Citation
Medical and Healthcare Issues in 19th and Early 20th Century America: Bottle Analysis

Material Information

Title:
Medical and Healthcare Issues in 19th and Early 20th Century America: Bottle Analysis
Creator:
Cottrill, Casey Lynn
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
African American studies ( jstor )
African Americans ( jstor )
Bottles ( jstor )
Datasets ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Health care industry ( jstor )
Historical archaeology ( jstor )
Irish immigration ( jstor )
Saloons ( jstor )
Skunks ( jstor )
Bottles
Medical care
Nineteenth century
Twentieth century
Genre:
Undergraduate Honors Thesis

Notes

Abstract:
The original intention of this thesis was to create a cross comparison of medicinal usage across the United States throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries between differing ethnic populations. As a proxy for the access to and utilization of health care, glass bottles were used that originally would have held medicines. Based on the wealth of written materials, bottle catalogs, and established forms of glassware across sites within the field of historical archaeology, the assumption was that this study would be a relatively straightforward comparative exercise that would allow for trends in medicinal usage to be seen across time, space and ethnic backgrounds. These assumptions could not have been any less straightforward. Vast differences in field excavation methodologies, sampling, artifact classification, artifact identification and analysis, and data presentation, confounded what was initially presumed to be an easy task. As a result, this thesis changed its focus and became more suited to serving as a critique of the current lack of standards within the field of historical archaeology. The primary objective was to show the variation within methodologies and artifact classification systems, data collection and interpretation, differing data set constructions, as well as the veracity of the conclusions between comparative analyses. ( en )
General Note:
Awarded Bachelor of Arts; Graduated May 3, 2011 summa cum laude. Major: Anthropology
General Note:
Advisor: James M. Davidson
General Note:
College/School: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Casey Lynn Cottrill. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
April 20, 2011
WMm:
:• :: • , • . 'V:
f ' •
Casey L.
Cottrill
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND
SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF THE ARTS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2011


Casey L. Cottrill
Medical and Health Issues in 19th and Early 20th Century America
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet pg 1
Abstract pg 3
Introduction pg 4
Literature Review pg 7
Methodology pg 10
Problems or Limitations pg 10
Site Comparisons pg 18
Analysis pg 25
Discussion pg 28
Conclusions pg 30
Bibliography pg 31
Appendix pg 33
% of Medicine Bottles Per Site pg 33
Site Occupation pg 34
Totals pg 35
Chinatown pg 36
Five Points pg 37
William Carey Barton Household pg 38
Fanthorp Inn pg 38
Sebastopol pg 39
Skunk Hollow pg 40
Paterson's Dublin pg 40
Page | 2


Casey L. Cottri 11
Abstract:
The original intention of this thesis was to create a cross comparison of
medicinal usage across the United States throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries between differing ethnic populations. As a proxy for the access to and
utilization of health care, glass bottles were used that originally would have held
medicines. Based on the wealth of written materials, bottle catalogues, and established
forms of glassware across sites within the field of historical archaeology, the assumption
was that this study would be a relatively straightforward comparative exercise that
would allow for trends in medicinal usage to be seen across time, space and ethnic
backgrounds.
These assumptions could not have been any less straightforward. Vast
differences in field excavation methodologies, sampling, artifact classification, artifact
identification and analysis, and data presentation, confounded what was initially
presumed to be an easy task. As a result, this thesis changed its focus and became more
suited to serving as a critique of the current lack of standards within the field of
historical archaeology. The primary objective was to show the variation within
methodologies and artifact classification systems, data collection and interpretation,
differing data set constructions, as well as the veracity of the conclusions between
comparative analyses.


Casey L. Cottrill
Introduction:
Finding a tried and true method or standard for interpreting history can be
challenging. Even when grappling with a question that seems straightforward,
challenges in interpretation begin to crop up and a whole new set of questions follow in
their wake. In trying to research a pattern of medicinal usage between sites of differing
ethnic backgrounds across the United States during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, inconsistencies in the preservation of historical records came to be a topic of
concern, the inspiration for this study was a mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth
century African American archaeological site at the Wayman A.M.E. Church in
Bloomington, Illinois, whose researchers focused on the disproportionately large
amount of medicinal artifacts recovered (Cabak 1995: 66). The researchers interpreted
this large assemblage to healthcare discrimination against African Americans which was
why the church itself became the repository for its African American parishioners.
Interestingly, further research revealed a similar study, conducted with some of the
artifacts recovered from the excavations at the Five Points in New York circa 1800-1880
(Brighton 2009: 132-148). The material gathered at the Five Points has been interpreted
as healthcare discrimination against Irish Catholic immigrants (Brighton 2009: 133). This
thesis aims at examining the patterns that were used to show healthcare discrimination
at the Wayman A.M.E. Church and the Five Points and making cross comparisons
between these findings and the findings at other nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries sites of varying ethnic backgrounds across the country.


Casey L. Coltrill
The field of archaeology provides a unique way to study the use of medicinal
cures and practices through time, but it is not the only or most typical way to pursue
these ideas. Historians and Demographers have critically analyzed the written accounts
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to provide a more comprehensive
picture of the past. A great deal of their research material can be gained from primary
and secondary source materials such as store records, medical school program studies,
pharmaceutical advertisements, and other such written documents or sometimes oral
accounts that pertain to this topic of interest (Marius 1995: 1, 14, 30, 86). These
resources are invaluable in the study of the archaeological material that is collected and
analyzed as they support the evidence that is collected and help to provide a solid
historical context for the documents themselves. Even within the field of archaeology
itself, efforts can be made to view the effects of medicinal practices throughout history
through the study of bioarchaeology. The importance that is placed upon the study of
human remains by biological archaeologists can show a physical record the types of
procedures that were undertaken or administered to those in need of a doctor's care.
The analysis of some human remains can show a lack of dental care, such as the
example of dental caries (Larsen 1997: 65), or the use of extreme surgical procedures in
the recovered remains (Larsen 1997: 152). Sill other sets of remains can sometimes be
tested for long time drug use or different disease types, like tuberculosis, that may have
been commonly treated during a given time period (Larsen 1997: 93-106). Each of these
methods have their obvious strengths and flaws but the focus of this study is to examine
the way in which the archaeological investigation of domestic sites can show evidence


Casey L. Cottrill
of medicinal use and treatment, primarily through an analysis of the recorded bottle
assemblages. It is through the examination of these bottles that the presence of
different forms of medicine can be identified and used for later diachronic patterns, as
well as trends based within ethnicity or class/status research and study.
Within the greater research of different historical sites from nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, the analysis of glass bottles can aid in the recovery of
medicinal usage information. Across American sites of varying ethnic origins, status
levels, and overall locations, it is expected that a pattern of medicinal usage could be
formulated. However, the ways in which Historical Archaeologists present their artifact
analysis can be problematic for cross site comparisons. The complete lack of official
standards of artifact analysis makes it so that at one site a certain set of artifacts can be
classified as medicinal while at another the interpreter may omit some of the artifacts or
place them in categories other than those specifically dedicated to medicine or
completely ignore specific categories. With these and many other anomalies, the
research then lends itself best as a critique of the analytical and preservation based
records of glass bottle typologies within the field of Historical Archeology.


Casey L. Cottrill
Literature Review:
When examining the study of bottles, within the context of historical
archaeology, there appears to be a significant amount of latitude in an archaeologists'
given presentation of analysis. As the field of historical archaeology itself stretches over
such a broad period of time (historical period to present age) all of the data sets have to
be presented and managed according to their own unique factors. For the most part,
historical archaeologists rely on adapting the typology models created by Stanley South
in the 1960's to fit their analysis. Along with South's pioneering achievements in ceramic
pattern analysis, he also divided his assemblage into meaningful subsets that were
based on function and activity areas. The eight artifact groups that he utilized were
specific to a British-American colonial artifact classification system: Kitchen,
Architecture, Furniture, Arms, Clothing, Personal, Tobacco Pipes, and Activities (South
1977: 93). These groupings allowed for more specific forms of pattern and use analysis
across a given assemblage.
As mentioned before, South's artifact groups have been utilized and adapted by
other historical archaeologists to suit the specific needs of their site interpretation. This
means that some of South's categories may be omitted, changed, revised or given more
detail depending on the needs of the analyst. However, there is no consensus on
specific categories or groups that could be used across all of the sites included in
historical archaeology. This means that the varied interpretations make it difficult to
compare across sites or time periods based off of the way the archaeologists decided to
present their information. Progressively though, the attention to detail within


Casey L. Cottrill
archaeological reports and analysis has been seen to be increasing. A good example of a
detailed listing of functional categories can be found in the 1982 publication by Joan
Geismar on her excavation of Skunk I lollow, a historic African American community
dating from 1806 1880 in rural New Jersey. The categories, straight forward data
interpretation, and multiple ways of presenting her findings make her work readily
accessible and easy to understand. Geismar settled on these functional categories:
Leather Fragments; Faunal Material; Coal, Plaster Fragments; Bricks; Glass Fragments;
Ceramics; Metal Fragments; Miscellaneous Cloth Remnants, Mortar, Combs, Buttons,
and Stone; and General Miscellany. (Geismar 1982: 107) An example of how the
breakdown of these groupings help to separate out relevant artifact material can be
shown by the way she uses her Glass Fragments category to show all of her relevant
glass artifacts. The overall heading of Glass Fragments contains within it categories of
minimum number of bottles, window glass, tableware, lamps, miscellaneous bottle
glass, and unidentified glass fragments (Geismar 1982: 127). Geismar then proceeds to
further simplify the miscellaneous bottle category by creating subcategories: alcoholic
beverages, nonalcoholic beverages, medicine, food, miscellaneous, and modern
beverages (Geismar 1982: 137). Furthermore, she supports the numbers represented in
her bottle categories by listing the types, date ranges, numerical quantities, and
locations that most of the bottles are found in (Geismar 1982: 130). Along with other
supporting graphs and raw data listed in her appendices, the information that is
presented can be easily interpreted and her methodologies verified so that another
researcher could use Geismar's data for their own comparisons.
Page | 8


Casey L. Cottrill
By continuing to define and refine artifact categories, an overall site analysis can
be represented and supported by its artifact assemblage. Narrowed glass categories
provide examples of specific bottle types, use patterns, dates of this type of
manufacture, and other valuable information. It is only through an analysis with well
defined categories that someone other than the original archaeologist or analyst can
have access to almost raw data on artifact assemblages that can then be interpreted in
ways other than those discussed by the original researcher. When analyzing the relative
amounts, types, and functions of bottle assemblages across sites the categories used by
Geismar and other archaeologists or analysts that use a variation of South's work, are
the most accessible ways to use recorded information but they are not the only ways.
Some archaeologist present their groupings and also provide lists of the specific types
and analysis of each individual bottle recovered to provide specificity and provenience.
This also lends support to any further analysis or interpretation that can be deduced
based on the numbers of particular artifacts.


Casey ICottrill
Methodology:
Problems or Limitations
The classification system utilCed in glass bottle analysis from nine different sites
from varying locations and ethnic backgrounds across the United States was examined
during this study. What had initially seemed like a straightforward comparison became a
jumble of interpretation differences and indefinable anomalies. Each of these sites were
selected based on their partial or complete focus on glass bottles in their analysis, in
particular the medicine bottles. It was expected that potential patterns in medicinal
usage could tentatively be seen and that this would lead to a greater understanding of
the access to and patronage of packaged medicinal treatments during this period.
However, for every site there was a different way of both classifying the material culture
and presenting the artifact analysis; it was a challenge to weed out the patterns of
anomalies within the archaeologist's interpretations of their own sites. Each site fits the
time period of nineteenth to early twentieth century deposits and most sites have a
focus on an ethnic minority group during this time period.
The nineteenth to early twentieth centuries sites that are used in this study were
selected because of their differing ethnicities as well as their record of glass bottles
within their respective assemblages. The Boston Saloon (Dixon 2002) from Virginia City,
Nevada, which spans from the 1860's to the 1870's, was an African American business
site. Other African American sites that were used for the purposes of this project
included the Wayman A.M.E. Church from Bloomington, Illinois (mid to late nineteenth
century to the early twentieth century), the William Carey Barton Family site also from
Page| 10


Casey L. Cottrill
Bloomington, Illinois (1860's to 1890's), and the site of Skunk Hollow from New Jersey
(1806-1880). The site of Chinatown in Los Angeles, California (Greenwood 1996), spans
from 1880 to 1933 and was focused on the Chinese community dwelling this large city.
The Five Points site in New York (Yamin 2000), spans from 1800 1880 and also displays
an immigrant population within a large city, specifically Irish immigrants. Another site
that contained Irish immigrant population was Paterson's Dublin (De Cunzo 1982)
spanning from 1829 to 1915, with a privy cross comparison of Irish versus Euroamerican
cultural material. A second Euroamerican site from Texas, the Fanthorp Inn (Sauer
1998), spanned from 1834 to 1935. The ninth site that was used in this study was
Sebastopol (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998), also from Texas, which was a French immigrant
site spanning from 1856/6 to 1908. Each of these sites will be discussed in more detail in
the following paragraphs (refer to Appendix pg for Site Occupation Table).
A critical problem within the cross site comparisons was the lack of
standardization in artifact analysis and classification. Again, this most likely a result of
the broad time period that that is covered by historical and the need for flexibility when
interpreting its unique sites across time. However, some sort of standardization or
model needs to be upheld in order to present relevant data that can be reused in other
studies. Otherwise, the data that is collected at a given site can only be analyzed in
reference to that site alone, and does not allow for an accurate interpretation on a
larger scale.
Around 90% of historical archaeology is excavated by Cultural Resource
Management contract archaeologists and the firms that they work for. The reports that


Casey L. Cottrill
are generated as a result of these excavations generally are not encompassing, nor
highly particular regarding the detailed specifics about many of their findings.
Understandably there is not enough funding or time to create exhaustive accounts of all
the sites that fall under the purview of CRM, but a classification system that could be
utilized across their excavations would make interpreting their data sets across sites
more meaningful. Creating a standard of artifact interpretation and analysis could make
the time spent trying to come up with creative ways to show artifact patterning much
more efficient and could speed the process along nicely. This would also allow others
that review the material presented by contract archaeologists for further study to have
a consistent means of interpreting information across a variety of sites.
Of the sites selected for this thesis, the Five Points, Chinatown, and Paterson's
Dublin were all excavated by Cultural Resource Management teams or funding. This
example can begin illustrate the incredible influence that CRM has in the field of
historical archaeology. Some of these sites were excavated in order to make way for
new construction projects such as the Chinatown excavation in Los Angeles, for a new
Metro Rail line (Greenwood 1996: 3). As a result, only sampling is conducted, entire
sites are not excavated and many times the areas that are excavated may or may not be
key features or even the most important features of a site. Other sites are excavated
because they are owned by state parks and their preservation is important for
increasing visitation to the park, such as the Fanthorp Inn site in Texas (Sauer 1998: 1-4).
Differences in importance and funding have made excavations more intensive or less
depending on the circumstances surrounding the site itself. The site at Five Points in


Casey I.. Colin 11
New York has the largest and most exhaustive artifact assemblage in my sample, while
smaller grant and organization funded sites like the William Carey Barton Family home
in Bloomington, Illinois, is specific to one family and therefore has limited artifact
quantities (Jelks 1996: VI).
When the sites themselves were compared the anomalies within their respective
analyses became a reoccurring problem for this study. Limiting factors such as all
inclusive categories, unknown or unidentified glass remnants, discrepancies between
counting whole or fragmentary bottles, and many others became difficult to account
for. Also, complete omission of glassware analysis or quantities for certain sites made it
severely limiting if not impossible to include them in this study. For example, the Boston
Saloon, which was an African American business in Virginia City, Nevada, dating from
the 1860's to 1870's excavated by Kelly Dixon (Dixon 2002: I), was interesting to read
but contained no quantifiable data that could be used in this study. Dixon discussed
unique bottle patterning, but used unquantifiable terminology and provided no data
sets that would have allowed someone else to utilize her findings. Dixon provided only a
few references to numerical data of any kind and these had no support as she failed to
provide any overall artifact totals or types. The level of detail she provides is
frustratingly limited, for example, "25% of all bottles were green bottles" Dixon (2002:
81), and there were 'numerous' medicinal bottles (Dixon 2002: 93), while interesting,
this level of detail provides unusable data for this study. The Wayman A.M.E Church site
in Bloomington, Illinois (Cabak 1995: 55) has a similar lack of usable data but for an
entirely different reason. The article in which this site's highly selective artifact analysis


Casey L. Cottrill
is published specifically focuses on the large presence of medicinal usage bottles that
were present due to healthcare discrimination against African Americans. The
archaeologists only presented information regarding the analysis of these medicinal
bottles and did not provide any further details of any other bottles recovered, nor were
they over-exhaustive in explaining just what criterion were used to determine which
bottles were placed into the medicinal categories. This makes recreating their
methodology and using the results of their analysis as a comparative extremely difficult
and basically only applicable to the report that they published.
Differences in the methods of recording analyzed bottles for different
assemblages made deciding what could and could not be utilized a difficult challenge.
Small assemblages, such as the William Carey Barton Family site (Jelks 1996: V, 13), have
limited numbers of artifacts so specifics are crucial to the interpretation. The categories
and subcategories for this site were especially well done and instead of simply listing
numbers of items the names and analysis of each artifact was recorded. By showing
what was embossed on the bottles or their general form, other archaeologists are able
to utilize these data and apply it to their own categories and typologies. The level of
specificity was also useful for making cross comparisons between sites in an accurate
way. Flowever, sometimes listing the analyzed bottles can become problematic as some
archaeologists will only have time to analyze some of the bottles or not many of them
are easily definable and only those that are will be recorded. This was the problem at
the Fanthorp Inn site, as only 2% of the total glass artifacts recovered were able to be
analyzed (Sauer 1998: 45). This method, although sometimes unavoidable, limits the


Casey L. Collrill
interpretation of a site as well as an overall picture of lifeways patterns as 98% of an
entire artifact category cannot be included in the analysis. Only whole or marked bottles
that could clearly be identified were included in the Fanthorp Inn assemblage.
Within the other small to mid range artifact assemblages examined for this
study, there were differing methods of recovery and analysis, even when the reports
and excavations were performed by the same archaeologist. Sandra Sauer wrote the
excavation reports for the both the Fanthorp Inn and Sebastopol sites. Her report of
Sebastopol was published only 5 months after the Fanthorp Inn excavation report in
January of 1998 (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998; Sauer 1998). Some of the methodology and
artifact categories utilized are identical, but there are some obvious discrepancies
between the two reports that can make some cross comparisons difficult. For each site
there are a list of tables that account for the numerical amount (unknown whether
fragmentary, whole, or other condition) of the artifacts for each of her categories. These
numbers are useful for general quantity amounts or frequency but contain no specifics
and therefore cannot be analyzed any further. The analysis of Sebastopol's artifact
assemblage contains a brief write up of each of her categories, separately, and lists
many of the particulars about the artifacts that were found. I lowever, the artifacts
discussed in these writings do not match the numbers used in her 'totals' charts, nor do
they include some of the artifacts that are currently on display at Sebastopol (Sauer &
Brandimarte 1998: 187). So there is no way to account for the missing pieces of
contextual information nor can each of these categories be completely reconciled. Also,


Casey L. Collrill
the rather vague recovery areas such as 'kitchen' and 'room' make it difficult at times to
come up with a workable context or placement for the artifacts that were recovered.
The two large site assemblages examined were the Five Points (Yamin 2000:
Volume 1) and Los Angeles Chinatown (Greenwood 1996: 109 133, 171 188) sites.
Having access to a large amount of analyzed data makes the comparisons and relative
percentages all the more accurate. Problems associated with the site analysis at
Chinatown were similar to those at Fanthorp Inn (Sauer 1998:43), only the whole and or
clearly marked bottles were recorded and analyzed. For the purpose of this study, only
the features that dealt with refuse disposal were analyzed and only the glass bottles
were examined. The names and any analytical details, including the date range for
which each bottle could have been manufactured, were included in a long list by the
name of the artifact recovered. Most of these were embossed bottles, with the majority
falling into the medicinal bitters category. There was no representation of Chinese
herbal and traditional medicines within this bottle assemblage. However, the report
made mention, "that there was a minimum of 666 typable whole or nearly intact small
glass containers that held pills and powders... the total exceeded 695" Greenwood
(1996, 111). At Five Points (Yamin 2000: Volume 1) the anomalies were similar but still
unique in their own way. The features that were examined for the purposes of this study
were D, B, J (III and V), Z, AF, N, O, AK (IV and I), AL (II and I), Al, H (II and IV), AG, and
AN. Large scale excavations were recorded and analyzed which provided large amounts
of artifacts and an in depth view of what life must have been like for the people that
lived in Five Points, New York from 1800-1880. Only the features that had glass artifact


Casey ICottrill
analysis and were trash deposit areas were looked at for the purposes of this study, as
there was such a wealth of material to analyze. Within the glass analysis charts created
for the analyzed features, there were only a few categories that could be utilized in this
study. There was no master list of bottle analysis with the names of each embossed
label or manufacturer's mark, so the artifact numbers had to come directly from the
analysis of others and their own categorical choices. The 'other' categories, which
seemed to be a catch-all for unidentifiable bottles, could not be included because it
didn't list them specifically as bottles, just as 'other'. Of the seventeen features
examined for this study, only four were looked at in detail, primarily due to the
medicinal analysis performed by Stephen Brighton who deliberately did not include all
of the bottles in these features {refer to Five Points Graph Appendix pg ) and he also
included glass jars in his data set.
The last two sites that were examined were Skunk Hollow (Geismar 1982) and
Paterson's Dublin (De Cunzo 1982). These sites do not have similar artifact analysis,
methodology, classification, or data presentation, but they add to the greater
perspective of how bottles are analyzed in the field of historical archeology. Skunk
Hollow was recorded as part of a doctoral dissertation and appears to be well
documented and presents multiple variations of data entry analysis. Recovered artifact
material was presented in multiple forms to allow for a more accessible model of
interpretation, as well as the ability to recreate the methodology utilized by the
archaeologist. However, some of the information that is presented is listed as
incomplete (e.g. table 4.11, see Geismar 1982: 130-132). This means that although some


Casey L. Collrill
of the bottles are listed and detailed, not all of them are accounted for. Geismar's Table
3 (Geismar 1982: 246) was used as the complete list of glass bottle analysis, with
reference to table 4.11 to rule out as many jars as possible. Some of the categories that
were utilized by Geismar for artifact analysis became confusing as there were
combination categories that also had their own separate categories, such as
bitters/whiskey and medicine/perfume, so these categories could not be accounted for.
At Paterson's Dublin (De Cunzo 1982: 9-25), two privies were excavated to provide a
cross comparison between a Euroamerican family deposit and a mixture of immigrant
deposits. There was very little specific information and the comparisons included very
broad categories of unanalyzed bottles. While there were a couple of useful categories,
it is difficult to say how they classified each of these categories without mentioning
bottle specifics, or stating whether these were whole or fragmentary bottles.
Site Comparisons-
Once the anomalies within the artifact analyses could at least partially be
accounted for, a cross comparison of the medicinal usages between the sites can be
tentatively drawn. As the focus was to bring in a grouping of ethnic minority sites, there
is a predominant focus on cultural backgrounds for site selection. The Wayman A.M.E.
Church, Skunk Hollow, the Boston Saloon, and the William Carey Barton Family are all
African American occupations of public buildings. Fanthorp Inn and part of Paterson's
Dublin focus on Euroamerican sites. The Eos Angeles Chinatown, Five Points, Sebastopol
and part of Paterson's Dublin sites represent immigrant sites. As a result of the
numerous variables in artifact recording, analysis, and time period, among others, the


Casey I.. Collrill
comparisons between these sites are limited, lacks substantial support for definitive
claims, and are at best tentative or impressionistic.
As the inspiration for this project came from the Wayman A.M.E. Church
analysis, African American sites make up the majority of the sites in this study. Varying
cultural and societal pressures in the United States during the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries tended to make the African American community more isolated and
self reliant (Cabak 1995: 55-57). Through the artifact analysis at the Wayman A.M.E.
Church, the overabundance of medicinal artifacts suggests that the church provided
healthcare to its African American congregation during a series of epidemics (Cabak
1995: 68-69). This assemblage lends support to the fact that African Americans were
discriminated against with regard to healthcare and medical treatment and would have
to look for more creative avenues to cure themselves. The Boston Saloon (Dixon 2002:
92 97) study mentions a large amount of medicinal bottles and other medicinal items
present in the assemblage. Although this may seem unusual, the high alcohol content of
many period medicines may have been a factor, as well as the potential for medicinal
cures of alcohol related illnesses (Dixon 2002: 95). It is also possible that, “such an array
of pharmaceutical remedies at this saloon is the result of domestic activities associates
with William A.G. Brown's residence in the saloon" Dixon (2002: 97). However, as there
are no quantifiable results for this site it is difficult to elucidate with any assurance why
these medicines would have been present. The William Carey Barton Family site
documents the history of an African American household from the 1860's to 1890's and
can be useful in documenting some specific medicinal types that were used. However,


Casey L. Cottrill
as this house is not located in a large town or city there may not have been as many
societal pressures on African Americans in this area. However, this family is in the same
town (Bloomington, Illinois) as the Wayman A.M.E. Church, so this family may have had
some contact with the healthcare practices administered by the church as well as
suffered from similar ethnic discrimination afore mentioned. The Church site spanned
from the mid to late 1800's to the early 20th century while the Family site spanned from
the 1860's to 1890's. Unfortunately there were no specifically mentioned patent or
prescription medicines that were recovered from either site, the medicinal categories at
the William Carey Barton site itself were the highest out of the total bottle assemblage
though. The site of Skunk Hollow (Geismar 1982: IX-6) from 1806-1880 in rural New
Jersey, was one of the first African American sites to be excavated and recorded. The
relative amounts of medicinal artifacts that were recovered were comparable to the
percentages found at the William Carey Barton site, but those found at Skunk Hollow
were not separated out as neatly as those at the Barton site. Some of the validity
between the comparisons may be lost because of this. All said, there were rather high
percentages of medicinal bottles recovered from these African American sites, but due
to discrepancies in the data, specifics comparisons in medicinal types like quantities of
prescription based medicines versus remedies or cure-alls are difficult to make and
support.
When examining the two Euroamerican sites, the missing details and numerous
anomalies within the data sets make any comparisons between the two difficult.
Fanthorp Inn (Sauer 1998: 11-28) focuses on a white family from Texas that owned


Casey L Cottrill
African American slaves. Although some African spiritual practices as well as some
cultural artifacts are mentioned, the primary site analysis focuses on the white Fanthorp
family assemblage. The Fanthorp site shows a slightly higher percentage of medicinal
bottles than the African American sites in my study, which may be a result of ethnic
differences as well as class or status differences. The Furoamerican portion of the
Paterson's Dublin site focuses on a middle class white family, the Beyea's of New York
(De Cunzo 1982: 20). The relative percentage of medicinal bottles recovered from this
site is comparable to the percentages found at the African American sites, if not slightly
lower. However, the vast majority of bottles that were collected for this site were not
analyzed which accounted for 65. 67% of the total bottles recovered. This was an
industrial community in New Jersey so it would have been a completely different
environment from the more rural Fanthorp Inn. Also, the time periods of these two sites
overlap considerably, with Fanthorp Inn spanning from 1834 to 1935 (Sauer 1998: 1),
and Paterson's Dublin from 1829 to 1915 (De Cunzo 1982: 9).
The immigrant based sites examined in this study create a nice diversity within
these cross cultural comparisons. Although the site at Five Points in New York (Yamin
2000: Volume 1) was not entirely comprised of immigrants, they made up the vast
majority. The medicinal comparisons that were made at this site were the secondary
catalyst for this study. Stephen Brighton wrote about medicinal use patterns within the
Irish immigrant community at I ive Points which included at least sixteen of seventeen
features, to some degree, that were examined for this study and of which Brighton used
four (Brighton 2009: 165-176). Some of the feature locations were lived in by Irish,
Page | 21


Casey L. Cottrill
owned by Irish, or were associated with Irish names. The one exception was feature AG
which was the location of a brothel not associated or given an ethnic background
(Appendix B 15 pdf pg 316). Brighton only looked at a portion of the glass artifacts that
were collected, and he creates three medicinal categories: Ethical Medicines, Mineral
Water/Soda Water, and Proprietary Medicines (Brighton 2009: 166). He does not
include all glasswares nor does he include all bottles within his totals. Brighton's
comparison utilizes the Irish glass bottle assemblage at Five Points to compare them to
Euroamerican sites from Greenwhich Mews and from the Dublin section of Paterson,
New Jersey (Brighton 2009: 134-139). Brighton's research lead him to conclude that an
overwhelming majority (especially when compared to the Euroamerican sites) of the
bottles collected from Irish Five Points features were non-prescription proprietary
medicines. These findings support his theory that Irish were discriminated against and
denied proper healthcare during this time period at the Five Points (Brighton 2009: 137).
The Paterson's Dublin site seems to mirror Brighton's findings as only 9.8% of the
bottles recorded make up the medicinal Irish/Immigrant privy category while 27.36% of
the Euroamerican bottle assemblage is made up of medicinal bottles (De Cunzo
1982:21). The evidence assembled by Brighton from the features at Five Points could be
interpreted to show this exact pattern, but because there are no specifics listed in the
types of medicinal bottles that are categorized it is difficult if not impossible to make a
comparison between medicinal types.
Another immigrant site is that of l os Angeles Chinatown, which was excavated in
order to preserve the cultural material that would be removed the construction of a
Page | 22


Casey I.. Coítrill
subway transit system. Following cultural medicinal practices of the immigrant Chinese,
the inhabitants of this area would most likely have gone to see a traditional medicine
doctor who would write them a prescription that was to be filled at a Chinese herbalists'
shop. For the bottle analysis that has been used in this study and presented in the
report written by Roberta Greenwood (Greenwood 1996), the practice of traditional
medicine is difficult to see, or rather does not seem to have been recorded within this
bottle assemblage. What can be learned from the bottles that are recorded is that the
Chinese that lived in Los Angeles during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries were actually starting to use western medicines, despite the fact that they
were socially ostracized just as the Irish and African Americans were. However, unlike
the African Americans and Irish populations, the Chinese seemingly made very few
attempts to adopt American cultural practices and were not encouraged to do so. Of the
bottles recorded, the medicinal category was the largest with the majority being bitters
bottles. Only 3.85% of all the bottles were prescription medicine bottles but 42.31% of
all bottles were bitters bottles. Also, as mentioned before, almost 700 herbalist based
medicine bottles were recovered but are not listed in the bottle assemblage so accurate
or complete accounts of this site's bottle assemblage is not possible.
Although it is a smaller site, Sebastopol is a French immigrant site in Texas that
can show what sort of medicinal practices might occur in a more rural setting. At the
immigrant privy that was excavated as part of the Paterson's Dublin site there was also
a slight French occupation period but as it did not cover the majority of the occupation
it was listed according to its Irish occupation. Sebastopol is limited by its small and


Casey L Cottrill
incomplete data collection analysis. The largest glass bottle category is unidentified and
can therefore be relatively unhelpful for the purposes of this study. The second largest
category, when looking at whole bottles alone, is the medicinal category which
combined totals 29.63% of all bottles, of which prescription bottles total 7.41% of all
bottles. This is a comparable percentage base to the African American sites in Texas and
Illinois.


Casey L. Cottrill
Analysis:
When looking at the assemblage as a whole there are enough incongruencies
and anomalies that there can be no specific patterns to identify, there are too many
poorly defined variables. However, very general patterns can be noted as they are
potentially important and could, with further research, become very important to the
field in the future. As these sites cover a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, comparisons
between common ethnicities as well as across ethnicities can be accomplished. Trends
seen in previous studies, such as Brighton's study at the Five Points (Brighton 2009) and
the Wayman A.M.E. Church study (Cabak 1995), can be seen to also be represented in
this study. However, the problematic lack of consistent standards of artifact analysis and
recording is a severely limiting factor.
The African American sites discussed in this paper have the tendency to exhibit
similar percentages of medicinal bottles, between 40 to 50%. The exception to this
trend is the Wayman A.M.E. Church site, as it has an overwhelming number of medicinal
bottles within its assemblage (73.51%) and it does not go into any specific details about
the other types of bottles that were found. Again, the ways in which these artifact
groups were recorded did not always allow for an interpreter to glean what each
individual bottle was outside of the archaeologists prescribed categories, nor did they all
provide an exhaustive accounting of the bottles that were present.
What is interesting to note is the cross comparison of ethnic sites that were
excavated or analyzed by the same archaeologist. Sebastopol, a French site in Texas,
and Fanthorp Inn, a Euroamerican site in Texas, both have their excavation reports


Casey L. Cottrill
written by the same archaeologist (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998; Sauer 1998). Although
she uses different techniques for her analysis between sites, it would still be assumed
that the Euroamerican site would have more medicinal artifacts than the French site. In
fact the exact opposite is true with Fanthorp Inn's medicinal artifact percentage at
13.89% the total number of glass bottles collected and Sebastopol at 29.63%. This may
have been a result of incomplete artifact analysis (as only 2% of the glassware at
Fanthorp Inn was analyzed) or it could be loosely interpreted as a class difference
between these two sites. Also interesting, the respective numbers of medicinal bottles
that were found and recorded for these sites does not compare with the numbers found
at the African American sites. For example, 13.89% of the bottles at Fanthorp Inn fell
within the medicinal category even with a noted African American Influence on the site.
Sebastopol's medicinal bottles accounted for 29.63% of all recorded bottles. Again, it is
highly likely that the large amount of unidentified or unanalyzed bottles had a strong
impact on these percentages.
The immigrant based sites also had a difficult time with artifact recording in the
original analysis, so the results were impressionistic at best. At Chinatown in Los
Angeles, the 65.38% medicinal bottle category can be attributed to the data collection
methods. Only the whole, primarily embossed, bottles were counted for this study
which makes the ratio of medicinal bottles in a study much higher. Also, the traditional
Chinese herbal medicines were not accounted for and their presence may have led to an
even higher increase in the medicinal category. When compared to Irish immigrant sites
in large towns, similar to the situation in Los Angeles, the numbers are distinctly fewer.


Casey L. Cottrill
At Five Points, the medicinal bottle assemblage was only 37.89% but it is unclear as to
just which bottles were placed into this category by the archaeologists. When further
examined by Brighton (Brighton 2009: 136), the medicinal totals become smaller and
there is a large discrepancy between the amount of remedy or cure-all type medicines
and prescription medicines. Also, when the two sites at Paterson's Dublin are cross
compared, the Irish Immigrant site shows a similar pattern of low medicinal bottle
percentage (9.80%) when compared to the Euroamerican site (27.36%). However, this
analysis can only be used when comparing the two sites at Paterson's Dublin as there
were large amounts of bottles that have not been analyzed nor have they been
identified.


Casey L. Cottrill
Discussion:
The research that makes up this study has been inconclusive at best, however, it
has proved to be highly useful as a critique of archaeological methodology. The bottle
assemblages for the sites in question have been analyzed and formatted in varying ways
that are not consistent across time, sites, class, or ethnicity. The only consistency that
can be offered is when the same archaeologist produces findings from different sites,
and their own work can be cross compared. This leads to significant problems as there is
no way that only one archaeologist could possibly write up every site report nor do
some of these archaeologists appear to be consistent across their own sites.
Impressionistic ideas based on the research of other archaeologists that were using the
data they collected to prove a certain point can be seen as incredibly biased and
inconclusive. The only manageable way that a study such as this one could possibly be
accurate would be to have one archaeologist analyze all of the glassware from each site
or to have standards of artifact analysis and classification for the field of historical
archeology.
When originally considering this study and the idea of medicinal bottle analysis
across different ethnic sites, it became readily apparent that not all archaeologists
include bottle analysis within their site reports. Many times there is an overall glass
category that receives a percentage label based on its relationship to the total amount
of artifacts at a site. It was extremely difficult to find sites that were specific within their
glass bottle analysis and even within those chosen for this study there were large gaps


Casey L. Cottrill
within the information they provided. This made it quite difficult when deciding how to
approach my research question at all, as any supporting information that was available
was too problematic to lend much validity. However, it can be seen through some of the
comparisons that there were discrepancies within some of the data sets across sites of
differing class and ethnic backgrounds.


Casey L. Cottrill
Conclusions:
The research provided by this study shows one of the weak points within the
field of historical archaeology, the lack of standardization. Although some conclusions
can be vaguely drawn by the data that was collected and presented by this study, each
data set comes with its own significant flaws and has a difficult time being cross
compared between other sites. There are options as far as standardization is concerned,
although these options may limit the creative and flexible nature of the field.
Standardization of the methodology behind artifact analysis is required for a greater
understanding of the excavated sites. At this moment, many sites can only be compared
internally, because of the unique nature of their data collection or site type. Accurately
portraying comparisons between sites requires a standardization of archaeological and
analytical methods that are consistent across sites of like time periods. A serious
limitation to creating standards of analysis would be where does one draw the line
when comparing artifacts across the entirety of recorded history? From the beginning of
written history to present day there are too many differences between the time periods
and types of artifacts to create an overall historical archaeology standard. However, it
may be useful to divide the field of historical archaeology into usable spans of time
where within each block of time there are a set of standards that must be upheld.
Further research into ways of managing this ever changing field as well as finding the
best ways to implement standards of analysis and recordkeeping are needed.


Casey L. Cottrill
Bibliography:
Brighton, Stephen A. Historical Archaeology of the Irish Diaspora: a Transnational
Approach. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 2009. Print.
Cabak, Melanie A., Mark D. Groover, and Scott J. Wagers. Health Care and the Wayman
A.M.E. Church: Historical Archaeology. Tucson, AZ: Society for Historical Archaeolgy,
1995. Print.
De Cunzo, Lu Ann. "Households, Economics, and Ethnicity in Paterson's Dublin, 1829-
1915; The Van Houten Street Parking Lot Block." Northeast Historical Archaeology 11
(1982): 9-25. Print.
Dixon, Kelly J. A Place of Recreation of Our Own: the Archaeology of the Boston Saloon :
Diversity and Leisure in an African American-owned Saloon, Virginia City, Nevada. Reno:
University of Nevada, 2002. Print.
Geismar, Joan H. The Archaeology of Social Disintegration in Skunk Hollow: a
Nineteenth-century Rural Black Community. New York: Academic, 1982. Print.
Greenwood, Roberta S. Down by the Station: Los Angeles Chinatown, 1880 1933. Los
Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1996. Print.
Jelks, Edward B., and John W. Muirhead. The William Carey Barton Family: a Study in
Historical Archaeology. Bloomington, IL: Bloomington Normal Black History Project,
McLean County Historical Society, 1996. Print.
Larsen, Clark Spencer. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton.
New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.


Casey L. Collrill
Marius, Richard. A Short Guide to Writing about History. New York, NY: HarperCoIlins
College, 1995. Print.
Sauer, Sandra R., and Cynthia Brandimarte. Sebastopol State Historical Park. Austin,
TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 1998. Print.
Sauer, Sandra R. Fanthorp Inn State Historical Park (41GM79), Grimes County, Texas:
Archeological Excavations, 1983-1989. Austin, TX: Prewitt and Associates, 1998. Print.
South, Stanley A. Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. New York: Academic,
1977. Print.
"WorthPoint." Antiques, Art and Collectibles - What's It Worth? / WorthPoint. Web. 10
Apr. 2011. .
Yamin, Rebecca, ed. Tales of Five Points: Working-class Life in Nineteenth-century New
York. Vol. 1. West Chester, PA: John Milner Associates, 2000. Print. A Narrative History
and Archaeology of Block 160.


% of Medicine Bottles Per Site
fa
fro
o
â–  Boston Saloon
â–  Chinatown
â–¡ Five Points
â– Wayman A.M.E. Church
â–  Willia m Carey Barton
â–¡ Fanthrop inn
â–  Sebastopol
â–  Skunk Hollow
□ Paterson’s Dublin Privy 1
□ Paterson’s Dublin Privy 2
>
T3
â– O
fD
3
Q.
x‘
>
Site Names
DJ
U>
Casey L. Cottrill


Page j 34
Site Occupation
Boston Saloon
Chinatown
f ive Points
Wayman A.M.E. Church
I
f William Carey Barton Family
I
Fanthorp Inn
\
Sebastopol
|
Skunk Hollow
Peterson's Dublin
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920
1940
Casey L. Cottrill


Page | 35
Categories
Boston Saloon
%
Chinatown
%
Five Points
%
Wayman A.M.E. Church
%
William Carey Barton
%
Beverage
3
5.77
314
41.32
23
24.73
‘Soda
2
3.85
53
6.97
10
10.75
Modern Beverage
Cosmetic/T oiletry
5
9.62
32
4.21
Kitchen/Food
1
1.92
51
6.71
2
2.15
Prescription
2
3.85
113
61.08
25
26.88
Medicinal
7
13.46
106
13.95
21
22.58
Vials
173
22.76
23
12.43
Med Other
9
1.18
‘Bitters
22
42.31
1
1.08
Remedy
‘Vaseline
3
5.77
8
8.6
Sewing Machine Oil
Household
4
7.69
22
2.89
3
3.23
Snuff
Other
3
5.77
49
26.49
Total Number
52
100.01
760
99.99
185
100
93
100
Categories
Fanthorp Inn
%
Sebastopol
%
Skunk Hollow
%
Paterson’s Dublin
Privy 1
%
Privy 2
%
Beverage
2
7.41
64
25.91
>
9
4.48
18
11.76
‘Soda
26
10.53
>
5
2.49
13
8.5
Modern Beverage
35
14.17
>
Cosmetic/Toiletry
5
13.89
1
0.4
>
Kitchen/Food
'7
6.88
>
Prescription
2
7.41
>
Medicinal
5
13.89
2
7.41
88
35 63
>
55
27.36
15
9.8
Vials
3
11.11
>
Med Other
>
‘Bitters
8
3.24
>
Remedy
1
3.7
6
2.43
>
‘Vaseline
>
Sewing Machine Oil
1
3.7
>
Household
2
0.81
>
Snuff
1
2.78
>
Other
25
69.44
16
59.26
>
132
65.67
107
69.93
Total Number
36
100
27
100
247
100
>
201
100
153
99.99
Casey L. Cottrill


Page | 36
Chinatown
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
Feature 4
Feature 6
Feature 8
Feature 10
Beverage
1
*Soda
1
1
Toiletry
1
2
1
Kitchen/Food
1
Prescription
1
Medicinal
1
1
4
* Bitters
7
2
3
1
1
1
Remedy
*Vaseline
Household (decorative or functional)
1
1
Other
1
Total Number
11
8
9
1
2
2
Feature 11
Feature 12
Feature 54
Feature 56
Feature 57
Feature 58
Total
%
Beverage
2
3
5.77
*Soda
2
3.85
Toiletry
1
5
9.62
Kitchen/Food
1
1.92
Prescription
1
2
3.85
Medicinal
1
7
13.46
* Bitters
3
2
1
1
22
42.31
Remedy
*Vase!ine
1
1
1
3
5.77
Household (decorative or functional)
2
4
7.69
Other
1
1
3
5.77
Total Number
4
3
5
1
4
52
100.01
Casey L. Cottrill


Five Points
Feature D
Feature B
Feature J
Feature J
Feature
Beverage (wine/liquor)
8
24
15
33
1
*Soda/Mineral Water
27
5
1
Cosmetic
2
4
3
Kitchen/Food
Prescription
Rx Embossed
1
7
2
2
Medicinal
3
23
17
10
Med Vials
2
19
19
45
Med-Other
* Bitters
Remedy
*Vaseline
7
2
Household (Ink)
2
6
Other
Total Number
11
55
99
113
12
Feature AK
Feature AL
Feature AL Feature Al
Feature
Beverage (wine/liquor)
1
32
4
10
1
*Soda/Mineral Water
4
2
Cosmetic
12
Kitchen/Food
Prescription
Rx Embossed
3
2
1
Medicinal
Med Vials
Med-Other
* Bitters
Remedy
*Vaseline
11
4
1
1
1
Household (Ink)
2
1
1
Other
Total Number
18
54
8
12
2
Brighton Five Points
Feature J&Z
Feature J
Feature 0
Total
Ethical Medicines
45
19
16
80
Mineral/Soda Water
5
28
7
40
Proprietary Medicines
27
33
27
87
Feature AF Feature N Feature O Feature AK
20
20
15
4
7
1
2
3
7
7
27
12
11
16
10
1
8
40
41
76
14
Feature H
Feature AG Feature AN
Totals
%
2
107
17
314
41.32
4
3
53
6.97
1
4
32
4.21
1
17
1
51
6.71
7
3
106
13.95
34
3
173
22.76
9
1.18
1
22
2.89
>8
760
99.95
%
38.65
19.32
42.03
100
Casey L. CottriJl


Page¡38
The William Carey Barton Household
Feature 5
Feature 6
Test 4 Test 6 Test 7 Test 8
Test 9
Test 10
Totals
% all
% whole
Beverage (whole)
15
7
1
23
14.74
24.73
Beverage (sherds)
27
27
17.31
*Soda
2
2 1
5
10
6.41
10.75
Cosmetic
Kitchen/Food
1
1
2
1.28
2.15
Medicinal
16
2
3
21
13.46
22.58
Plain Med/Rx
11
4
5 1
3
1
25
16.03
26.88
Body Part (plain)
29
29
18.59
Body Part (B.F. Stinson & Co.)
7
7
4.49
*Bitters
1
1
0.64
1.08
Remedy
*Vaseline
7
1
8
5.13
8.6
Household (decorative or functional)
3
3
1.92
3.23
Other
Total Number
118
11
10 1 1 1
8
6
156
100
*without sherds/whole only?
55
11
10 1 1 1
8
6
93
100
Fanthorp Inn
Finish
Base
Body
Embossed
Body/Base
Whole
Total
%
Sherds
Sherds
Sherds
Bottles
Embossed Patent Medicine
113
2
115
39.25
Embossed Graduated
17
3
20
6.83
Embossed Cosmetic
2
5
7
2.39
Other Embossed
9
9
3.07
Alcoholic Beverage
18
18
3
4
43
14.68
Snuff
31
18
14
5
1
69
23.55
Ink
5
5
1.71
Unidentified intact
25
25
8.53
Total
49
36
24
148
36
293
100.01
Casey L. Cottrill


Sebastopol
Beverage
Beverage Sherds
*Soda
Cosmetic
Kitchen/Food
Prescription
Medicinal
Vials
*Bitters
Remedy
*Vaseline
Sewing Machine Oil
Toy
Other
Other Base, Neck or
Shoulder
Other Sherds
Total Number
(whole)
Total Number
(w/sherds)
Kitchen Dining Room Room Unknown Totals
2 2
14 3 17
% Whole
7.41
% All
2.44
20.73
2
2
2
2 7.41 2.44
2 7.41 2.44
3 11.11 3.66
1
3.7 1.22
1
3
6
1 3.7 1.22
3 11.11 3.66
13 48.15 15.85
4
25
4 4.88
34 41.46
18
8 27 100
61 12
82
100
c
Casey I,. C


Page ¡ 40
Skunk Hollow
* >
00 ~o
zr "u
o fD
C D
c
Q_
a>
3
<
o
(T>
in
O
3
fD
Cl
05
r~Â¥
CD
O
o
rET
n
O
3
-a
o
n
fD
to
to
o'
fD
â– -O
"O
•■O
Cluster A
Beverage 10
*Soda 12
Unidentified Beverage
Modern Beverage 5
Modern Soda
Cosmetic
Kitchen/Food 6
Prescription
Medicinal 38
Med-Vials
Med-Other
* Bitters 1
Remedy
^Vaseline
Household 1
Other
Total Number 73
Cluster B
Cluster C
Cluster D
15
8
18
5
2
7
1
6
1
2
1
2
7
11
6
33
2
1
4
1
5
1
40
17
82
Cluster E
Total
%
5
56
22.67
26
10.53
1
8
3.24
12
20
8.1
15
15
6.07
1
0.4
2
17
6.88
88
35.63
8
3.24
6
2.43
2
0.81
247
100
Paterson's Dublin
Privy 1
%
Privy 2
%
Beverage
9
4.48
18
11.76
*Soda/Mineral Water
5
2.49
13
8.5
Medicine
55
27.36
15
9.8
Minimum # Bottle
84
41.79
57
37.25
# Different Bottled Procucts
48
23.88
5C
32.68
Total
201
100
153
99.99
Casey L. Cottrill


Full Text

PAGE 1

April 20, 2011 A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF THE ARTS OF ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 C ASEY L. C OTTRILL M EDICAL AND H EALTHCARE I SSUES IN 19 TH AND EARLY 20 TH C ENTURY A MERICA : B OTTLE A NALYSIS

PAGE 2

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 2 Medical and Health Issues in 19 th and Early 20 th Century America Table of Contents Cover Sheet pg 1 Abstract Introduction Literature Review Methodology .. pg 10 An pg 25 Appendix .. .. Five Points Fanthorp Inn Sebastopol Skunk Hollow Pa

PAGE 3

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 3 Abstract: The original intention of this thesis was to create a cross comparison of medicinal usage across the United States throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries between differing ethnic populations. As a proxy for the access to and utilization of health care, glass bottles were used that originally would have held medicines. Based on the wealth of wr itten materials, bottle catalog s, and established forms of glassware across sites within the field of historical archaeology, the assumption was that this study would be a relatively straightforward comparative exercise that would allow for trends in medicinal usage to be seen across time, space and ethnic backgrounds. These assumptions could not have been any less straightforward. Vast differences in field excavation methodologies, sampling, artifact classification, artifact identification and anal ysis and data presentation, confounded what was initially presumed to be an easy task. As a result, this thesis changed its focus and became more suited to serving as a critique of the current lack of standards within the field of historical archaeology. The primary objective was to show the variation within methodologies and artifact classification systems, data collection and interpretation, differing data set constructions, as well as the veracity of the conclusions between comparative analyses.

PAGE 4

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 4 I ntr oduction: Finding a tried and true method or standard for interpreting history can be challenging. Even w hen grappling with a question that may seem straightforward challenges in interpretation begin to crop up and a whole new set of questions follow in their wake. In trying to research a pattern of medicinal usage between sites of differing ethnic backgrounds across t he United States during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries inconsistencies in the preservation of historical records came to be a topic of concern. The inspiration for this study was a mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century African American archaeological site at the Wayman A.M.E. Church in Bloomington, Illinois whose researchers focused on the disproportionately large amount of medicinal artifacts recovered (Caba k 1995: 66) The researchers interpreted this large assemblage to healthcare discrimination against African Americans which was why the church itself became the repository for its African American parishioners. Interestingly, further research revealed a similar study conducted with some of the artifacts recovered from the excavations at the Five Points in New York circa 1800 1880 (Brighton 2009: 132 148) The material gathered at the Five Points has been interp reted as healthcare discrimination against Irish Catholic immigrants (Brighton 2009: 133) This thesis aims at examining the patterns that were used to show healthcare discrimination at the Wayman A.M.E. Church and the Five Points by making cross compariso ns between these findings and the findings at other nineteenth and early twentieth centuries sites of varying ethnic backgrounds across the country.

PAGE 5

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 5 The field of archaeology provides a unique way to study the use of medicinal cures and practices through t ime but it is not the only or most typical way to pursue these ideas. Historians and Demographers have critically analyze d the written accounts during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to provide a more comprehensive picture of the past. A grea t deal of their research material can be gained from primary and secondary source materials such as store records medical school program studies, pharmaceutical advertisements, and other such written documents or sometimes oral accounts that pertain to t h is topic of interes t (Marius 1995: 1, 14, 30, 86) These resources are invaluable in the study of the archaeological material that is collected and analyzed as they support the evidence that is collected and help to provide a solid historical context for t he documents themselves Even within the field of archaeology itself, efforts can be made to view the effects of medicinal practices throughout history through the study of bioarchaeology The importance that is placed upon the study of human remains by b i ological a rchaeologists can show a physical record the types of The analysis of some human remains can show a lack of dental care, such as the example of d ental caries (La rsen 1997: 65), or the use of extreme surgical procedures in the recovered remains (Larsen 1997: 152) Sill other sets of remains can sometimes be tested for long time drug use or different disease types like tuberculosis, that may have been commonly trea ted during a given time period (Larsen 1997: 93 106) Each of these methods have their obvious strengths and flaws but the focus of this study is to examine the way in which the archaeological investigation of domestic sites can show evidence

PAGE 6

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 6 of medicinal use and treatment, primarily through an analysis of the recorded bottle assemblages It is through the examination of these bottles that the presence of different forms of medicine can be identified and used for later diachronic patterns, as well as trends based within ethnicity or class/status research and study. Within the greater research of different historical sites from nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the analysis of glass bottles can aid in the recovery of medicinal usage information. Acro ss American sites of varying ethnic origins, status levels, and overall locations, it was expected that a pattern of medicinal usage could be formulated. However, the ways in which Historical Archaeologists present their artifact analysis was problematic f or cross site comparisons. The complete lack of official standards of artifact analysis ma de it so that at one site a certain set of artifacts could be classified as medicinal while at another the interpreter m ight omit some of the artifacts or place them in categories other than those specifically dedicated to medicine or completely ignore specific categories. With these and many othe r anomalies, the research instead lent itself best as a critique of the analytical and preservation based records of glass b ottle typologies within the field of h istorical a rcheology.

PAGE 7

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 7 Literature Review : When examining the study of bottles within the context of historical archaeology there appear ed to be a significant amount of latitude in an archaeologists given pres entation of analysis. As the field of historical archaeology itself stretches over such a broad period of time (historical period to present age) all of the data sets ha d to be presented and managed according to their own unique factors. For the most part, historical archaeologists relied on adapting the typology models created by Stanley South in ceramic pattern analysis, he also divided his assemblage into meaningful subsets t hat were based on function and activity areas. The eight artifact groups that he utilized were specific to a British American colonial artifact classification system: Kitchen, Architecture, Furniture, Arms, Clothing, Personal, Tobacco Pipes, and Activities (South 1977: 93) These groupings allowed for more specific forms of pattern and use analysis across a given assemblag e have been utilized and adapted by other historical archaeologists to suit the specific needs of their site interpretation. This detail depending on the needs of the analyst. However, there was no consensus on specific categories or groups that could be used across all of the sites included in historical archaeology. This mean t that the varied interpretations ma d e it difficult to compare across sites or time periods based off of the way the archaeologists decided to present their information. Progressively tho ugh, the attention to detail within

PAGE 8

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 8 archaeological reports and analysis has been seen to be increasing. A good example of a detailed listing of fun ctional categories can be found in the 1982 publication by Joan Geismar on h er excavation of Skunk Hollow, a historic African American community dating from 1806 1880 in rural New Jersey. The categories, straight forward data interpretation, and multiple ways of presenting her findings make work readily accessible and easy to under stand. Geismar settled on these functional categories: Leather Fragments ; Faunal Material ; Coal, Plaster Fragments ; Bricks ; Glass Fragments; Ceramics; Metal Fragments; Miscellaneous Cloth Remnants, Mortar, Combs, Buttons, and Stone; and General Miscellany (Geismar 1982 : 107) An example of how the breakdown of these groupings help to separate out relevant artifact material was shown by the way she use d her Glass Fragments category to show all of her relevant glass artifacts. The overall heading of Glass Fragments contain ed with in it categories of minimum number of bottles, window glass, tableware, lamps, miscellaneous bottle glass, and unidentified glass fragments (Geismar 1982 : 127). Geismar then proceed ed to further simplify the miscellaneous bottle category by creating subcat egories: alcoholic beverages, nonalcoholic beverages, medicine, food, miscellaneous, and modern beverages (Geismar 1982 : 137). Furthermore, she support ed the numbers represented in her bottle categories by listing the types, date ranges, numerical quantiti es, and locations that most of the bottles are found in (Geismar 1982 : 130). Along with other supporting graphs and raw data listed in her appendices, the information that was presented c ould be easily interpreted and her methodologies verified so that ano ther

PAGE 9

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 9 By continuing to define and refine artifact categories, an overall site analysis can be represented and supported by its artifact assemblage. Narrowed glass categories provide d examp les of specific bottle types, use patterns, dates of each respective type of manufacture, and other valuable information. It is only through an analysis with well defined categories that someone other than the original archaeologist or analyst c ould have acces s to almost raw data on artifact assemblages that can then be interpreted in ways other than those discussed by the original researcher When analyzing the relative amounts, types, and functions of bottle assemblages across sites the categories used by Gei were the most accessible ways to use recorded information but they were not the only ways. Some archaeologist s present their groupings and also provide lists of the specific ty pes and analysis of each individual bottle recovered to provide specificity and provenience. This also lends support to any further analysis or interpretation that c ould be deduced based on the numbers of particular artifacts.

PAGE 10

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 10 Methodology: Probl ems or Limitations The classification system utilized in glass bottle analysis from nine different sites from varying locations and ethnic backgrounds across the United States was examined during this study. What had initially seemed like a straightforwa rd comparison became a jumble of interpretation differences and indefinable anomalies. Each of these sites were selected based on their partial or complete focus on glass bottle s in their analysis, in particular the medicine bottles. It was expected that p otential patterns in medicinal usage could tentatively be seen and that this would lead to a greater understanding of the access to and patronage of packaged medicinal treatments during this period However, for every site there was a different way of both classifying the material culture and presenting the artifact analysis ; it was a challenge to weed out the patterns of anomalies within the archaeologist s interpretations of their own sites. Each site fits the time period of nineteenth to early twentieth century deposits and most sites have a focus on an ethnic minority group during this time period. The nineteenth to early twentieth centuries sites that were used in this study were selected because of their differing ethnicities as well as their record of glass bottles within their respective assemblages. The Boston Saloon (Dixon 2002) from Virginia City, Nevada, which spanned was an African American business site. Other African American sites that were used for the purposes of this project included the Wayman A.M.E. Church from Bloomington, Illinois (mid to late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century), the William Carey Barton Family site

PAGE 11

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 11 low from New Jersey (1806 1880). The site of Chinatown in Los Angeles, California (Greenwood 1996) span ned from 1880 to 1933 and was focused on the Chinese community dwelling this large city. The Five Points site in New York (Yamin 2000), span ned from 180 0 1880 and also display ed an immigrant population within a large city, specifically Irish immigrants. Dublin (De Cunzo 1982) spanning from 1829 to 1915, with a privy cross comparison of Irish versus Euroamerican cultural material. A second Euroamerican site from Texas, the Fanthorp Inn (Sauer 1998) spanned from 1834 to 1935. The ninth site that was used in this study was Sebastopol (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998) also from Texas, which was a French immigrant site spanning from 18 45 to 1908. Each of these sites will be discussed in more deta il in the following paragraphs (refer to Appendix pg 34 for Site Occupation Table). A critical problem within the cross site comparisons was the lack of s tandardization in artifact analysis and classification. Again, this most likely result ed from the broad time period tha t that is covered by the field of historical archeology as well as the necessity of flexibility when interpreting unique sites across tim e. However, some sort of standardization or model needs to be upheld in order to present relevant data that can be reused in other studies. Otherwise, the data that was collected at a given site can only be analyzed in reference to that site alone, and doe s not allow for an accurate interpretation on a larger scale.

PAGE 12

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 12 Around 90% of historical archaeology is excavated by Cultural Resource Management contract archaeologists and the firms that they work for The reports that were generated as a result of these excavations were generally not all encompassing nor highly particular regarding the detailed specifics about many of their findings. Understandably there was not enough funding or time to create exhaustive accounts of all the sites that fall under the pur view of CRM but a classification system that could be utilized across their excavations would make interpreting their data sets across sites more meaningful. Creating a standard of artifact interpretation and analysis could make the time spent trying to c ome up with creative ways to show artifact patterning much more efficient and could speed the process along. This would also allow others that review the material presented by contract archaeologists for further study to have a consistent means of interpre ting information across a variety of sites. Of the sites selected for this thesis the Five Points, Chinatown, Dublin were all excavated by Cultural Resource Management teams or funding This example can begin to illustrate the incredible i nfluence that CRM has in the field of historical archaeology. Some of these sites were excavated in order to make way for new construction projects such as the Chinatown excavation in Los Angeles for a new Metro Rail line (Greenwood 1996: 3) As a result, only sampling was conducted, entire sites were not excavated and many times the areas that are excavated may or may not be key features or even the most important features of a site. Other sites were excavated because they are owned by state parks and the ir preservation is important for increasing visitation to the park, such as the Fanthorp Inn site in Texas (Sauer 1998:

PAGE 13

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 13 1 4) Differences in importance and funding have made excavations more or less intensive depending on the circumstances surrounding the site itself. The site at Five Points in New York ha d the largest and most exhaustive artifact assemblage in my sample, while smaller grant and organization funded sites like the William Carey Barton Family home in Bloomington, Illinois, was specific to on e family and therefore has limited artifact quantities (Jelks 1996: VI). When the sites themselves were compared the anomalies within their respective analyses became a reoccurring problem for this study. Limiting factors such as all inclusive categories, unknown or unidentified glass remnants, discrepancies between counting whole or fragmentary bottles, and many others became difficult to account for. Also, complete omission of glassware analysis or quantities for certain sites made it severely limiting i f not impossible to include them in this study. For example, the Boston Saloon which was an African American business in Virginia City, Nevada, dating from excavated by Kelly Dixon (Dixon 2002: I) was interesting to read but containe d no quantifiable data that could be used in this study. Dixon discuss ed unique bottle patterning but used unquantifiable terminology and provided no data sets that would have allowed someone else to utilize her findings. Dixon provided only a few referen ces to numerical data of any kind and these had no support as she failed to provide any overall artifact totals or types. The level of detail she provides was frustratingly limited, for example Dixon ( 2002: 81) and : 93) W hile interesting this level of detail provide d unusable data for my study. The Wayman A.M.E Church site

PAGE 14

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 14 in Bloomington Illinois (Caba k 1995: 55) ha d a similar lack of usable data but for an enti highly selective artifact analysis was published specifically focuses on the large presence of medicinal usage bottles that were present due to healthcare discrimination against African Americans. The archaeologists only presented information regarding the analysis of these medicinal bottles and did not provide any further details of any other bottles recovered, nor were they over exhaustive in explaining just what criterion were used to determine whic h bottles were placed into the medicinal categories. This ma de recreating their methodology and using the results of the analysis as a comparative extremely difficult and basically only applicable to the report that they published. Differe nces in the methods of recording analyzed bottles for different assemblages made deciding what could and could not be utilized a difficult challenge. Small assemblages, such as the William Carey Barton Family site (Jelks 1996: V, 13) ha d limited numbers o f artifacts so specifics are crucial to the interpretation. The categories and subcategories for this site were especially well done and instead of simply listing numbers of items the names and analysis of each of the artifact s w ere recorded. By showing wh at was embossed on the bottles or their general form other ar chaeologists are able to utilize the se data sets and apply it to their own categories and typologies. The level of specificity was also useful for making cross comparisons between sites in a mo re accurate way. However, sometimes listing the analyzed bottles can become problematic as some archaeologists will only have time to analyze some of the bottles or few bottles are easily definable and only those that are will be recorded. This was the

PAGE 15

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 15 pro blem at the Fanth or p Inn site as only 2% of the total glass artifacts recovered wer e able to be analyzed (Sauer 1998 : 45). This method, although sometimes unavoidable, limits the interpretation of a site as well as an overall picture of lifeways patterns as 98% of an entire artifact category cannot be included in th is analysis Only whole or marked bottles that could clearly be identified were included in the Fanth or p Inn assemblage. Within the other small to mid range artifact assemblages examined for th is study, there were differing methods of recovery and analysis, even when the reports and excavations were performed by the same archaeologist. Sandra Sauer wrote the excavation reports for the both the Fanth or p Inn and Sebastopol sites Her report of Seb astopol was published only 5 months after the Fanth or p Inn excavation report in January of 1998 (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998 ; Sauer 1998 ) Some of the methodology and artifact categories utilized were identical, but there were some obvious discrepancies betwe en the two reports that c ould make some cross comparisons difficult. For each site there were a list of tables that account for the numerical amount (unknown w het her fragmentary, whole, or other condition) of the artifacts for each of categories. T hese numbers were useful for general quantity amounts or frequency but contain no specifics and therefore cannot be analyzed any further. The analysis of artifact assemblage contains a brief write up of each of categories, separately, and lists many of the particulars about the artifacts that were found. However, the artifacts discussed in these writings did not match the numbers used in totals charts nor do they include some of the artifacts that are currently on display at Sebastopol (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998: 187 ) So there was n o way to account

PAGE 16

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 16 for the missing pieces of contextual information nor c ould each of these categories be d e it difficult at times to come up with a workable context or placement for the artifacts that were recovered. T wo large site assemblages that were examined included the Five Points (Yamin 2000 : Volume 1 ) and Los Angeles Chinatown (Greenwood 1996 : 109 133, 171 188) sites. Having access to a large amount of analyzed data ma de the comparisons and relative percentages all the more accurate. P roblems associated with the site analysis at Chinatown were similar to those at Fanth or p Inn (Sauer 1998 :45) only the w hole and or clearly marked bottles were recorded and analyzed. For the purpose of this study, only the f eatures that dealt with refuse disposal were analyzed and only the glass bottle categories were examined. The names and any analytical details, includin g the date range for which each bottle could have been manufactured, were included in a long list by the name of the artifact recovered. Most of these were embossed bottles with the majority falling into the medicinal bitters category. There was no repres entation of Chinese herbal and traditional medicines within this bottle assemblage. However, the small glass containers that held pills and Greenwood (1996, 111 ) At Five Points (Yamin 2000 : Volume 1 ) the anomalies were similar but still unique in their own way. The features that were examined for the purposes of this study were D, B, J (III and V) Z, AF, N, O, AK (IV and I) AL (II and I ) AI, H (II and IV) AG, and AN. Large scale excavations were recorded and analyzed which

PAGE 17

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 17 provided large amounts of artifacts and an in depth view of what life must have been like for the people that lived in Five Points, New York from 1800 1880 Only the features that had glass artifact analysis and were trash deposit areas were examined for the purposes of this study as there was such a wealth of material to analyze. Within the glass analysis charts created for the analyzed features there were only a f ew categories that could be utilized in this study. There was no master list of bottle analysis with the so the artifact numbers had to come directly from the analysis of others and their own categorical categories which seemed to be a catch all for unidentifiable bottles could not be the artifacts specifically as bottles seventeen features examined for this study, only four were looked at in detail, primarily due to the medicinal analysis performed by Stephen Brighton who deliberately did not include all of the bottles in these features (refer to Five Points Graph Appendix pg 37 ) and he also included glass jars in his data s et The last two sites that were examined were Skunk Hollow (Geismar 1982) and (De Cunzo 1982) These sites do not have similar artifact analysis, methodology, classification, or data presentation, but they add to the greater perspectiv e of how bottles are analyzed in the field of historical archeology. Skunk Hollow was recorded as part of a doctoral dissertation and appears to be well documented and presents multiple variations of data entry analysis Recovered artifact material was pre sented in multiple forms to allow for a more accessible model of interpretation as well as the ability to recreate the methodology utilized by the

PAGE 18

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 18 archaeologist. However, some of the information that is presented is listed as incomplete (e.g. table 4.11, see Geismar 1982: 130 132) This means that although some of the bottles are listed and detailed not all of them are accounted for. Table 3 (Geismar 1982: 246) was used as the complete list of glass bottle analysis for my study with reference to table 4.11 to rule out as many jars as possible. Some of the categories that were utilized by Geismar for artifact analysis became confusing as there were combination categories that also had their own separate categories, such as bitters/whiskey and me dicine/perfume, so these categories could not be accounted for. (De Cunzo 1982 : 9 25 ) two privies were excavated to provi de a cross comparison between a Euroamerican family deposit and a mixture of immigrant deposits. There was very l ittle specific information and the comparisons included very broad categories of unanalyzed bottles. While t here were a couple of useful categories it is difficult to say how they classified each of these categories without mentioning bottle specifics or stating whether these were whole or fragmentary bottles Site Comparisons Once the anomalies within the artifact analyses could at least partially be accounted for, a cross comparison of the medicinal usages between the sites can be tentatively drawn. As the focus was to bring in a grouping of ethnic minority sites there is a predominant focus on cultural backgrounds for site selection. The Wayman A.M.E. Church, Skunk Hollow, the Boston Saloon, and the William Carey Barton Family are all African Ameri can occupations of public buildings Fanth or Dublin focus on Euroamerican sites. The Los Angeles Chinatown, Five Points Sebastopol

PAGE 19

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 19 sites represent immigrant sites. As a result of the numerous varia bles in artifact recording, analysis, and time period, among others, the comparisons between these sites are limited, lack substantial support for definitive claims and were at best tentative or impressionistic. As the inspiration for this project came from the Wayman A.M.E. Church analysis, African American sites ma d e up the majority of the sites in this study. Varying cultural and societal pressures in the United States during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tended to make the African Amer ican community more isolated and self reliant (Cabak 1995: 55 57) Through the artifact analysis at the Wayman A.M.E. Church, the overabundance of medicinal artifacts sugges ted that the church provided healthcare to its African American congregation during a series of epidemics (Cabak 1995: 68 69 ) This assemblage added support to the fact that African Americans were discriminated against with regard to healthcare and medical treatment and would have had to look for more creative avenues to cure themselves. The Boston Saloon (Dixon 2002 : 92 97 ) study mention ed a large amount of medicinal bottles and other medicinal items present with in the assemblage. Although this may seem unusual, the high alcohol content of many period medicines may have been a factor as well as the potential for medicinal cures of alcohol related illnesses (Dixon 2002 : 95). It is also possible that, activities a ssociates with William A.G. in the saloon (2002: 97 ) However, as there were no quantifiable results for this site it was difficult to elucidate with any assurance why these medicines would have been present. The

PAGE 20

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 20 William Carey Barton Family site document ed the history of an African American household and was useful in documenting some specific medicinal types that were used. However, as this house was not located in a large town or city there may not have been as many societal pressures on African A mericans in this area. However this family was located within the same town ( Bloomington, Illinois ) as the Wayman A.M.E. Church so th e William Carey Barton family may have had some contact with the healthcare practices administered by the church as well as potentially suffered from similar ethnic discrimination afore mentioned The Church site spanned th century while the Family site spanned from ioned patent or prescription medicines that common between those that were recovered from either site The medicinal categories at the William Carey Barton site itself were the highest out of the total bottle assemblage though. The site of Skunk Hollow (Ge ismar 1982 : IX 6 ) from 1806 1880 in rural New Jersey, was one of the first African American sites to be excavated and recorded. The relative amounts of medicinal artifacts that were recovered were comparable to the percentages found at the William Carey Ba rton site but those found at Skunk Hollow were not separated out as neatly as those at the Barton site. Some of the validity between the comparisons may be lost because of this. All said, there were rather high percentages of medicinal bottles recovered f rom these African American sites but due to discrepancies in the data, specifics comparisons in medicinal types like quantities of prescription based medicines versus remedies or cure alls were difficult to make and support.

PAGE 21

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 21 When examining the two Euroa merican sites, the missing details and numerous anomalies within the data sets ma d e any comparisons between the two difficult. Fanth or p Inn ( Sauer 1998 : 11 28 ) focuse d on a white family from Texas that owned African American slaves. Although some African s piritual practices as well as some cultural artifacts were mentioned, the primary site analysis focuse d on the white Fanthorp family assemblage. The Fanthorp site exhibited a slightly higher percentage of medicinal bottles than the African American sites i n my study, which may have be en a result of ethnic differences as well as class or status differences. The Euroamerican d of New York ( De Cunzo 1982: 20) The relative percentage of medicinal bottles recovered from this site was comparable to the percentages found at the African American sites if not slightly lower. However, the vast majority of bottles that were collected for this site were not analyzed which accounted for 65. 67% of the total bottles recovered. This was an industrial community in New Jersey so it would have been a completely different environment from the more rural Fan thorp Inn. Also, the time periods of these two sites overlap considerably with Fant horp Inn spanning from 1834 to 1935 (Sauer 1998: 1), from 1829 to 1915 (De Cunzo 1982: 9) The immigrant based sites examined in this study create d a nice diversity within these cross cultural comparisons. Although the site at Five P oints in New York (Yamin 2000: Volume 1) was not entirely comprised of immigrants, they made up the vast majority. The medicinal comparisons that were made at this site were the secondary

PAGE 22

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 22 catalyst for this study. Stephen Brighton wrote about medicinal use patterns within the Irish immigrant community at F ive P oints which included at least sixteen of seventeen features to some degree, that were examined for my study and of which Brighton used four (Brighton 2009: 165 176) Some of the feature locations wer e lived in by Irish, owned by Irish, or were associated with Irish names. The one exception was feature AG which was the location of a brothel not associated or given an ethnic background (Appendix B 15 pdf pg 316) Brighton only examined a portion of the glass artifacts that were collected and he created three medicinal categories: Ethical Medicines, Mineral Water/Soda Water, and Proprietary Medicines (Brighton 2009: 166) He d id not include all excavated glasswares nor d id he include all excavated glass bottles within his totals. Five Points to compare them to Euroamerican sites from Greenwhich Mews and from the Dublin section of Paterson, New Jersey (Brighton 2009: 134 139) r esearch le d him to conclude that an overwhelming majority (especially when compared to the Euroamerican s ites) of the bottles collected from Irish Five Points features were non prescription proprietary medicines. These findings support his theory that Iris h were discriminated against and denied proper healthcare during this time period at the Five Points (Brighton 2009: 137) ed findings as only 9.8% of the bottles recorded ma d e up the medicinal Irish/Immi grant privy category while 27.36% of the Euroamerican bottle assemblage was made up of medicinal bottles (De Cunzo 1982:21) The evidence assembled by Brighton from the features at Five Points could be interpreted to show this exact pattern but because

PAGE 23

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 23 th ere were no specifics listed in the types of medicinal bottles that were categorized it was difficult if not impossible to make a comparison between medicinal types. Another immigrant site was that of Los Angeles Chinatown which was excavated in order t o preserve the cultural material that would be removed during the construction of a subway transit system Following cultural medicinal practices of the immigrant Chinese the inhabitants of this area would most likely have gone to see a traditional medici ne doctor who would write them a prescription that was to be filled at was used in this study and presented in the report written by Roberta Greenwood (Greenwood 1996) the practice of traditional me dicine was difficult to see or rather did not seem to have be en recorded within this bottle assemblage. What can be learned from the bottles that were recorded was that the Chinese that lived in Los Angeles during the late nineteenth and early twentieth c enturies were actually starting to use western medicines despite the fact that they were socially ostracized just as the Irish and African Americans were. However, unlike the African Americans and Irish populations, the Chinese seemingly made very few att empts to adopt American cultural practices and were also strongly encouraged not to do so. Of the bottles recorded the medicinal category was the largest with the majority being bitters bottles. Only 3.85% of all the bottles were prescription medicine bot tles but 42.31% of all bottles were bitters bottles. Also, as mentioned before, almost 700 herbalist based medicine bottles were recovered but were bottle assemblage was no t possible.

PAGE 24

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 24 Although it was a smaller site, Sebastopol is a French immigrant site in Texas that could show the sort s of medicinal practices that might occur in more rural setting s At n site there was also a slight French occupation period but as it did not cover the majority of the occupation it was listed according to its Irish occupation. Sebastopol was limited by its small and incomplete data collection analysis. The largest glass b ottle category was unidentified and could therefore be relatively unhelpful for the purposes of this study. T he second largest category, when looking at whole bottles alone was the medicinal category which combined total ed 29.63% of all bottles of which prescription bottles total 7. 41% of all bottles. This was a comparable percentage base to the African American sites in Texas and Illinois.

PAGE 25

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 25 Analysis: When the assemblages were as a whole there were enough incongruencies and anomalies that th ere were no specific patterns to identify, there were too many poorly defined variables. However, very general patterns can be noted as they were potentially important and could, with further research, become very important to the field in the future. As t he se sites cover ed a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, comparisons between common ethnicities as well as across ethnicities can be accomplished. Trends the Wayman A.M .E. Church study (Cabak 1995), can be seen to also be represented in this study. However, t he problematic lack of consistent standards of artifact analysis and recording was a severely limiting factor The African American sites discussed in this paper ha d the tendency to exhibit similar percentages of medicinal bottles, between 40 to 50%. The exception to this trend was the Wayman A.M.E. Church site as it ha d an overwhelming number of medicinal bottles within its assemblage (73.51%) and it d id not go int o any specific details about the other types of bottles that were found. Again, the ways in which these artifact groups were recorded did not always allow for an interpreter to glean what each individual bottle was outside of the archaeologists prescribed categories, nor did they all provide an exhaustive accounting of the bottles that were present. What was interesting to note was the cross comparison of ethnic sites that were excavated or analyzed by the same archaeologist. Sebastopol, a French site in T exas and Fanthorp Inn, a Euroamerican site in Texas, both ha d their excavation reports

PAGE 26

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 26 written by the same archaeologist (Sauer & Brandimarte 1998; Sauer 1998) Although Sauer use d different techniques for her analysis between sites, it would still be ass umed that the Euroamerican site would have more medicinal artifacts than the French site. In fact the exact opposite was true 13.89% the total number of glass bottles collected and Sebastopol at 29.63%. T his may have been a result of incomplete artifact analysis (as only 2% of the glassware at Fanthorp Inn was analyzed) or it could have been loosely interpreted as a class difference between these two sites. Also interesting, the respective numbers of medi cinal bottles that were found and recorded for these sites d id not compare with the numbers found at the African American sites. For example, 13. 89% of the bottles at Fanthorp Inn fell within the medicinal category even with a noted African American Influe accounted for 29.63% of all recorded bottles. Again, it was highly likely that the large amount of unidentified or unanalyzed bottles had a strong impact on these percentages. The immigrant based sites also had a difficult time with artifact recording in the original analysis so the results were impressionistic at best. At Chinatown in Los Angeles, the 65.38% medicinal bottle category c ould be attributed to the data collection methods. Only the whole, primar ily embossed, bottles were counted for this study which could make the ratio of medicinal bottles in a given study much higher. Also, the traditional Chinese herbal medicines were not accounted for and their presence may have led to an even higher increase in the medicinal category. When compared to Irish immigrant sites in large towns, similar to the situation in Los Angeles, the numbers were

PAGE 27

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 27 distinctly fewer. At Five Points the medicinal bottle assemblage was only 37.89% but it was unclear as to just whi ch bottles were placed into this category by the archaeologists. When further examined by Brighton (Brighton 2009: 136), the medicinal totals bec a me smaller and there was a large discrepancy between the amount of remedy or cure all type medicines and presc ription medicines. Also, when the two sites were cross compared the Irish Immigrant site show ed a similar pattern of low medicinal bottle percentage (9.80%) when compared to the Euroamerican site (27.36 % ). However, this analysis can o nly be used when comparing the two sites been analyzed nor have they been identified.

PAGE 28

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 28 Discussion: The research that made up this study was inconclusive at best, howeve r it proved to be highly useful as a critique of archaeological methodology. The bottle assemblages for the sites in question were analyzed and formatted in varying ways that were not consistent across time, sites, class, or ethnicity. The only consistenc y that c ould be offered was the example of when the same archaeologist produces findings from different sites, their own work could be cross compared (however, this was not the This lead s historic al archaeologists to significant problems as there can be no feasible way that only one archaeologist could write up every site report nor do some of these archaeologists appear to be consistent across their own sites. Impressionistic ideas based on the re search of other archaeologists that were using the data they collected to prove a certain point c ould be seen as incredibly biased and inconclusive. The only manageable way that a study such as this one could possibly be accurate would be to have one archa eologist analyze all of the glassware from each site or to have standards of artifact analysis and classification for the field of historical archeology. When originally considering this study and the idea of medicinal bottle analysis across different e thnic sites, it became readily apparent that not all archaeologists include bottle analysis within their site reports. Many times there was an overall glass category that receives a percentage label based on its relationship to the total amount of artifact s at a site. It was extremely difficult to find sites that were specific within their

PAGE 29

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 29 glass bottle analysis and even within those chosen for this study there were large gaps within the information they provided. This made it quite difficult when deciding h ow to approach my research question at all as any supporting information that was available was too problematic to lend much validity. However, it c ould be seen through some of the comparisons that there were discrepancies within some of the data sets acr oss sites of differing class and ethnic backgrounds.

PAGE 30

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 30 Conclusions: The research provided by this study displayed one of the weak points within the field of historical archaeology, the lack of standardization. Although some conclusions cou ld vaguely be drawn by the data that was collected and presented by this study, each data set c ame with its own significant flaws and ha d a difficult time being cross compared between other sites. There may be options as far as standardization is concerned although these options may limit the creative and flexible nature of the field. Standardization of the methodology behind artifact analysis is required for a greater understanding of the excavated sites. At this moment, many sites can only be compared in ternally, because of the unique nature of their data collection or site type. Accurately portraying comparisons between sites requires a standardization of archaeological and analytical methods that are consistent across sites of like time periods. A seri ous limitation to creating standards of analysis would be where does one draw the line when comparing artifacts across the entirety of recorded history ? From the beginning of written history to present day there are too many differences between the time periods and types of artifacts to create an overall historical archaeology standard. However, it may be useful to divide the field of historical archaeology into usable spans of time where within each block of time there are a set of standards that must be upheld. Further research into ways of managing this ever changing field as well as finding the best ways to implement standards of analysis and recordkeeping are needed.

PAGE 31

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 31 Bibliography: Brighton, Stephen A. Historical Archaeology of the Irish Diaspora: a Transnational Approach Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 2009. Print. Ca ba k, Melanie A., Mark D. Groover, and Scott J. Wagers. Health Care and the Wayman A.M.E. Church: Historical Archaeology Tucson, AZ: Society for Historical Archaeolgy, 1995. Print. De Cunzo, Lu Ann. "Households, Economics, and Ethnicity in Paterson's Dublin, 1829 1915; The Van Houten Street Parking Lot Block." Northeast Historical Archaeology 11 (1982): 9 25. Print. Dixon, Kelly J. A Place of Recreation of Our Own: the Archaeology o f the Boston Saloon : Diversity and Leisure in an African American owned Saloon, Virginia City, Nevada Reno: University of Nevada, 2002. Print. Geismar, Joan H. The Archaeology of Social Disintegration in Skunk Hollow: a Nineteenth century Rural Black Com munity New York: Academic, 1982. Print. Greenwood, Roberta S. Down by the Station: Los Angeles Chinatown, 1880 1933 Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1996. Print. Jelks, Edward B., and John W. Muirhead. The Wil liam Carey Barton Family: a Study in Historical Archaeology Bloomington, IL: Bloomington Normal Black History Project, McLean County Historical Society, 1996. Print. Larsen, Clark Spencer. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.

PAGE 32

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 32 Marius, Richard. A Short Guide to Writing about History New York, NY: HarperCollins College, 1995. Print. Sauer, Sandra R., and Cynthia Brandimarte. Sebastopol State Historical Park. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 1998 Print. Sauer, Sandra R. Fanthorp Inn State Historical Park (41GM79), Grimes County, Texas: Archeological Excavations, 1983 1989 Austin, TX: Prewitt and Associates, 1998. Print. South, Stanley A. Method and Theory in Historical Archeology New York: Academic, 1977. Print. "WorthPoint." Antiques, Art and Collectibles What's It Worth? | WorthPoint Web. 10 Apr. 2011. . Yamin, Rebecca, ed. Tales of Five Points: Working class Life in Ninete enth century New York Vol. 1. West Chester, PA: John Milner Associates, 2000. Print. A Narrative History and Archaeology of Block 160.

PAGE 33

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 33 Appendix:

PAGE 34

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 34

PAGE 35

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 35

PAGE 36

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 36

PAGE 37

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 37

PAGE 38

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 38

PAGE 39

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 39

PAGE 40

Casey L. Co ttrill Page | 40



PAGE 2

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO 0HGLFDO DQG +HDOWK ,VVXHV LQ WK DQG (DUO\ WK &HQWXU\ $PHULFD 7DEOH RI &RQWHQWV &RYHU 6KHHW SJ $EVWUDFW SJ ,QWURGXFWLRQ SJ /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ SJ 0HWKRGRORJ\ SJ 3UREOHPV RU /LPLWDWLRQV SJ 6LWH &RPSDULVRQV SJ $QDO\VLV SJ 'LVFXVVLRQ SJ &RQFOXVLRQV SJ %LEOLRJUDSK\ SJ $SSHQGL[ SJ b RI 0HGLFLQH %RWWOHV 3HU 6LWH SJ 6LWH 2FFXSDWLRQ SJ 7RWDOV SJ &KLQDWRZQ SJ )LYH 3RLQWV SJ :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ +RXVHKROG SJ )DQWKRUS ,QQ SJ 6HEDVWRSRO SJ 6NXQN +ROORZ SJ 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ SJ 3DJH _

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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f 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV LQWHUSUHWHG WKLV ODUJH DVVHPEODJH WR KHDOWKFDUH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV ZKLFK ZDV ZK\ WKH FKXUFK LWVHOI EHFDPH WKH UHSRVLWRU\ IRU LWV $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ SDULVKLRQHUV ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK UHYHDOHG D VLPLODU VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG ZLWK VRPH RI WKH DUWLIDFWV UHFRYHUHG IURP WKH H[FDYDWLRQV DW WKH )LYH 3RLQWV LQ 1HZ
PAGE 5

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f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nV FDUH 7KH DQDO\VLV RI VRPH KXPDQ UHPDLQV FDQ VKRZ D ODFN RI GHQWDO FDUH VXFK DV WKH H[DPSOH RI GHQWDO FDULHV /DUVHQ f RU WKH XVH RI H[WUHPH VXUJLFDO SURFHGXUHV LQ WKH UHFRYHUHG UHPDLQV /DUVHQ f 6LOO RWKHU VHWV RI UHPDLQV FDQ VRPHWLPHV EH WHVWHG IRU ORQJ WLPH GUXJ XVH RU GLIIHUHQW GLVHDVH W\SHV OLNH WXEHUFXORVLV WKDW PD\ KDYH EHHQ FRPPRQO\ WUHDWHG GXULQJ D JLYHQ WLPH SHULRG /DUVHQ f (DFK RI WKHVH PHWKRGV KDYH WKHLU REYLRXV VWUHQJWKV DQG IODZV EXW WKH IRFXV RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR H[DPLQH WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH DUFKDHRORJLFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI GRPHVWLF VLWHV FDQ VKRZ HYLGHQFH

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ :KHQ H[DPLQLQJ WKH VWXG\ RI ERWWOHV ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJ\ WKHUH DSSHDUV WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI ODWLWXGH LQ DQ DUFKDHRORJLVWVn JLYHQ SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI DQDO\VLV $V WKH ILHOG RI KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJ\ LWVHOI VWUHWFKHV RYHU VXFK D EURDG SHULRG RI WLPH KLVWRULFDO SHULRG WR SUHVHQW DJHf DOO RI WKH GDWD VHWV KDYH WR EH SUHVHQWHG DQG PDQDJHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHLU RZQ XQLTXH IDFWRUV )RU WKH PRVW SDUW KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJLVWV UHO\ RQ DGDSWLQJ WKH W\SRORJ\ PRGHOV FUHDWHG E\ 6WDQOH\ 6RXWK LQ WKH nV WR ILW WKHLU DQDO\VLV $ORQJ ZLWK 6RXWKnV SLRQHHULQJ DFKLHYHPHQWV LQ FHUDPLF SDWWHUQ DQDO\VLV KH DOVR GLYLGHG KLV DVVHPEODJH LQWR PHDQLQJIXO VXEVHWV WKDW ZHUH EDVHG RQ IXQFWLRQ DQG DFWLYLW\ DUHDV 7KH HLJKW DUWLIDFW JURXSV WKDW KH XWLOL]HG ZHUH VSHFLILF WR D %ULWLVK$PHULFDQ FRORQLDO DUWLIDFW FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP .LWFKHQ $UFKLWHFWXUH )XUQLWXUH $UPV &ORWKLQJ 3HUVRQDO 7REDFFR 3LSHV DQG $FWLYLWLHV 6RXWK f 7KHVH JURXSLQJV DOORZHG IRU PRUH VSHFLILF IRUPV RI SDWWHUQ DQG XVH DQDO\VLV DFURVV D JLYHQ DVVHPEODJH $V PHQWLRQHG EHIRUH 6RXWKnV DUWLIDFW JURXSV KDYH EHHQ XWLOL]HG DQG DGDSWHG E\ RWKHU KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJLVWV WR VXLW WKH VSHFLILF QHHGV RI WKHLU VLWH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 7KLV PHDQV WKDW VRPH RI 6RXWKnV FDWHJRULHV PD\ EH RPLWWHG FKDQJHG UHYLVHG RU JLYHQ PRUH GHWDLO GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QHHGV RI WKH DQDO\VW +RZHYHU WKHUH LV QR FRQVHQVXV RQ VSHFLILF FDWHJRULHV RU JURXSV WKDW FRXOG EH XVHG DFURVV DOO RI WKH VLWHV LQFOXGHG LQ KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJ\ 7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKH YDULHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV PDNH LW GLIILFXOW WR FRPSDUH DFURVV VLWHV RU WLPH SHULRGV EDVHG RII RI WKH ZD\ WKH DUFKDHRORJLVWV GHFLGHG WR SUHVHQW WKHLU LQIRUPDWLRQ 3URJUHVVLYHO\ WKRXJK WKH DWWHQWLRQ WR GHWDLO ZLWKLQ

PAGE 8

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f $Q H[DPSOH RI KRZ WKH EUHDNGRZQ RI WKHVH JURXSLQJV KHOS WR VHSDUDWH RXW UHOHYDQW DUWLIDFW PDWHULDO FDQ EH VKRZQ E\ WKH ZD\ VKH XVHV KHU *ODVV )UDJPHQWV FDWHJRU\ WR VKRZ DOO RI KHU UHOHYDQW JODVV DUWLIDFWV 7KH RYHUDOO KHDGLQJ RI *ODVV )UDJPHQWV FRQWDLQV ZLWKLQ LW FDWHJRULHV RI PLQLPXP QXPEHU RI ERWWOHV ZLQGRZ JODVV WDEOHZDUH ODPSV PLVFHOODQHRXV ERWWOH JODVV DQG XQLGHQWLILHG JODVV IUDJPHQWV *HLVPDU f *HLVPDU WKHQ SURFHHGV WR IXUWKHU VLPSOLI\ WKH PLVFHOODQHRXV ERWWOH FDWHJRU\ E\ FUHDWLQJ VXEFDWHJRULHV DOFRKROLF EHYHUDJHV QRQDOFRKROLF EHYHUDJHV PHGLFLQH IRRG PLVFHOODQHRXV DQG PRGHUQ EHYHUDJHV *HLVPDU f )XUWKHUPRUH VKH VXSSRUWV WKH QXPEHUV UHSUHVHQWHG LQ KHU ERWWOH FDWHJRULHV E\ OLVWLQJ WKH W\SHV GDWH UDQJHV QXPHULFDO TXDQWLWLHV DQG ORFDWLRQV WKDW PRVW RI WKH ERWWOHV DUH IRXQG LQ *HLVPDU f $ORQJ ZLWK RWKHU VXSSRUWLQJ JUDSKV DQG UDZ GDWD OLVWHG LQ KHU DSSHQGLFHV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LV SUHVHQWHG FDQ EH HDVLO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DQG KHU PHWKRGRORJLHV YHULILHG VR WKDW DQRWKHU UHVHDUFKHU FRXOG XVH *HLVPDUnV GDWD IRU WKHLU RZQ FRPSDULVRQV 3DJH _

PAGE 9

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nV ZRUN DUH WKH PRVW DFFHVVLEOH ZD\V WR XVH UHFRUGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ EXW WKH\ DUH QRW WKH RQO\ ZD\V 6RPH DUFKDHRORJLVW SUHVHQW WKHLU JURXSLQJV DQG DOVR SURYLGH OLVWV RI WKH VSHFLILF W\SHV DQG DQDO\VLV RI HDFK LQGLYLGXDO ERWWOH UHFRYHUHG WR SURYLGH VSHFLILFLW\ DQG SURYHQLHQFH 7KLV DOVR OHQGV VXSSRUW WR DQ\ IXUWKHU DQDO\VLV RU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW FDQ EH GHGXFHG EDVHG RQ WKH QXPEHUV RI SDUWLFXODU DUWLIDFWV

PAGE 10

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nV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKHLU RZQ VLWHV (DFK VLWH ILWV WKH WLPH SHULRG RI QLQHWHHQWK WR HDUO\ WZHQWLHWK FHQWXU\ GHSRVLWV DQG PRVW VLWHV KDYH D IRFXV RQ DQ HWKQLF PLQRULW\ JURXS GXULQJ WKLV WLPH SHULRG 7KH QLQHWHHQWK WR HDUO\ WZHQWLHWK FHQWXULHV VLWHV WKDW DUH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH VHOHFWHG EHFDXVH RI WKHLU GLIIHULQJ HWKQLFLWLHV DV ZHOO DV WKHLU UHFRUG RI JODVV ERWWOHV ZLWKLQ WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH DVVHPEODJHV 7KH %RVWRQ 6DORRQ 'L[RQ f IURP 9LUJLQLD &LW\ 1HYDGD ZKLFK VSDQV IURP WKH nV WR WKH nV ZDV DQ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ EXVLQHVV VLWH 2WKHU $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV WKDW ZHUH XVHG IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV SURMHFW LQFOXGHG WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK IURP %ORRPLQJWRQ ,OOLQRLV PLG WR ODWH QLQHWHHQWK FHQWXU\ WR WKH HDUO\ WZHQWLHWK FHQWXU\f WKH :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ )DPLO\ VLWH DOVR IURP 3DJH_

PAGE 11

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO %ORRPLQJWRQ ,OOLQRLV nV WR nVf DQG WKH VLWH RI 6NXQN +ROORZ IURP 1HZ -HUVH\ f 7KH VLWH RI &KLQDWRZQ LQ /RV $QJHOHV &DOLIRUQLD *UHHQZRRG f VSDQV IURP WR DQG ZDV IRFXVHG RQ WKH &KLQHVH FRPPXQLW\ GZHOOLQJ WKLV ODUJH FLW\ 7KH )LYH 3RLQWV VLWH LQ 1HZ
PAGE 12

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nV 'XEOLQ ZHUH DOO H[FDYDWHG E\ &XOWXUDO 5HVRXUFH 0DQDJHPHQW WHDPV RU IXQGLQJ 7KLV H[DPSOH FDQ EHJLQ LOOXVWUDWH WKH LQFUHGLEOH LQIOXHQFH WKDW &50 KDV LQ WKH ILHOG RI KLVWRULFDO DUFKDHRORJ\ 6RPH RI WKHVH VLWHV ZHUH H[FDYDWHG LQ RUGHU WR PDNH ZD\ IRU QHZ FRQVWUXFWLRQ SURMHFWV VXFK DV WKH &KLQDWRZQ H[FDYDWLRQ LQ /RV $QJHOHV IRU D QHZ 0HWUR 5DLO OLQH *UHHQZRRG f $V D UHVXOW RQO\ VDPSOLQJ LV FRQGXFWHG HQWLUH VLWHV DUH QRW H[FDYDWHG DQG PDQ\ WLPHV WKH DUHDV WKDW DUH H[FDYDWHG PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH NH\ IHDWXUHV RU HYHQ WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW IHDWXUHV RI D VLWH 2WKHU VLWHV DUH H[FDYDWHG EHFDXVH WKH\ DUH RZQHG E\ VWDWH SDUNV DQG WKHLU SUHVHUYDWLRQ LV LPSRUWDQW IRU LQFUHDVLQJ YLVLWDWLRQ WR WKH SDUN VXFK DV WKH )DQWKRUS ,QQ VLWH LQ 7H[DV 6DXHU f 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ LPSRUWDQFH DQG IXQGLQJ KDYH PDGH H[FDYDWLRQV PRUH LQWHQVLYH RU OHVV GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV VXUURXQGLQJ WKH VLWH LWVHOI 7KH VLWH DW )LYH 3RLQWV LQ

PAGE 13

&DVH\ , &ROLQ 1HZ
PAGE 14

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f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b RI WKH WRWDO JODVV DUWLIDFWV UHFRYHUHG ZHUH DEOH WR EH DQDO\]HG 6DXHU f 7KLV PHWKRG DOWKRXJK VRPHWLPHV XQDYRLGDEOH OLPLWV WKH

PAGE 15

&DVH\ / &ROOULOO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI D VLWH DV ZHOO DV DQ RYHUDOO SLFWXUH RI OLIHZD\V SDWWHUQV DV b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t %UDQGLPDUWH 6DXHU f 6RPH RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG DUWLIDFW FDWHJRULHV XWLOL]HG DUH LGHQWLFDO EXW WKHUH DUH VRPH REYLRXV GLVFUHSDQFLHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR UHSRUWV WKDW FDQ PDNH VRPH FURVV FRPSDULVRQV GLIILFXOW )RU HDFK VLWH WKHUH DUH D OLVW RI WDEOHV WKDW DFFRXQW IRU WKH QXPHULFDO DPRXQW XQNQRZQ ZKHWKHU IUDJPHQWDU\ ZKROH RU RWKHU FRQGLWLRQf RI WKH DUWLIDFWV IRU HDFK RI KHU FDWHJRULHV 7KHVH QXPEHUV DUH XVHIXO IRU JHQHUDO TXDQWLW\ DPRXQWV RU IUHTXHQF\ EXW FRQWDLQ QR VSHFLILFV DQG WKHUHIRUH FDQQRW EH DQDO\]HG DQ\ IXUWKHU 7KH DQDO\VLV RI 6HEDVWRSROnV DUWLIDFW DVVHPEODJH FRQWDLQV D EULHI ZULWH XS RI HDFK RI KHU FDWHJRULHV VHSDUDWHO\ DQG OLVWV PDQ\ RI WKH SDUWLFXODUV DERXW WKH DUWLIDFWV WKDW ZHUH IRXQG , ORZHYHU WKH DUWLIDFWV GLVFXVVHG LQ WKHVH ZULWLQJV GR QRW PDWFK WKH QXPEHUV XVHG LQ KHU nWRWDOVn FKDUWV QRU GR WKH\ LQFOXGH VRPH RI WKH DUWLIDFWV WKDW DUH FXUUHQWO\ RQ GLVSOD\ DW 6HEDVWRSRO 6DXHU t %UDQGLPDUWH f 6R WKHUH LV QR ZD\ WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH PLVVLQJ SLHFHV RI FRQWH[WXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ QRU FDQ HDFK RI WKHVH FDWHJRULHV EH FRPSOHWHO\ UHFRQFLOHG $OVR

PAGE 16

&DVH\ / &ROOULOO WKH UDWKHU YDJXH UHFRYHU\ DUHDV VXFK DV nNLWFKHQn DQG nURRPn PDNH LW GLIILFXOW DW WLPHV WR FRPH XS ZLWK D ZRUNDEOH FRQWH[W RU SODFHPHQW IRU WKH DUWLIDFWV WKDW ZHUH UHFRYHUHG 7KH WZR ODUJH VLWH DVVHPEODJHV H[DPLQHG ZHUH WKH )LYH 3RLQWV
PAGE 17

&DVH\ ,&RWWULOO DQDO\VLV DQG ZHUH WUDVK GHSRVLW DUHDV ZHUH ORRNHG DW IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ DV WKHUH ZDV VXFK D ZHDOWK RI PDWHULDO WR DQDO\]H :LWKLQ WKH JODVV DQDO\VLV FKDUWV FUHDWHG IRU WKH DQDO\]HG IHDWXUHV WKHUH ZHUH RQO\ D IHZ FDWHJRULHV WKDW FRXOG EH XWLOL]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KHUH ZDV QR PDVWHU OLVW RI ERWWOH DQDO\VLV ZLWK WKH QDPHV RI HDFK HPERVVHG ODEHO RU PDQXIDFWXUHUnV PDUN VR WKH DUWLIDFW QXPEHUV KDG WR FRPH GLUHFWO\ IURP WKH DQDO\VLV RI RWKHUV DQG WKHLU RZQ FDWHJRULFDO FKRLFHV 7KH nRWKHUn FDWHJRULHV ZKLFK VHHPHG WR EH D FDWFKDOO IRU XQLGHQWLILDEOH ERWWOHV FRXOG QRW EH LQFOXGHG EHFDXVH LW GLGQnW OLVW WKHP VSHFLILFDOO\ DV ERWWOHV MXVW DV nRWKHUn 2I WKH VHYHQWHHQ IHDWXUHV H[DPLQHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ RQO\ IRXU ZHUH ORRNHG DW LQ GHWDLO SULPDULO\ GXH WR WKH PHGLFLQDO DQDO\VLV SHUIRUPHG E\ 6WHSKHQ %ULJKWRQ ZKR GHOLEHUDWHO\ GLG QRW LQFOXGH DOO RI WKH ERWWOHV LQ WKHVH IHDWXUHV ^UHIHU WR )LYH 3RLQWV *UDSK $SSHQGL[ SJ f DQG KH DOVR LQFOXGHG JODVV MDUV LQ KLV GDWD VHW 7KH ODVW WZR VLWHV WKDW ZHUH H[DPLQHG ZHUH 6NXQN +ROORZ *HLVPDU f DQG 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ 'H &XQ]R f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f 7KLV PHDQV WKDW DOWKRXJK VRPH

PAGE 18

&DVH\ / &ROOULOO RI WKH ERWWOHV DUH OLVWHG DQG GHWDLOHG QRW DOO RI WKHP DUH DFFRXQWHG IRU *HLVPDUnV 7DEOH *HLVPDU f ZDV XVHG DV WKH FRPSOHWH OLVW RI JODVV ERWWOH DQDO\VLV ZLWK UHIHUHQFH WR WDEOH WR UXOH RXW DV PDQ\ MDUV DV SRVVLEOH 6RPH RI WKH FDWHJRULHV WKDW ZHUH XWLOL]HG E\ *HLVPDU IRU DUWLIDFW DQDO\VLV EHFDPH FRQIXVLQJ DV WKHUH ZHUH FRPELQDWLRQ FDWHJRULHV WKDW DOVR KDG WKHLU RZQ VHSDUDWH FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV ELWWHUVZKLVNH\ DQG PHGLFLQHSHUIXPH VR WKHVH FDWHJRULHV FRXOG QRW EH DFFRXQWHG IRU $W 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ 'H &XQ]R f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nV 'XEOLQ IRFXV RQ (XURDPHULFDQ VLWHV 7KH (RV $QJHOHV &KLQDWRZQ )LYH 3RLQWV 6HEDVWRSRO DQG SDUW RI 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ VLWHV UHSUHVHQW LPPLJUDQW VLWHV $V D UHVXOW RI WKH QXPHURXV YDULDEOHV LQ DUWLIDFW UHFRUGLQJ DQDO\VLV DQG WLPH SHULRG DPRQJ RWKHUV WKH

PAGE 19

&DVH\ , &ROOULOO FRPSDULVRQV EHWZHHQ WKHVH VLWHV DUH OLPLWHG ODFNV VXEVWDQWLDO VXSSRUW IRU GHILQLWLYH FODLPV DQG DUH DW EHVW WHQWDWLYH RU LPSUHVVLRQLVWLF $V WKH LQVSLUDWLRQ IRU WKLV SURMHFW FDPH IURP WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK DQDO\VLV $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV PDNH XS WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH VLWHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 9DU\LQJ FXOWXUDO DQG VRFLHWDO SUHVVXUHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV GXULQJ WKH QLQHWHHQWK DQG HDUO\ WZHQWLHWK FHQWXULHV WHQGHG WR PDNH WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ FRPPXQLW\ PRUH LVRODWHG DQG VHOI UHOLDQW &DEDN f 7KURXJK WKH DUWLIDFW DQDO\VLV DW WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK WKH RYHUDEXQGDQFH RI PHGLFLQDO DUWLIDFWV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH FKXUFK SURYLGHG KHDOWKFDUH WR LWV $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ FRQJUHJDWLRQ GXULQJ D VHULHV RI HSLGHPLFV &DEDN f 7KLV DVVHPEODJH OHQGV VXSSRUW WR WKH IDFW WKDW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV ZHUH GLVFULPLQDWHG DJDLQVW ZLWK UHJDUG WR KHDOWKFDUH DQG PHGLFDO WUHDWPHQW DQG ZRXOG KDYH WR ORRN IRU PRUH FUHDWLYH DYHQXHV WR FXUH WKHPVHOYHV 7KH %RVWRQ 6DORRQ 'L[RQ f VWXG\ PHQWLRQV D ODUJH DPRXQW RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV DQG RWKHU PHGLFLQDO LWHPV SUHVHQW LQ WKH DVVHPEODJH $OWKRXJK WKLV PD\ VHHP XQXVXDO WKH KLJK DOFRKRO FRQWHQW RI PDQ\ SHULRG PHGLFLQHV PD\ KDYH EHHQ D IDFWRU DV ZHOO DV WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU PHGLFLQDO FXUHV RI DOFRKRO UHODWHG LOOQHVVHV 'L[RQ f ,W LV DOVR SRVVLEOH WKDW f¯VXFK DQ DUUD\ RI SKDUPDFHXWLFDO UHPHGLHV DW WKLV VDORRQ LV WKH UHVXOW RI GRPHVWLF DFWLYLWLHV DVVRFLDWHV ZLWK :LOOLDP $* %URZQnV UHVLGHQFH LQ WKH VDORRQ 'L[RQ f +RZHYHU DV WKHUH DUH QR TXDQWLILDEOH UHVXOWV IRU WKLV VLWH LW LV GLIILFXOW WR HOXFLGDWH ZLWK DQ\ DVVXUDQFH ZK\ WKHVH PHGLFLQHV ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQW 7KH :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ )DPLO\ VLWH GRFXPHQWV WKH KLVWRU\ RI DQ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ KRXVHKROG IURP WKH nV WR nV DQG FDQ EH XVHIXO LQ GRFXPHQWLQJ VRPH VSHFLILF PHGLFLQDO W\SHV WKDW ZHUH XVHG +RZHYHU

PAGE 20

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO DV WKLV KRXVH LV QRW ORFDWHG LQ D ODUJH WRZQ RU FLW\ WKHUH PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ DV PDQ\ VRFLHWDO SUHVVXUHV RQ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV LQ WKLV DUHD +RZHYHU WKLV IDPLO\ LV LQ WKH VDPH WRZQ %ORRPLQJWRQ ,OOLQRLVf DV WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK VR WKLV IDPLO\ PD\ KDYH KDG VRPH FRQWDFW ZLWK WKH KHDOWKFDUH SUDFWLFHV DGPLQLVWHUHG E\ WKH FKXUFK DV ZHOO DV VXIIHUHG IURP VLPLODU HWKQLF GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DIRUH PHQWLRQHG 7KH &KXUFK VLWH VSDQQHG IURP WKH PLG WR ODWH nV WR WKH HDUO\ WK FHQWXU\ ZKLOH WKH )DPLO\ VLWH VSDQQHG IURP WKH nV WR nV 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKHUH ZHUH QR VSHFLILFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG SDWHQW RU SUHVFULSWLRQ PHGLFLQHV WKDW ZHUH UHFRYHUHG IURP HLWKHU VLWH WKH PHGLFLQDO FDWHJRULHV DW WKH :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ VLWH LWVHOI ZHUH WKH KLJKHVW RXW RI WKH WRWDO ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH WKRXJK 7KH VLWH RI 6NXQN +ROORZ *HLVPDU ,;f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f IRFXVHV RQ D ZKLWH IDPLO\ IURP 7H[DV WKDW RZQHG

PAGE 21

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VODYHV $OWKRXJK VRPH $IULFDQ VSLULWXDO SUDFWLFHV DV ZHOO DV VRPH FXOWXUDO DUWLIDFWV DUH PHQWLRQHG WKH SULPDU\ VLWH DQDO\VLV IRFXVHV RQ WKH ZKLWH )DQWKRUS IDPLO\ DVVHPEODJH 7KH )DQWKRUS VLWH VKRZV D VOLJKWO\ KLJKHU SHUFHQWDJH RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV WKDQ WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV LQ P\ VWXG\ ZKLFK PD\ EH D UHVXOW RI HWKQLF GLIIHUHQFHV DV ZHOO DV FODVV RU VWDWXV GLIIHUHQFHV 7KH )XURDPHULFDQ SRUWLRQ RI WKH 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ VLWH IRFXVHV RQ D PLGGOH FODVV ZKLWH IDPLO\ WKH %H\HDnV RI 1HZ
PAGE 22

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO RZQHG E\ ,ULVK RU ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ,ULVK QDPHV 7KH RQH H[FHSWLRQ ZDV IHDWXUH $* ZKLFK ZDV WKH ORFDWLRQ RI D EURWKHO QRW DVVRFLDWHG RU JLYHQ DQ HWKQLF EDFNJURXQG $SSHQGL[ % SGI SJ f %ULJKWRQ RQO\ ORRNHG DW D SRUWLRQ RI WKH JODVV DUWLIDFWV WKDW ZHUH FROOHFWHG DQG KH FUHDWHV WKUHH PHGLFLQDO FDWHJRULHV (WKLFDO 0HGLFLQHV 0LQHUDO :DWHU6RGD :DWHU DQG 3URSULHWDU\ 0HGLFLQHV %ULJKWRQ f +H GRHV QRW LQFOXGH DOO JODVVZDUHV QRU GRHV KH LQFOXGH DOO ERWWOHV ZLWKLQ KLV WRWDOV %ULJKWRQnV FRPSDULVRQ XWLOL]HV WKH ,ULVK JODVV ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH DW )LYH 3RLQWV WR FRPSDUH WKHP WR (XURDPHULFDQ VLWHV IURP *UHHQZKLFK 0HZV DQG IURP WKH 'XEOLQ VHFWLRQ RI 3DWHUVRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ %ULJKWRQ f %ULJKWRQnV UHVHDUFK OHDG KLP WR FRQFOXGH WKDW DQ RYHUZKHOPLQJ PDMRULW\ HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH (XURDPHULFDQ VLWHVf RI WKH ERWWOHV FROOHFWHG IURP ,ULVK )LYH 3RLQWV IHDWXUHV ZHUH QRQSUHVFULSWLRQ SURSULHWDU\ PHGLFLQHV 7KHVH ILQGLQJV VXSSRUW KLV WKHRU\ WKDW ,ULVK ZHUH GLVFULPLQDWHG DJDLQVW DQG GHQLHG SURSHU KHDOWKFDUH GXULQJ WKLV WLPH SHULRG DW WKH )LYH 3RLQWV %ULJKWRQ f 7KH 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ VLWH VHHPV WR PLUURU %ULJKWRQnV ILQGLQJV DV RQO\ b RI WKH ERWWOHV UHFRUGHG PDNH XS WKH PHGLFLQDO ,ULVK,PPLJUDQW SULY\ FDWHJRU\ ZKLOH b RI WKH (XURDPHULFDQ ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH LV PDGH XS RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV 'H &XQ]R f 7KH HYLGHQFH DVVHPEOHG E\ %ULJKWRQ IURP WKH IHDWXUHV DW )LYH 3RLQWV FRXOG EH LQWHUSUHWHG WR VKRZ WKLV H[DFW SDWWHUQ EXW EHFDXVH WKHUH DUH QR VSHFLILFV OLVWHG LQ WKH W\SHV RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV WKDW DUH FDWHJRUL]HG LW LV GLIILFXOW LI QRW LPSRVVLEOH WR PDNH D FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ PHGLFLQDO W\SHV $QRWKHU LPPLJUDQW VLWH LV WKDW RI O RV $QJHOHV &KLQDWRZQ ZKLFK ZDV H[FDYDWHG LQ RUGHU WR SUHVHUYH WKH FXOWXUDO PDWHULDO WKDW ZRXOG EH UHPRYHG WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D 3DJH _

PAGE 23

&DVH\ , &R¯WULOO VXEZD\ WUDQVLW V\VWHP )ROORZLQJ FXOWXUDO PHGLFLQDO SUDFWLFHV RI WKH LPPLJUDQW &KLQHVH WKH LQKDELWDQWV RI WKLV DUHD ZRXOG PRVW OLNHO\ KDYH JRQH WR VHH D WUDGLWLRQDO PHGLFLQH GRFWRU ZKR ZRXOG ZULWH WKHP D SUHVFULSWLRQ WKDW ZDV WR EH ILOOHG DW D &KLQHVH KHUEDOLVWVn VKRS )RU WKH ERWWOH DQDO\VLV WKDW KDV EHHQ XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DQG SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH UHSRUW ZULWWHQ E\ 5REHUWD *UHHQZRRG *UHHQZRRG f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b RI DOO WKH ERWWOHV ZHUH SUHVFULSWLRQ PHGLFLQH ERWWOHV EXW b RI DOO ERWWOHV ZHUH ELWWHUV ERWWOHV $OVR DV PHQWLRQHG EHIRUH DOPRVW KHUEDOLVW EDVHG PHGLFLQH ERWWOHV ZHUH UHFRYHUHG EXW DUH QRW OLVWHG LQ WKH ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH VR DFFXUDWH RU FRPSOHWH DFFRXQWV RI WKLV VLWHnV ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH LV QRW SRVVLEOH $OWKRXJK LW LV D VPDOOHU VLWH 6HEDVWRSRO LV D )UHQFK LPPLJUDQW VLWH LQ 7H[DV WKDW FDQ VKRZ ZKDW VRUW RI PHGLFLQDO SUDFWLFHV PLJKW RFFXU LQ D PRUH UXUDO VHWWLQJ $W WKH LPPLJUDQW SULY\ WKDW ZDV H[FDYDWHG DV SDUW RI WKH 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ VLWH WKHUH ZDV DOVR D VOLJKW )UHQFK RFFXSDWLRQ SHULRG EXW DV LW GLG QRW FRYHU WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH RFFXSDWLRQ LW ZDV OLVWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR LWV ,ULVK RFFXSDWLRQ 6HEDVWRSRO LV OLPLWHG E\ LWV VPDOO DQG

PAGE 24

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO LQFRPSOHWH GDWD FROOHFWLRQ DQDO\VLV 7KH ODUJHVW JODVV ERWWOH FDWHJRU\ LV XQLGHQWLILHG DQG FDQ WKHUHIRUH EH UHODWLYHO\ XQKHOSIXO IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ 7KH VHFRQG ODUJHVW FDWHJRU\ ZKHQ ORRNLQJ DW ZKROH ERWWOHV DORQH LV WKH PHGLFLQDO FDWHJRU\ ZKLFK FRPELQHG WRWDOV b RI DOO ERWWOHV RI ZKLFK SUHVFULSWLRQ ERWWOHV WRWDO b RI DOO ERWWOHV 7KLV LV D FRPSDUDEOH SHUFHQWDJH EDVH WR WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV LQ 7H[DV DQG ,OOLQRLV

PAGE 25

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nV VWXG\ DW WKH )LYH 3RLQWV %ULJKWRQ f DQG WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK VWXG\ &DEDN f FDQ EH VHHQ WR DOVR EH UHSUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ +RZHYHU WKH SUREOHPDWLF ODFN RI FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI DUWLIDFW DQDO\VLV DQG UHFRUGLQJ LV D VHYHUHO\ OLPLWLQJ IDFWRU 7KH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV GLVFXVVHG LQ WKLV SDSHU KDYH WKH WHQGHQF\ WR H[KLELW VLPLODU SHUFHQWDJHV RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV EHWZHHQ WR b 7KH H[FHSWLRQ WR WKLV WUHQG LV WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK VLWH DV LW KDV DQ RYHUZKHOPLQJ QXPEHU RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV ZLWKLQ LWV DVVHPEODJH bf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

PAGE 26

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO ZULWWHQ E\ WKH VDPH DUFKDHRORJLVW 6DXHU t %UDQGLPDUWH 6DXHU f $OWKRXJK VKH XVHV GLIIHUHQW WHFKQLTXHV IRU KHU DQDO\VLV EHWZHHQ VLWHV LW ZRXOG VWLOO EH DVVXPHG WKDW WKH (XURDPHULFDQ VLWH ZRXOG KDYH PRUH PHGLFLQDO DUWLIDFWV WKDQ WKH )UHQFK VLWH ,Q IDFW WKH H[DFW RSSRVLWH LV WUXH ZLWK )DQWKRUS ,QQnV PHGLFLQDO DUWLIDFW SHUFHQWDJH DW b WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI JODVV ERWWOHV FROOHFWHG DQG 6HEDVWRSRO DW b 7KLV PD\ KDYH EHHQ D UHVXOW RI LQFRPSOHWH DUWLIDFW DQDO\VLV DV RQO\ b RI WKH JODVVZDUH DW )DQWKRUS ,QQ ZDV DQDO\]HGf RU LW FRXOG EH ORRVHO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DV D FODVV GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR VLWHV $OVR LQWHUHVWLQJ WKH UHVSHFWLYH QXPEHUV RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV WKDW ZHUH IRXQG DQG UHFRUGHG IRU WKHVH VLWHV GRHV QRW FRPSDUH ZLWK WKH QXPEHUV IRXQG DW WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VLWHV )RU H[DPSOH b RI WKH ERWWOHV DW )DQWKRUS ,QQ IHOO ZLWKLQ WKH PHGLFLQDO FDWHJRU\ HYHQ ZLWK D QRWHG $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QIOXHQFH RQ WKH VLWH 6HEDVWRSROnV PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI DOO UHFRUGHG ERWWOHV $JDLQ LW LV KLJKO\ OLNHO\ WKDW WKH ODUJH DPRXQW RI XQLGHQWLILHG RU XQDQDO\]HG ERWWOHV KDG D VWURQJ LPSDFW RQ WKHVH SHUFHQWDJHV 7KH LPPLJUDQW EDVHG VLWHV DOVR KDG D GLIILFXOW WLPH ZLWK DUWLIDFW UHFRUGLQJ LQ WKH RULJLQDO DQDO\VLV VR WKH UHVXOWV ZHUH LPSUHVVLRQLVWLF DW EHVW $W &KLQDWRZQ LQ /RV $QJHOHV WKH b PHGLFLQDO ERWWOH FDWHJRU\ FDQ EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH GDWD FROOHFWLRQ PHWKRGV 2QO\ WKH ZKROH SULPDULO\ HPERVVHG ERWWOHV ZHUH FRXQWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZKLFK PDNHV WKH UDWLR RI PHGLFLQDO ERWWOHV LQ D VWXG\ PXFK KLJKHU $OVR WKH WUDGLWLRQDO &KLQHVH KHUEDO PHGLFLQHV ZHUH QRW DFFRXQWHG IRU DQG WKHLU SUHVHQFH PD\ KDYH OHG WR DQ HYHQ KLJKHU LQFUHDVH LQ WKH PHGLFLQDO FDWHJRU\ :KHQ FRPSDUHG WR ,ULVK LPPLJUDQW VLWHV LQ ODUJH WRZQV VLPLODU WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ /RV $QJHOHV WKH QXPEHUV DUH GLVWLQFWO\ IHZHU

PAGE 27

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO $W )LYH 3RLQWV WKH PHGLFLQDO ERWWOH DVVHPEODJH ZDV RQO\ b EXW LW LV XQFOHDU DV WR MXVW ZKLFK ERWWOHV ZHUH SODFHG LQWR WKLV FDWHJRU\ E\ WKH DUFKDHRORJLVWV :KHQ IXUWKHU H[DPLQHG E\ %ULJKWRQ %ULJKWRQ f WKH PHGLFLQDO WRWDOV EHFRPH VPDOOHU DQG WKHUH LV D ODUJH GLVFUHSDQF\ EHWZHHQ WKH DPRXQW RI UHPHG\ RU FXUHDOO W\SH PHGLFLQHV DQG SUHVFULSWLRQ PHGLFLQHV $OVR ZKHQ WKH WZR VLWHV DW 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ DUH FURVV FRPSDUHG WKH ,ULVK ,PPLJUDQW VLWH VKRZV D VLPLODU SDWWHUQ RI ORZ PHGLFLQDO ERWWOH SHUFHQWDJH bf ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH (XURDPHULFDQ VLWH bf +RZHYHU WKLV DQDO\VLV FDQ RQO\ EH XVHG ZKHQ FRPSDULQJ WKH WZR VLWHV DW 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ DV WKHUH ZHUH ODUJH DPRXQWV RI ERWWOHV WKDW KDYH QRW EHHQ DQDO\]HG QRU KDYH WKH\ EHHQ LGHQWLILHG

PAGE 28

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

PAGE 29

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO ZLWKLQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKH\ SURYLGHG 7KLV PDGH LW TXLWH GLIILFXOW ZKHQ GHFLGLQJ KRZ WR DSSURDFK P\ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ DW DOO DV DQ\ VXSSRUWLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW ZDV DYDLODEOH ZDV WRR SUREOHPDWLF WR OHQG PXFK YDOLGLW\ +RZHYHU LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKURXJK VRPH RI WKH FRPSDULVRQV WKDW WKHUH ZHUH GLVFUHSDQFLHV ZLWKLQ VRPH RI WKH GDWD VHWV DFURVV VLWHV RI GLIIHULQJ FODVV DQG HWKQLF EDFNJURXQGV

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

&DVH\ / &RWWULOO %LEOLRJUDSK\ %ULJKWRQ 6WHSKHQ $ +LVWRULFDO $UFKDHRORJ\ RI WKH ,ULVK 'LDVSRUD D 7UDQVQDWLRQDO $SSURDFK .QR[YLOOH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7HQQHVVHH 3ULQW &DEDN 0HODQLH $ 0DUN ' *URRYHU DQG 6FRWW :DJHUV +HDOWK &DUH DQG WKH :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK +LVWRULFDO $UFKDHRORJ\ 7XFVRQ $= 6RFLHW\ IRU +LVWRULFDO $UFKDHROJ\ 3ULQW 'H &XQ]R /X $QQ +RXVHKROGV (FRQRPLFV DQG (WKQLFLW\ LQ 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ 7KH 9DQ +RXWHQ 6WUHHW 3DUNLQJ /RW %ORFN 1RUWKHDVW +LVWRULFDO $UFKDHRORJ\ f 3ULQW 'L[RQ .HOO\ $ 3ODFH RI 5HFUHDWLRQ RI 2XU 2ZQ WKH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI WKH %RVWRQ 6DORRQ 'LYHUVLW\ DQG /HLVXUH LQ DQ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQRZQHG 6DORRQ 9LUJLQLD &LW\ 1HYDGD 5HQR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HYDGD 3ULQW *HLVPDU -RDQ + 7KH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI 6RFLDO 'LVLQWHJUDWLRQ LQ 6NXQN +ROORZ D 1LQHWHHQWKFHQWXU\ 5XUDO %ODFN &RPPXQLW\ 1HZ
PAGE 32

&DVH\ / &ROOULOO 0DULXV 5LFKDUG $ 6KRUW *XLGH WR :ULWLQJ DERXW +LVWRU\ 1HZ
PAGE 35

3DJH _ &DWHJRULHV %RVWRQ 6DORRQ b &KLQDWRZQ b )LYH 3RLQWV b :D\PDQ $0( &KXUFK b :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ b %HYHUDJH f«6RGD 0RGHUQ %HYHUDJH &RVPHWLF7 RLOHWU\ .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 0HGLFLQDO 9LDOV 0HG 2WKHU f«%LWWHUV 5HPHG\ f«9DVHOLQH 6HZLQJ 0DFKLQH 2LO +RXVHKROG 6QXII 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU &DWHJRULHV )DQWKRUS ,QQ b 6HEDVWRSRO b 6NXQN +ROORZ b 3DWHUVRQf¬V 'XEOLQ 3ULY\ b 3ULY\ b %HYHUDJH ! f«6RGD ! 0RGHUQ %HYHUDJH ! &RVPHWLF7RLOHWU\ ! .LWFKHQ)RRG n ! 3UHVFULSWLRQ ! 0HGLFLQDO ! 9LDOV ! 0HG 2WKHU ! f«%LWWHUV ! 5HPHG\ ! f«9DVHOLQH ! 6HZLQJ 0DFKLQH 2LO ! +RXVHKROG ! 6QXII ! 2WKHU ! 7RWDO 1XPEHU ! &DVH\ / &RWWULOO

PAGE 36

3DJH _ &KLQDWRZQ )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH %HYHUDJH r6RGD 7RLOHWU\ .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 0HGLFLQDO r %LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHOLQH +RXVHKROG GHFRUDWLYH RU IXQFWLRQDOf 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH 7RWDO b %HYHUDJH r6RGD 7RLOHWU\ .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 0HGLFLQDO r %LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHLQH +RXVHKROG GHFRUDWLYH RU IXQFWLRQDOf 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU &DVH\ / &RWWULOO

PAGE 37

)LYH 3RLQWV )HDWXUH ' )HDWXUH % )HDWXUH )HDWXUH )HDWXUH %HYHUDJH ZLQHOLTXRUf r6RGD0LQHUDO :DWHU &RVPHWLF .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 5[ (PERVVHG 0HGLFLQDO 0HG 9LDOV 0HG2WKHU r %LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHOLQH +RXVHKROG ,QNf 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU )HDWXUH $. )HDWXUH $/ )HDWXUH $/ )HDWXUH $O )HDWXUH %HYHUDJH ZLQHOLTXRUf r6RGD0LQHUDO :DWHU &RVPHWLF .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 5[ (PERVVHG 0HGLFLQDO 0HG 9LDOV 0HG2WKHU r %LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHOLQH +RXVHKROG ,QNf 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU %ULJKWRQ )LYH 3RLQWV )HDWXUH -t= )HDWXUH )HDWXUH 7RWDO (WKLFDO 0HGLFLQHV 0LQHUDO6RGD :DWHU 3URSULHWDU\ 0HGLFLQHV )HDWXUH $) )HDWXUH 1 )HDWXUH 2 )HDWXUH $. )HDWXUH + )HDWXUH $* )HDWXUH $1 7RWDOV b ! b &DVH\ / &RWWUL-O

PAGE 38

3DJHc 7KH :LOOLDP &DUH\ %DUWRQ +RXVHKROG )HDWXUH )HDWXUH 7HVW 7HVW 7HVW 7HVW 7HVW 7HVW 7RWDOV b DOO b ZKROH %HYHUDJH ZKROHf %HYHUDJH VKHUGVf r6RGD &RVPHWLF .LWFKHQ)RRG 0HGLFLQDO 3ODLQ 0HG5[ %RG\ 3DUW SODLQf %RG\ 3DUW %) 6WLQVRQ t &Rf r%LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHOLQH +RXVHKROG GHFRUDWLYH RU IXQFWLRQDOf 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU rZLWKRXW VKHUGVZKROH RQO\" )DQWKRUS ,QQ )LQLVK %DVH %RG\ (PERVVHG %RG\%DVH :KROH 7RWDO b 6KHUGV 6KHUGV 6KHUGV %RWWOHV (PERVVHG 3DWHQW 0HGLFLQH (PERVVHG *UDGXDWHG (PERVVHG &RVPHWLF 2WKHU (PERVVHG $OFRKROLF %HYHUDJH 6QXII ,QN 8QLGHQWLILHG LQWDFW 7RWDO &DVH\ / &RWWULOO

PAGE 39

6HEDVWRSRO %HYHUDJH %HYHUDJH 6KHUGV r6RGD &RVPHWLF .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 0HGLFLQDO 9LDOV r%LWWHUV 5HPHG\ r9DVHOLQH 6HZLQJ 0DFKLQH 2LO 7R\ 2WKHU 2WKHU %DVH 1HFN RU 6KRXOGHU 2WKHU 6KHUGV 7RWDO 1XPEHU ZKROHf 7RWDO 1XPEHU ZVKHUGVf .LWFKHQ 'LQLQJ 5RRP 5RRP 8QNQRZQ 7RWDOV b :KROH b $OO F &DVH\ , &

PAGE 40

3DJH c 6NXQN +ROORZ r ! aR ]U X R I' & ' F 4B D! R 7! LQ 2 I' &O Uag &' 2 R U(7 Q 2 D R Q I' WR WR Rn I' ‘2 2 fµ‘2 &OXVWHU $ %HYHUDJH r6RGD 8QLGHQWLILHG %HYHUDJH 0RGHUQ %HYHUDJH 0RGHUQ 6RGD &RVPHWLF .LWFKHQ)RRG 3UHVFULSWLRQ 0HGLFLQDO 0HG9LDOV 0HG2WKHU r %LWWHUV 5HPHG\ A9DVHOLQH +RXVHKROG 2WKHU 7RWDO 1XPEHU &OXVWHU % &OXVWHU & &OXVWHU ' &OXVWHU ( 7RWDO b 3DWHUVRQnV 'XEOLQ 3ULY\ b 3ULY\ b %HYHUDJH r6RGD0LQHUDO :DWHU 0HGLFLQH 0LQLPXP %RWWOH 'LIIHUHQW %RWWOHG 3URFXFWV & 7RWDO &DVH\ / &RWWULOO