new academic year and welcome a new set of CAP Fellows, we also say our farewells to Jeff Burnett, our outgoing Campus Archaeologist. Jeff oversaw the program in a challenging era, …
Cosmetic and hygiene-related products, perhaps due to the personal and often somewhat private nature of their use, are a deeply compelling class of artifacts. As commodities through which we tailor our appearance (or odor) and in turn shape our relationships and encounters with others, objects …
Identifying the former location of historical features can be an invaluable part of designing archaeological investigations, allowing researchers to tailor survey and excavation plans to spaces in which they are interested in, or assess which features might be impacted by development plans. In many cases, no appropriate source of information exists and such features need to be directly identified though on the ground archaeological survey. In more contemporary and document-assisted archaeologies, historical maps can play an important role in allowing researchers to get a sense of where historical features were located. However, depending on the intended purpose of the map there is a considerable amount of variety in the depth and quality of the information they can provide, and some historical features archaeologists might be interested in are often not considered relevant enough to include (outhouses, refuse disposal areas, etc.).
A series of plat maps between 1859 and 1914, showing the vicinity of the two farmsteads used as an example in this guide. The maps helped us to roughly determine when the farmsteads were established, providing a pre-1874 date for the northern one and a post 1914 date for the latter (based on its absence from the map), but provide little additional detail.
For archaeological sites with occupation periods overlapping with the intensification of aerial photography efforts in the early twentieth century (or later), these photographic records can provide a further means to determine the location of removed or otherwise obscured features. This blog post provides a short guide to creating a GIS shapefile representing the former location of historical structures from past aerial photography, using a example of this process from recent background research for an ongoing Campus Archaeology project. In some cases, a researcher might be able to access accurately georeferenced versions of this imagery, or have the ability to georeference the images themselves, but the process detailed here allows one to work from historical aerials available online but not accessible for download and use within a GIS application.
A series of historical aerials taken between 1938 and 1955, compared to contemporary satellite imagery. The location of arboreal features used as reference points in the guide’s example are outlined in red.
To follow alongside the steps laid out in the guide below, one will need 1) a source of aerial photography with the ability to measure distance (either through a provided scale or a digital ‘measure’ tool) and determine cardinal directions, 2) QGIS, a free and open-source GIS software available here, and a contemporary satellite imagery layer added to your QGIS project (for help on this last step, follow this guide.
For a recent Campus Archaeology project, we found that an area of campus slated for construction overlapped with the vicinity of two historical farmsteads, constructed in the late-nineteenth century and early-twentieth century, respectively. While available historical plat maps helped to provide the rough location of one of these farmsteads, they provided no extensive detail on the structures and other features associated with its operations. In order to better understand how we might design our fieldwork to investigate spaces of interest to Campus Archaeology, I composed a map of historical features in the vicinity, using aerial photography accessed though the Michigan State University Spatial Data Management Team’s ‘Historical Aerial Imagery’ tool.
Map of features identified through the process described in this blog post.
Steps
Step 1: Identifying stable points of reference.
Look through available aerial photography and compare these to contemporary satellite imagery, looking for non-mobile features or structures that one can confidently identify across available images. Bodies of water are poorly suited for the task due to shoreline change/fluvial erosion, and roads are typically a unstable choice due to realignments and widenings.
Though arboreal features and trees need to be approached with caution for this use, in this case I was able to identify extant Norway Spruce (Picea abies) windbreaks and a single remaining orchard apple tree (Malus domestica) in the vicinity of the farmsteads, that were consistently identifiable in all available aerials between 1938 and the present. These served as the primary points of reference for composing the map of former historical features.
On QGIS, create two temporary scratch layers (a quick guide available here). When prompted to select a name and geometry type, create the first one as a ‘multi-point’ layer and the second as a ‘multi-polygon’ layer. Name each in a way that will enable you to quickly know which is which. Saving the project in QGIS at this point will prompt you to choose whether to save these temporary layers, select yes and provide QGIS with a folder to save the files in (if you plan to keep them).
Screenshot depicting process of measuring to feature in historical aerials.
Step 3: Measure to feature
Turning back to the historical aerial photography, begin to measure out from your reference point(s) towards a feature you would like to map. Instead of measuring directly between your reference point and the feature being mapped—which would involve keeping track of the line’s angle—use line segments aligned with the cardinal directions. Stop when you have reached a corner of the feature (or edge if feature is circular/ovular). Record the resulting values and associated directions in some way, so you can reproduce them later in QGIS.
Step 4: Reproduce measurements in QGIS
On QGIS, with the multi-point layer selected and editable, select the “measure line” tool. Beginning with your reference point, use the measure tool to reproduce the line segments you used to reach the corner of the feature. Once you’ve reached it, use the “add point feature” tool to record the position of the feature.
Screenshots depicting the icons for various tools in QGIS: “toggle editing,” “measure line,” and “add point feature”.
Screenshot depicting the reproduction of measurements obtained from aerial photography with the QGIS ‘Measure Tool’
Step 5: Measure dimensions of structures
Screenshot depicting process of measuring sides of feature within historical aerial.
For polygonal features, return to the historical aerial and measure its exterior edges starting from the corner you previously measured to. Again, record the resulting lengths and associated cardinal directions of line segments. If features are not aligned with cardinal directions, you will have to keep track of angles at this point.
For circular features, return to the historical aerial and measure an additional line segment from the edge to its radius and record the result.
Step 6: Reproduce measurements in QGIS and add to multi-polygon layer
Returning to QGIS, select the ‘multi-polygon’ layer and toggle editing. Using the measure line tool, reproduce your measurements from step 6.
For polygonal features, use the measure line tool to reproduce your measurements from step 6. Without erasing the measurements, use the “add polygon feature” tool to draw the boundaries of the feature, moving from corner to corner. Right click to complete the shape.
Screenshot depicting “add circle by a center point and another point” tool icon.
For circular features, use the “add circle by a center point and another point” tool to create the shape. For the first point inputted, use the center of the feature you found when measuring the radius of the shape in step 6b, and for the second, use the edge position. Right click to complete the shape.
Screenshot depicting the reproduction of feature measurements obtained from aerial photography with the QGIS ‘Measure Tool’
Step 7: Save project to keep your progress, and repeat steps 3-6 as necessary to map each feature.
Once you have a few features done, it is a good time to test the accuracy of your work. One way to do this is to measure between corners of two features on both QGIS and your historical aerials. If the results are non-consistent, you may have made an error somewhere down the line. Alternatively, you can begin at one of the corners of a feature you have mapped and work through the recorded line segments backwards towards the reference point and seeing how closely they align.
Step 8: Additional interpretive and stylization steps
With all the locations of former historical features settled, it is worth turning attention to understanding what each might represent. While you can’t reasonably expect to figure out the exact function each feature would had in the past from aerials alone, there is often enough information to make a few preliminary categorizations.
For the completed feature map depicted above, I started by identifying probable residences. While road proximity and its position within a particularly sheltered area of the farmstead were helpful hints, the primary tip offs were the gabled extensions of the roof on the western and southern aspects of the structure (see right-side of photo below)–a trait not commonly seen on non-residential farm buildings. I applied the term outbuilding in the case of seemingly non-residential structures associated with the house to avoid over-interpreting from the limited information available.
Aerial in vicinity of northern farmstead (1956).
Other features were relatively straightforward to identify. The consistent spacing of the twelve trees on the eastern side side of the feature cluster seemed to clearly indicate the presence of an orchard, and a silo seemed the only reasonable explanation for the cylindrical feature adjacent to the large structure east of the orchard.
Screenshot of icon for ‘add field’ tool in layer attribute table.
With informed characterizations of various features established, you can turn to adding this additional information to the layer’s attribute table. Select the layer name in QGIS and right click, and then select the “open attribute table” option. From there add a new field, select ‘text-string’ when prompted to provide a field type, and name it something along the lines of ‘feature category’. From there, categorize each individual feature in a way that makes sense for you and the task at hand.
From here, you can begin to change the appearance of each individual feature category in order produce a map that allows viewers to quickly distinguish between them. To begin this step, double click on the layer name in QGIS to bring up the ‘layer properties’ window, select the ‘symbology tab,’ and change the field that says ‘single symbol’ to ‘categorized’. Below this, select the ‘feature category’ field for the ‘Value’ entry, and then hit the ‘Classify’ button at the bottom of the window, which will automatically generate color symbols for each category. By double-clicking each category entry in the same window, you can customize the color used for each. When you’re done, click on the ‘OK’ button and examine the resulting changes to the stylization of features, going back to the symbology dialog as necessary to make adjustments. A more complete guide to layer stylization is available here.
Screenshot depicting the completed ‘symbology’ tab of the layer properties window.
Chittenden Hall, current home of The Graduate School. At the time of photo, Chittenden was the Department of Forestry. Photo courtesy of the MSU University Archives & Historical Collections. As it stands today, graduate education makes up a substantial and integral part of Michigan State …