Midden and Dumping History at Olin Farm | Archaeology in the Cowling Arboretum

Watch the Documentary

Explore the Storymap

Discover the Artifacts

Below is a collection of artifacts collected at the Olin Farm in 2025. This digital display was also created physically at Community Archaeology Day.

These specific artifacts have been chosen because we believe they tell a varied, winding, and interesting story of the midden and its contents and thus, it reflects the reality of the site. Many artifacts do not have a concrete answer or context, some of them are complete mysteries. We have chosen these because they are of particular note, we wanted assistance from the community identifying them on Community Archaeology Day, or they were unique or special in some way. Although the artifacts are a varied group from what we collected, we would like to mention that they were hand selected to be analyzed for this project because of a number of factors, not least of which is human bias and curiosity. Thousands of artifacts were collected, seven are displayed here.

Artifact 1 – Tea Saucer

Curious about 3D scanning?

You can see artifacts from another archaeological site in the arb HERE.

And you can see how to add and create digital scans for this website HERE.

TEA SAUCER

Found inside Excavation Unit 22, this tea saucer is one of three ceramic plates from the Fire King Ovenware line of kitchenware manufactured by Anchor Hocking Glassware in Lancaster, Ohio. This piece does contain traces of gold as we learned through using pXRF technology, and its location under several feet of dirt probably helped to protect the artifact and prevent it from breaking like other ceramic items dispensed in the midden. As we learned from a community member during Community Archaeology Day, this kind of plate was in Dacie Moses house in the 1960’s, and there is potential this kind of plate was also used in Carleton dining halls.

TAGS FROM COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY DAY

These tags contain insights given by community members. Without hosting Community Archaeology Day we would not have gained this significant context and additional artifact information.

In this particular case, the knowledge of an alumni that lived in Dacie Moses house sixty years ago gave us new insights. We still do not have a concrete reason why these plates were in the arb—were they a product of students stealing the plates and abandoning them? Was there a moment in Carleton history they were mass dumped here? It’s unclear, but regardless we have shards of several kinds of plates from this line found in the arb around the same area.

A tag written by a community member at Community Archaeology Day

Dacie Moses had this set—coffee drinking was big!
Some of the set may still be at the house!!
(Contributed by Carleton Alumni who used to live in Dacie Moses House)

Dining hall from same time as Dacie Moses?
(Contributed by Carleton Archivist)

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

Frankly, this artifact defies what the history of dumping in the arb thus far indicates. Two arb directors now claim that Carleton never dumped trash in the arb, but here is Carleton trash alongside all the industrial trash. It would have been dumped around the same time due to basic stratigraphic understandings of the artifact placement. It seems that the most likely answer is Carleton students took the plates from Dacies or the dining hall and discarded them in the arb—potentially after a party or social event.

Artifact 2 – Detachable Link Chain

DETACHABLE LINK CHAIN

Found inside Excavation Unit 22, this iron chain is a detachable link chain that was first introduced in 1873. It was widely used in early 20th centuries for agriculture use and industrial purpose. In specific, it was used for conveying equipment like hay bale elevators, in material handling, and also for general power transmission due to their simple design that allows for easy installation, repair, and length adjustment. It was likely used on agricultural equipment in the Olin farm.

With insights from a community member, we believe this chain was likely used for Force Transfer or in an early engine on the Olin Farm.

TAGS FROM COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY DAY

These tags contain insights given by community members. Without hosting Community Archaeology Day we would not have gained this significant context and additional artifact information.

In this particular case, a community member who grew up on farms identified the particular use of this chain: a force transfer chain. It would be linked over top of a gear connected to other gears inside of a machine and transfer power from a source, like horsepower, into other parts of the machine. Initially we had hypothesized about this chain as a part of a pulley or transfer system, but now we have more specialized knowledge.

Force Transfer
Power source would move chain between gears (fits in “links”) and fit together parts of machine with gears.
“Chainlink” for energy power transfer
Early engine, horse power
(Contributed by a Community Member)

Maybe a tire or shoetrack for winter?
(Contributed by a Carleton Student)

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

This artifact fits squarely into discarded farm equipment. It indicates a history of discarded farm trash. Further analysis and discussion with local farmers and Carleton could potentially help determine if it was dumped by Olin farmers or local farmers. This artifact is relatively fairly old, but a more specific date for the artifact would be extremely valuable. We can estimate it is from around 1950-1960 but nothing more specific.

Artifact 3 – Cow Bone

COW BONE

Found inside Excavation Unit 22, this is a bone from a cow. Other smaller bones were found in this unit that also appear to be from a cow. This bone had been butchered for eating, confirmed by the saw marks on it.

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

This may have been from the farmers who lived in the farmhouse before Carleton had purchased the farmhouse, and after eating their piece of meat, they got rid of the bone that you can’t eat in a trash dump. The other possibility is that given Carleton used to discard their trash in the arb, the bone came from one of the dining halls on campus. Additionally it could be a Carlton student or community member who ate and threw their trash out.

Artifact 4 – Razor Head

RAZOR HEAD

This artifact was collected on the surface outside of Excavation Unit 23 (which did not end up being excavated). This is a rare example of a hygiene artifact found in the site.

In the 2022 excavations of the Olin Farm they found an unidentified metal artifact marked with the word “blade.” Now, with the recovery of this artifact, the context for that excavated artifact is more clear: it is the blade loader for this razor.

The specific brand and type of razor is: Schick Injector Razor Type J2 (1959).

TAGS FROM COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY DAY

These tags contain insights given by community members. Without hosting Community Archaeology Day we would not have gained this significant context and additional artifact information.

This theory about veterinary use is interesting and holds water given the history of the site. Shaving is a common part of procedures during surgery for animals, especially small mammals.

Force Transfer
Vet use? To shave animals?
(Contributed by a Carleton Student)

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

This artifact is puzzling in the history of dumping in the arb. It was found on the surface, meaning it was likely discarded at a different time to many uncovered artifacts. It indicates personal hygiene which is rare for artifacts at this site. With the potential of the artifact being used for veterinary purposes its context is more clear, but the ways it fits into the broader history of Carleton/arb dumping is still unclear.

Artifact 5 – Glass Bottle

GLASS BOTTLE

This glass bottle was collected in Shovel Test Pit 11. It is extremely small, the top of the bottle is only large enough for a pin to pit through. Plant life and fungus is growing inside of the bottle now, but otherwise it is in tact. At the base of the bottle is a four, making it nearly impossible to identify more about the creation.

When the base of a bottle is marked only with a number, that typically indicates the mold number associated with it, a piece of information that is interesting but impossible to trace other information from.

We believe that, given the veterinary use of the Olin Farm in the past, this is a remnant from veterinary activity.

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

It is unclear what specifically this artifact can tell us about the history of dumping in the area, but it is of particular note because of the ties to veterinary use of Olin farm. It was likely a discarded remnant of those activities and its recovery farther from the midden distinguishes it from industrial trash.

Artifact 6 – Glass Shards (Syringe)

GLASS SHARDS (SYRINGE)

Found in Excavation Unit 22, these glass shards are distinctly from a syringe (seen in the measurement markings on the side and curve of the glass). The pieces are small and quite sharp, but one of the significant pieces is what appears to be the tip of the syringe where a needle would have been inserted.

The thin glass tube comes to a sharp point and it is small enough to fit inside the hole in the glass bottle (above).

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

If this syringe was for animals or personal use, we suspect it came from the farm and its members, which was dumping its trash in the midden. It could have also come from Carlton College, from one of their biology or chemistry departments, when a student or faculty member broke it and could no longer use it. Given biology projects in the arb, there is a potential that this artifact is a result of academic activity in the area.

Artifact 7 – Glass Shards (Assorted)

GLASS SHARDS (ASSORTED)

These are just four of the hundreds of pieces of glass uncovered in Excavation Unit 22. These are all different kinds of window glass (indicated by their varying thicknesses and color) and two of them are intentionally decorated.

There are tens of varieties of window glass in the midden, some with feathered or straight scratches in the glass intentionally. Glass ranges from clear to aqua to light green. It is unclear if all the glass is from the same origin or different points of origin, but they were all dumped in the same place around a similar time. A majority of the pieces of glass have a straight edge or nicely curved edge, which has caused some to hypothesize that more of the glass was decorated than we can currently ID and it broke along the scratches.

This Artifact and the History of Dumping

These glass fragments indicate much about the relationship of the area to dumping. Hundreds of pieces of different kinds of window-glass, some decorative and some not, were found in the midden, most of them close together. This indicates a mass dumping event or repeated dumping of window glass in the specific midden area. We do not know the origin of the glass for certain, however it could be personal from farmers or from Carleton College. In particular, the decorative glass has been suggested to be from office doors or other displays at Carleton.

Regardless, the sheer variety of glass as well as its decoration indicates a history of intentional and varied dumping of glass in the area by a small community (or community member) or institution.

Graphs and Data Analysis

To better understand the significance of the artifacts our class found during excavation, our group created a typology to delineate potential functions for the artifacts. This typology had three different categories: personal trash, industrial trash, and farm trash. Personal trash is defined as anything one might expect to see in a dorm or home that would seem out of place in a farm or outdoor setting. For example, some of the significant artifacts we found in this category included a tea saucer, a razor head, and various jewelry items. Industrial trash we defined as anything that may have been produced as a byproduct of demolishing a building, which was not unsurprising to find in this area. Some examples of industrial items we found were slag, pieces of concrete, sherds of brick, rusted nails, and window glass. While very similar, we separated farm trash from industrial trash and identified it as any items that may have been more characteristic of a farm or outdoor setting than an indoor one, and once served a specific purpose and function. Some of the items which fell into this category included keys, glass sherds of mason jars and syringes, sherds of clay flower pots, and pieces of wire. Some of the trash we found at the site could not be identified – either what it was or where it could have come from. For example, rusty pieces of metal, glass shards and ceramic sherds that were too small to be identified or other unusual man made things were put in this category.

Figure 1: Total Excavated Materials by Typological Category

Figure 1 shows the total amount of materials we excavated from the site, separated into the categories we established – personal, industrial, farm, and unidentifiable. Based on the location of the midden, we initially believe that the majority of artifacts would be generated by the farm. However, the pie chart shows that 67.5% of the trash came from an industrial source, whereas the farm only generated 19.2%. This was surprising until we interviewed the former Arb Manager and discovered that Carleton regularly dumped building materials in Arb until the mid-1980s, when he banned the practice. The small amount of personal trash (1.7%) was also surprising because we thought that Carleton was dumping more dorm waste in the Arb than the artifacts prove.

Figure 2: Number of Artifacts of Each Material per Typological Category

Figure 2 looks at the type of Arb waste categorized by material, by typology, or use category. The majority of the artifacts we found were glass. Glass represented the majority of the artifacts in the industrial typology, which is our dominant typology. Glass was also the most dominant material in the unidentifiable category. This makes sense because it was hard to identify partial pieces of glass by appearance alone, and use was difficult to discern, so it was categorized as unidentifiable. The second most common material was metal, which was most prevalent in the Farm category. This represented a large amount of wire artifacts that we attributed to the farm. The largest category of material for the personal typology was ceramics. This represented fragments of ceramic plates. We attributed this college dorm waste to the personal typology.

Finally, the lack of plastic materials demonstrated that the trash that we found in the midden was not modern waste.

Figure 3: Material Composition of Typological Categories

Figure 3 shows the material composition by typological categories. The Personal, Industrial, and Unidentifiable typologies have the most diverse material composition, with Personal and Industrial having a large number in each category as compared to the Unidentifiable category. This makes sense because it was easier to identify personal items than items in the other categories, especially items made of glass and metal, which represented the majority of artifacts in the industrial, farm, and unidentifiable categories.

Credits

Documentary and Archival Research by Alec Coy-Bjork

Documentary and Quantitative Analysis by Jolin Liu

Storymap, Quantitative Analysis, and Archival Research by Eve Hatcher Peters

Quantitative Analysis, Archival Research, and Ethnographic Research by Bruce Jones

Artifact Profiles, Website Creation, and 3D Scans by Caroline Paige Stanton