Protecting Michigan State's Material Culture
By Madelyn McKinney During the hectic summer of 2020, CAP Crew had the opportunity to excavate sections of a mid-twentieth century midden uncovered by water main replacement construction along Service Road, a thoroughfare running east to west through the southern half of campus. Landfills, of …
By Rylee LaLonde Got Milk? Students at the Island School certainly did, delivered fresh daily in glass bottles! During the summer of 2025, Michigan State University’s (MSU) Campus Archaeology Program (CAP) excavated what was once the Island School, now a farm field. Among the artifacts …
By Madelyn McKinney and Andrew Kracinski
The Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory (MAC Lab) has, for many years now, explored the uses of radiography (the imaging technique that produces x-rays) in archaeological artifact curation, conservation, and research. Available online, Sarah Rivers Cofield and Nichole Doub’s An Archaeologists Guide to X-Radiography at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory (2020) is an easily accessible resource detailing the MAC Lab’s procedures and findings related to radiography. This guidebook describes the process of planning, taking, and analyzing x-rays—informing readers about x-ray settings, accommodations for various levels of artifact corrosion and preservation, and the incorporation of radiography usage into project plans and budgets. Excitingly, the guidebook is filled with photographs and x-rays of a variety of artifacts: ferrous blobs that were discovered to be clothing hooks or scissors; reliquary pendants and locks with interesting internal details; pistols and muskets still loaded with ammunition; and of course, large assemblages of ferrous nails (which sometimes turn out to be more exciting than expected!).
The main point that the MAC Lab guidebook makes is this: radiography is cheaper, easier, and more accessible than most archaeologists realize––meaning that it has amazing potential for aiding in cataloging and identifying ferrous metal artifacts that may otherwise be overlooked or disregarded. After learning about radiography in this way, a few of our CAP fellows decided to put its accessibility to the test––would we be able to gain access to a radiography machine (and the training necessary to use it) on campus? And if so, would we be able to learn anything new about CAP’s collections from it?
The answer to the first question, as you might expect given this blog post’s topic, is yes! Starting in the Summer of 2025, two of us CAP fellows began working with the MSU Forensic Anthropology Lab (MSUFAL), where we received training, from Dr. Carolyn Isaac, in using an x-ray machine. The training consisted of two major components: an online “Clinical X-Ray Radiation Safety” module as well as an in-person “Site-Specific Safety Training.” The online training was broad, focusing on the hazards inherent in radiological work, while the site-specific training taught us about actually operating the machine and adjusting its settings based upon our needs. After completing our training, we each received a dosimeter badge: a small device that tracks how much radiation exposure a person experiences while working with x-ray machines or other substances that emit radiation. These ensure our safety––and are also a satisfying material symbol of the training we underwent in order to delve into this project.
We should probably take a moment to explain the reasoning behind using radiography on metal artifacts. In archaeological contexts, metal artifacts often rust over by the time that archaeologists uncover them in the field. While this rust can preserve the general shape of the object (and often times the object itself), it can also lead to the misidentification of artifacts during lab analysis. For instance, we may say that a ferrous metal object is one thing (like a nail), when in reality it is a completely different object. An additional concern is the fact that archaeologists generally collect more items than they actually need, presenting storage problems. For example, not every nail collected needs to be stored in a collection, especially if there are already many examples of that specific type of nail within the collection. X-raying the ferrous metal objects can help solve both of these problems by revealing what an object is––which then informs and impacts our conservation and collection efforts.
After learning how to use the x-ray machine safely (and doing the MSUFAL lab safety training), we began examining a variety of metals––from nails to a squeegee (see Figure 1)! Since the artifacts we examined had already gone through lab analysis in our CAP lab, we mainly used this as a baseline for learning the methodology needed for examining the metal artifacts. That said, we nonetheless learned a few things about the objects that we have in our collection, from their metal compositions to their actual identities.
With the advice and assistance of Dr. Samantha Ellens (Archaeological Collections Manager at the MSU Museum), we also x-rayed a few artifacts from the MSU Museum’s collections during our preliminary trials with the x-ray machine. Two of these were historic firearms that had never been x-rayed to ensure that they were empty of ammunition, as they were encrusted with rust and recovered from an archaeological context. Our main goal in examining them, therefore, was to make sure that they were unloaded and posed no hidden danger to our museum staff. Fortunately, both were empty––and they allowed us to gain an interesting look into the internal components of these items.
While we have figured out the most pressing issue of discovering the proper settings on the x-ray machine for the types of artifacts we are examining (as each object type, density, and shape is different), a few problems with the collection have complicated our results. Ideally, x-raying metal artifacts for conservation purposes should take place before they enter a collection and receive any touch ups in the lab. Because all of the objects that we analyzed have already been through the cleaning process, we have not been able to test the full potential of using radiography on the CAP collection. That said, we hope to use artifacts from future field seasons as a test to further prove the utility of this methodology. Stay tuned for future updates!
Well, it’s been a long summer, but we’re going to get in the spirit of Spooky Season with the follow-up everyone has been waiting for: what is the CAPacabra? If you missed Part 1, the CAPacabra is a mummified animal discovered in the ceiling of …
Happy Fall everyone! We are excited to announce that we will hosting Apparitions & Archaeology a Haunted Tour event this October! This event has been a long standing collaboration between the Campus Archaeology Program and the undergraduate Paranormal Society at MSU. Come join us to …
My name is Jerielle and I’m a first year CAP fellow, working on my PhD in forensic anthropology. I have an undergraduate degree in biology and a masters degree in forensic anthropology. Unlike many other CAP fellows, my interests lean more towards (human) skeletal anatomy and development rather than historical artefacts. Fortunately, we do have one mysterious animal haunting the CAP lab.
The CAPacabra is a mummified animal that was discovered in the ceiling of Cook Hall in May of 2018. Cook Hall was first built in 1889 as the Entomology Building of “Laboratory Row” on West Circle. It was named Cook Hall in 1969 after Albert J. Cook, a prominent entomologist who graduated from Michigan Agricultural College (now MSU) in 1862. In 2018, the building was renamed the Cook-Seever Hall, in recognition of MSU graduate Gary L. Seevers who donated $3 million to support the building’s renovation. This renovation added an elevator and accessible entrance, as well as restoring the ceilings, walls, and lighting. It was during this renovation that the CAPacabra was discovered.
Otherwise, we don’t know much about our mummified friend! In fact, what animal it even is has been debated. Although there is a 3D model on SketchFab calling it an opossum, others argue it may be a large rat, or even a small dog or cat.
There are two parts to finding out what animal the CAPacabra is: gross (large-scale) anatomy, and radiographic (x-ray) analysis.
The CAPacabra is a quadruped, approximately 1 foot long including its tail. The tissues that remain are extremely dry and brittle, with a texture more similar to old leaves than actual skin. What’s particularly interesting to me is that our friend is hairless. While it’s not surprising that they would have lost their hair over the years as the soft tissues dried, I would have expected some traces to remain behind in the ears or other small crevices. This was not the case!
In some places, the dried tissues have flaked away to show the underlying bones. Between these exposed bones and the remaining teeth, we can get a rough estimate of the animal’s age. And once we know if we’re looking at a juvenile or adult animal, we can do some comparisons to see which of our contenders are (or are not) possible answers.
Bones grow with the individual, so they develop in separate parts which fuse when the animal has reached skeletal maturity. In humans, we can use this epiphyseal union to estimate the age of the individual. I don’t need to know what age the CAPacabra is specifically. Instead, I’m looking for fused bones (reached skeletal maturity) versus unfused bones (did not reach skeletal maturity).
We have two lines that are visible through the remaining tissue. The first (left) is at the distal end of the tibia (shinbone), while the second (right) is the distal end of the femur (thigh bone). Both of these lines are really close to fusing, but they’re still visible. This means that the CAPacabra was close to, but didn’t quite reach, skeletal maturity.
Another thing we can look at is dental development. Just like humans, animal dentition develops as they do. An animal with close-to-adult bones should have close-to-adult or even fully-adult teeth. There appears to be a mostly full set of teeth present. Of course, I’m not a zoologist, so while I suspect these are adult teeth, I won’t know until we get to the radiographic analysis. There is always the (slight) possibility that they are deciduous teeth and the permanent dentition just hasn’t come in yet.
This is a pretty slim chance though, and the reason why is…we have a second CAPacabra! Our completely mummified friend here was not the only mummy recovered from the ceiling during the restoration. We also have the mummified skull of a similar animal. I’m going to make a judgement call and say: similar dentition, similar ears and facial structures, recovered together from the same building at the same time? They probably are associated, and we can probably work under the belief that they are the same species. Which means that we can use CAPacabra Junior as a reference for what juvenile dentition would look like: there are several teeth just peeking out behind others in figure 3 (right image, red arrows), which tells us that this particular individual was still losing deciduous teeth (aka milk teeth).
Why do we want to know a general age in order to figure out the species? Some animals (including humans) have juvenile bones that can look quite different from the adult version, but a lot of comparative osteology reference texts use images of adult animals. I want to make sure I’m comparing apples to apples.
For the gross comparison, I’m consulting Comparative osteology: A laboratory and field guide of common North American animals by Adams and Crabtree (2012). This field reference gives images of common animal bones for comparison. We know that the CAPacabra is pretty small, so dog, raccoon, opossum, and cat were the most relevant. What’s really cool is that they also have comparative images online, so you can check them out too!
The CAPacabra has sharp carnivore teeth and a high, pronounced forehead. The opossum has a much pointer snout and maxillae, along with smaller teeth overall. It’s probably not an opossum, despite what we’ve been guessing for years. Cat skulls are actually really small and blunt, with very reduced maxillae meaning almost no actual snout. They also have much fewer teeth than our mystery fried. It’s probably not a cat. While the Adams and Crabtree (2012) text doesn’t have rat skulls for reference, the CAPacabra would have to be a real ROUS to be a match for our individual.
Which leaves dog and raccoon. The skull that Adams and Crabtree use for the raccoon example is missing a lot of dentition which I would have liked to use. So while the slope of the forehead isn’t quite right here, I don’t want to rule out raccoon just yet. I also can’t rule out dog, since the teeth have similarly sharp cusps, and the forehead is similarly sloped. The point that I’m stuck on at the moment is the fact that the CAPacabra has more of an angle to the forehead than our raccoon example, but is missing the sagittal crest in the dog example.
My next step is to take some xrays of our CAPacabra. I don’t think I can see enough of the postcranial bones to make a more definitive call from just the gross anatomy. I especially want to look at the skull for dentition and the presence (or absence) of that sagittal crest. I also want a closer look at the front paws, because those seem more like raccoon hands than dog paws.
But I am happy at this point that I can tell fellow CAP members that they are wrong about it being an opossum. Raccoon makes sense as a match for our friend, since they’re more likely to find their way into weird places, like a ceiling. If the CAPacabra ends up being a dog, I have some serious follow-up questions.
What do you think? Are there any other species I should consider? Is there something I should reconsider?
Look out for Part 2, where I’ll report on the results of the radiography!
By Aubree Marshall and Benjamin Akey Sometimes, when archaeologists are lucky, we run into botanical remains. In my personal research, I look at microbotanicals (like pollen, starches, and phytoliths) from dental calculus (the stuff your dental hygienist scrapes off of your teeth!) to understand diet. …
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 …
One of the most exciting things about archaeology is that you never know what you’ll find until you start digging, and sometimes you don’t know what you find when you find it, and that is exactly the case with this discovery. While digging the shovel test affectionately named “M-4”, my groupmates (Madison Brown and Josephine Cowles) and I came across a small, shiny circular artifact that I thought may be a coin. Upon closer inspection and a light dusting off, it clearly wasn’t a coin, as it lacked any sign of relief marks, felt too light and thin, and had a gaping hole in the center of it. My groupmates and I bounced ideas back and forth on what it might be, even enlisting the help of our professor, Dr. Camp, and PhD student Gabrielle Moran eventually settling on a washer as being most likely. The image below is shovel test “M-4.”
There was only one problem with this theory in my mind: that this washer didn’t appear to be made of metal, plastic, or rubber like all the other washers I had previously encountered. We determined that the washer was made of mica, which was interesting to me as I had never heard of washers being made of mica. So, the first thing I did was look up if mica washers even existed, and low and behold, they did, being a preferred washer for electrical work as it has “excellent electrical properties and high heat resistance” (Medium). So, it’s a super cool find, but unfortunately, it seems unlikely that it would be connected to the observatory site or any building in that area. The image below is our mica washer.
So why would I choose to blog about this find if it isn’t directly connected to the observatory? I found the process of identifying this artifact fascinating. From the first moment of finding the washer and thinking it may be a coin to learning about the special qualities of mica, it was an extremely exciting process. The most surprising part about the process to me was how important communicating and bouncing ideas off multiple people was to identify artifacts. Witnessing and engaging in this process alleviated one of the big concerns that I had entering this field school and archaeology in general, that I wouldn’t be able to identify the artifacts that we were discovering. It also showed me in real time how important it is to have people from different backgrounds and perspectives involved in the archaeological process, as you never know when an experience, hobby, or special interest is going to come in handy.
This process of consensus building was used with every unique artifact or feature we found at the observatory site. For example, one of the projects’ first big finds, a lead pipe in the east wall of the observatory, was weighed in on by students, faculty, professional archaeologists, MSU IPF workers, utility locators, and others. While we are still yet to discover exactly what the pipe was used for, it was interesting to see the process of communication and cooperation extended to anyone who could potentially share insight into the artifact, not just those of us working at the site. This field school has taught me that you don’t need to be an expert in every kind of artifact to be successful in archaeology, but you do need to be willing to reach out to people who may know more about something than you. Below is an image of the lead pipe in the eastern wall of the observatory.
References
Mixa, Axim. “Mica Washers: A Brief Introduction and Their Applications.” Medium, Medium, 14 Nov. 2022, medium.com/@aximmicaus/mica-washers-a-brief-introduction-and-their-applications-fcba4b9b48b0.
Hello, my name is Josie Cowles and I am a junior here at MSU currently working with the MSU Campus Archaeology Program (CAP) to excavate the old MSU observatory. The foundation was found by the CAP crew in May of 2023, and has been the …