Introduction

The study of faunal remains in the reconstruc-tion of historic subsistence practices has progres-sively gained popularity since Parmalee’s (1960)initial investigation of the diet of military per-sonnel stationed at Fort Loudoun. Although theadoption of faunal analysis in historical researchhas been slow since this inaugural work, signifi-cant methodological advances have occurred inhistorical zooarchaeological study. Specifically,crucial advances have occurred in the quantifica-tion of faunal remains, which, in turn, haveaided in the determination of the economicimportance of species represented in historic fau-nal samples (cf. Lyman 1977; Shultz and Gust1983). The most popular quantification meth-ods in historical zooarchaeology remain NISP(the number of identified specimens, MNI (theminimum number of individuals), biomass(based both on MNI and bone weight) and meatcut analysis. Specifically, the latter two have beeninstrumental in providing more accurate quan-tification of dietary importance, and have subse-quently been used to address questions of socio-economic variability. However, despite the use-fulness of these procedures, further refinement ofconventional quantification techniques is possible

through the use of documentary evidence. As first recognized by Jolley (1983:68) “the

capacity for advances in the field of zooarchaeol-ogy is greater for historic faunal studies than pre-historic faunal studies”. This statement acknowl-edges that historical archaeology benefits fromthe existence of historical documents, which canbe used in the resolution of problems arisingfrom assemblage quantification, inferences aboutdietary importance, and interpretation.Historical documents often contain accounts ofthe subsistence practices of individuals that arethe subject of archaeological scrutiny. Thesesources are numerous: from letters and personalaccounts, inventories and ship manifests, to ten-ders, contracts and newspaper advertisements.

Traditionally, historical records have been uti-lized to aid in the interpretation of faunalremains after they have been excavated and ana-lyzed (i.e., after the dietary importance of thespecies has already been quantified). In thisrespect, faunal analysis has been used to fill thegaps in the historical record and to test the valid-ity of historical documents (Jolley 1983:69).Unfortunately, the a priori incorporation of his-torical documentation into analysis frameworksis rarely attempted.

However, refinements have occurred in histor-

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 19

Augmenting Faunal Quantification Procedures Through theIncorporation of Historical Documentary Evidence:

An Investigation of Faunal Remains from Fort George

Matthew W. Betts

Faunal analyses are now commonly included in historical archaeology reports. Many of the techniquesused in these analyses are identical to those used in prehistoric faunal studies. However, these techniquesare often inappropriate for faunal remains recovered from historic sites because historical documents existthat can be utilized to refine quantification procedures beyond the standard minimum number of indi-viduals (MNI) and meat cut calculations. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of augmenting tradi-tional quantification procedures through the incorporation of historical records and documents, using his-toric Fort George and Fort Malden as examples. Revised quantification procedures for cattle (based onquarters) and swine (based on stored barrels) are created and are compared to MNI calculations. Thiscomparison indicates that meat weight calculations based on MNI units may misrepresent the actualamount of edible meat represented by the archaeological bone.

ical zooarchaeology, using procedures borroweddirectly from prehistoric studies. These tech-niques were based on concerns that traditionalstudies failed “to organize the data into unitscomparable to those used by butchers in the dis-section of the carcass” (Schulz and Gust1983:44). For example, Lyman (1977, 1987) wasable to show that quantification of remains bybutchery unit more accurately represented theimportance of animal species in historic diets.However, such studies often infer the animal cutsdirectly from the faunal assemblage (e.g., Landon1996:58; Schulz and Gust 1983:44). Historicaldocuments are usually incorporated only afterquantification is completed, often to corroboratethe validity of the faunal analysis (e.g., Lyman1977:73), or as a means for discussing variationin the archaeological assemblage (e.g., Lyman1987:63-65). Moreover, it could be argued thatthe actual units of acquisition (those obtained bythe consumer) might not have been the same asthose units used to quantify the dietary impor-tance of the faunal remains in these studies. Forexample, Schulz and Gust (1983) and Lyman(1987) used large beef cuts as the units of analy-sis to compare faunal remains from an historichotel, saloon and general store, when it was morelikely that smaller-serving sized cuts were actual-ly purchased (Huelsbeck 1991:66).

The nature of historical archaeology dictatesthat different analytical frameworks are necessaryfor accurate historical zooarchaeological analysis.The quantification methods used in prehistoriczooarchaeology (and those used, for the mostpart, by historical zooarchaeologists) largelyassume no prior knowledge of consumer behav-iour with respect to acquisition units (portions ofanimals entering the system) and cut choice.Nevertheless, this information is, more oftenthan not, known to the historical archaeologist.It would, therefore, be prudent to incorporatethe information on acquisition units into the tra-ditional analysis framework, a priori. When thesedata are included, it becomes clear that differentunits of analysis are often required to assign themost accurate estimation of the actual dietaryimportance to the historical faunal assemblages.

A few archaeologists have recognized these

facts. As Jolley (1983:69) pointed out, nearly 20years ago, “these documentary items hold poten-tial for establishing accurate meat yield calcula-tions and determining whether the total meatyield or the butchering unit is the proper analyt-ic tool.” Similarly, Huelsbeck (1991:66), in astudy of nineteenth century households, was ableto demonstrate that the appropriate unit ofmeasurement for assigning dietary importancewas the same as that acquired initially by theconsumer. Specifically, he was able to demon-strate that more traditional techniques greatlymisrepresented the dietary importance of certainspecies (Huelsbeck 1991:71). Finally, Crass andWallsmith (1992), although not explicit in theirmethodology, did justify their MNI-based quan-tification by using related documentary evidence.

Despite these cautionary works, recent studiesby zooarchaeologists continue to use estimatesbased on traditional MNI, NISP, and boneweight (biomass) that are often quite unrelatedto the consumer units likely to have been utilizedat the historic site (e.g., Brown and Bowen 1998;Cheek 1998; Diehl et al. 1998; Landon 1996;Markell et al. 1995; Reitz 1994; Whittaker 1999).

This paper incorporates documentary evi-dence in the analysis of faunal remains fromnineteenth century British military sites, usingFort George, in the Niagara Region, as a testcase. By employing existing historical docu-ments, emphasis is placed on determining accu-rate meat-yield calculations from domestic ani-mals supplied to the forts in butchered and pre-served condition, with particular attention tofresh butchered beef and salted pork. In addition,a treatment of the faunal material analyzed fromFort George is presented, representing a rareaccount of subsistence at a British fort inCanada. Following this analysis, the usefulness ofthe newly developed quantification techniques isdemonstrated using a larger sample of pork andbeef remains from Fort Malden (FortAmherstburg), on the Detroit River.

Historical Background

Fort George is located on the western side of themouth of the Niagara River, less than two kilometres

20 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

from Lake Ontario (Figure 1), on an indented bluffapproximately 180 m from the water’s edge(Wilson and Southwood 1976:9). It was con-structed, in 1796, as a British administrativeheadquarters and counterpart to Fort Niagara,which had been recently abandoned by theBritish under the terms of Jay’s Treaty (Coleman1977:9). The fort was erected directly oppositeAmerican occupied Fort Niagara, which waslocated roughly 1,500 m away on the east bankof the Niagara River.

Fort George’s major buildings, palisade, andfortification ditches were built in a three yearperiod from 1796 to 1799, and underwent fewmodifications prior to 1812 (Desloges 1980:8-25). During this time, the fort was occupied bymembers of the 5th, 41st, 100th and 49th regimentsof the British Army as well as by detachments ofthe Queen’s Rangers, the Royal Artillery and theRoyal Canadian Volunteers (Wilson andSouthwood 1976:167). For the first 18 years ofits existence, Fort George was used primarily as adepot for the western outposts of the Great Lakes(Desloges 1980:5), and was involved in no majormilitary action. This soon changed, however,with the onset of American hostilities in 1812.

On June 18, 1812, the United States declaredwar on Great Britain. It was soon realized thatshould Fort George be required to defend itself

from attack (principally from Fort Niagara), itwould need extensive repairs. Almost immediate-ly, renovations were undertaken to reduce thescope and length of its defensive perimeter, tomake the fort more secure from infantry assault(Desloges 1980:36). Throughout the summer of1812, Fort George saw a build-up of militarypersonnel, including members of the SixNations, who were then allies of the BritishEmpire. However, these reinforcements provedto be of little use against the artillery of FortNiagara. By May 27, 1813, American hotshothad reduced virtually all of the structures withinFort George to ashes, and subsequently, the fortwas abandoned (Wilson and Southwood1976:17).

The Americans seized Fort George immediate-ly after its abandonment and continued the ren-ovations begun months earlier by the British. Itis not known exactly what the Americans did tothe defences, but they clearly strengthened thepalisade and earthworks (Coleman 1977:35).After spending a miserable spring, summer, andfall at the fort, under constant fear of Britishattack, the Americans abandoned Fort George onDecember 12, 1813. The British returned to thefort and again renovated the defences and earth-works, in preparation for renewed American hos-tilities. The feared battle never took place, however,

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 21

Figure 1. Map of study area,displaying the locations ofFort George and Fort Malden(Amherstburg). After Wilsonand Southwood (1976).

and the fort saw no further action for the remain-der of its operation. A garrison continued to bestationed at the fort until 1828, when it wasabandoned in a state of absolute ruin.

Historical Accounts of Subsistence at British-Occupied Fort George

Descriptions of meat in the diet of the troops liv-ing at the fort appear principally in personalaccounts (letters and diaries) and in advertise-ments appearing in local newspapers of the time.The Upper Canada Gazette, on Saturday,November 12, 1803, contains two advertise-ments calling for salted pork and fresh beef tosupply military personnel stationed at the BritishGreat Lakes outposts, including Fort George.Salted pork was to be delivered in barrels weigh-ing 208 pounds net (94.5 kg), “and to be of firstquality, properly packed in good and Sufficientcalks” (Upper Canada Gazette, November 12,1803).

According to other contemporary sources, saltpork was the dietary staple of the men stationedat the fort. Each man was to receive one poundof pork daily, in addition to a pound of flour,four ounces of rice and some butter (LaRochefoucauld-Liancourt 1917:54). However,pork was sometimes supplemented by fresh beefwhen available (Wilson and Southwood1974:123). Beef was to be supplied to the fort bythe quarter and was presumably fresh (UpperCanada Gazette, November 12, 1803).

Very few sources mention the contribution ofdomestic birds to the diet of the men and womenof the fort. It is expected that domestic birds suchas chickens and geese were readily available fromthe farms and towns surrounding the fort. Infact, it is entirely possible that these birds wereraised at the fort itself, however, it should bestressed that no contemporary reference to theconsumption of domestic fowl at Fort Georgehas been found. However, Elizabeth Simcoe(1965), in an account of her stay in Niagara inthe late 1790s, describes the collection and con-sumption of wild birds as a common practice bymen and women at Fort George. According toMrs. Simcoe (1965:111), passenger pigeons were

often hunted in the fall and spring during theirmigration. As she described, “the flights of wildpigeons in the spring and autumn are a surpris-ing sight...the air is sometimes darkened withthem” (1965:111). Similarly, this informativedocument indicates that fish were collected fromthe Niagara River to augment the basic diet ofthe troops. Mrs. Simcoe (1965:62) writes thatboth sturgeon and white fish were actively nettedin the shallow waters of the Niagara.

A basic model of the meat contribution to thesubsistence of the troops stationed at FortGeorge can be created from these varioussources. One would expect the basic meat diet ofthe personnel at the fort to consist of salted pork,augmented occasionally by fresh beef. The hunt-ing and collection of wild game birds and fish inthe region directly surrounding the fort furthersupplemented this fare. However, it is not knownhow important the latter resources were in thediet of the men at the fort.

Archaeological Contexts

During the summers of 1973 and 1974, FortGeorge was extensively excavated under thesupervision of John P. Wilson as part of anarchaeological assessment prescribed by theNational Historic Parks Archaeological ResearchSection (Wilson and Southwood 1976:12).Wilson and Southwood (1976:13) state thatexcavation of the site was accomplished usingshovels, picks and trowels. Excavated soils werenot screened, but, as indicated by the samplestudied in this report, very small fragments (lessthan 0.5 cm) were often recovered.

In total, material from 11 different contextswere analyzed and are discussed in this paper.Attention was devoted to two specific areas –Operation 7 (near the Officer’s Quarters andKitchen) and Operation 14 (the remains of aprivy feature). The locations of these areas with-in the fort are indicated in Figure 2.

The Officer’s Quarters and KitchenAll of the analyzed units from Operation 7 wereremoved from sub-operation D, which was locat-ed against the north wall of the Officer’s Kitchen

22 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

(Figure 2). The operation is actually a complex ofpit features, each of which was individually exca-vated and interpreted by Wilson and Southwood(1976).

The most interesting feature in the operation,a shallow rectangular pit feature (19H7D4),yielded an extraordinary artifact assemblage,including green-edged pearlware and creamware,the remains of 17 free-blown dark green winebottles, glass stemware fragments, glass tumblerfragments (accounting for at least ten completevessels), and other artifacts described as table-ware. Wilson and Southwood note that theceramics show little evidence of use-wear. Wilsondated the assemblage to before the War of 1812,possibly from the 1790s (Wilson and Southwood1976).

The other features in Operation 7 were lessinteresting than feature 19H7D4. Two pits(19H7D3 and 19H7D5) were interpreted by theexcavators as trash pits, due to their proximity tothe Officer’s Kitchen and based on the type ofrefuse recovered. Unit 19H7D3 was a deep rec-tangular pit with sloping sides and a flat bottom,some 93 cm wide by 237 cm long. It may haveoriginally been intended for use as a latrine pit,but perhaps was abandoned because of its prox-

imity to the kitchen. It was then used as a refusepit, for items such as broken cups and othermeal-related garbage. Although large, the pit wasrelatively sterile and contained very few faunalremains. Wilson and Southwood contend thatthis is the result of backfilling of sterile soil beforelarge accumulations of refuse could be deposited.Based on the artifact assemblage removed fromthe pit, the excavator has dated the feature to theearly nineteenth century, possibly before the Warof 1812 (Wilson and Southwood 1976:65). Thesecond pit, described as the “pit with inslopingsides”, is represented by contexts 19H7D5 and7D8. The pit was approximately 240 cm by 300cm in area, with gently sloping sides and a flatbottom. The excavator contends that there mayhave been a wooden cover consisting of planks orboards spanning this pit. The artifact assemblageis consistent with kitchen and table refuse, andindicates that it was constructed prior to the out-break of war in 1812 (Wilson and Southwood1976:66-67).

The PrivyOperation 14 is associated with the excavation ofa masonry foundation located directly east of theOfficer’s Quarters (Figure 2). The foundation

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 23

Figure 2. Map of FortGeorge, displaying thelocations of the officer’squarters (Operation 7)and the privy (Operation14). After Wilson andSouthwood (1976).

was constructed from random coarse rubblecomposed of dolomitic limestone adhering to alime and sand mortar. The feature measuredsome 2.40 m by 3.99 m in size and occurred atapproximately 39 cm below ground level. Wilsonand Southwood (1976:91) have interpreted thestructure as the remains of an abandoned privy,based on historic references and stratigraphic andartifactual evidence. The feature has been datedto post-1814 (but before the abandonment ofthe fort), based on the artifactual remains recov-ered.

The excavation of the feature was divided intotwo sub-operations denoted A and B. Sub-oper-ation A occurred around the structure’s exteriorboundaries, while sub-operation B occurredwithin the structure’s foundation. Three contextswere analyzed from the exterior of the privy.(19H14A1; 19H14A2; 19H14A4). Two con-texts were analyzed from the interior of the foun-dation (19H14B7; 19H14B8).

Results of the Faunal Analysis

Of the 1,032 bone fragments analyzed in thisproject, 500 (48 percent) were identified to thefamily level or lower and 532 were unidentifiablefragments. The results presented here are anextension of a faunal analysis completed as partof the faunal archaeo-osteology course at theUniversity of Toronto; the small sample size is adirect reflection of the course requirements.However, the sample size does not necessarilydiminish the validity of the faunal findings. Thefaunal assemblages from the contexts describedabove were analyzed in their entirety, and greateffort was expended ensuring that all possible ele-ments were identified. As these assemblages areassociated with discrete features, the analysisshould provide a relatively unbiased account ofthe subsistence behaviours that produced thosediscrete contexts.

In total, 19 species of fish, mammals and birdswere identified in the sample from Fort George.The preservation of the organic material wasexcellent, and, in some ways, accounts for thehigh proportion of positive identifications madeon the material. Fortunately, only three percent

of the analyzed bones showed evidence of exca-vation trauma in the form of fresh breaks orother abrasions, despite the majority of excava-tion being completed with shovels.

The Shallow Rectangular Feature (19H7D4)In total, three species of mammal, three speciesof fish and six species of bird were identified inthis unit. Mammalian identifications include adomestic swine (Sus scrofa), a domestic sheep(Ovis aries), and a domestic cat (Felis catus). Thebird bones represent seven individuals, includingtwo domestic chickens (Gallus gallus), a blackduck or mallard duck (Anas sp.), a domesticgoose (Anser anser), a bobwhite quail (Colinusvirginianus), a passenger pigeon (Ecopistes migra-torius) and a small song-bird (familyPasseriformes). The fish bones recovered from thefeature represent three species: a large walleye orsauger (Stizostedion sp.), a white perch or whitebass (Morone sp.) and a freshwater drum(Aplodinatus grunniens). Table 1 lists the NISP(Number of Identified Specimens) and the MNI(Minimum Number of Individuals) calculatedfrom the analyzed bones. For all units, MNIswere calculated using the “matching” procedure(cf. Reitz and Wing 1999:195), which, whilemore labour intensive, provides more accurateMNI estimates then the standard “siding” proce-dure.

Operation 7 (19H7D)Faunal remains recovered from Operation 7,Sub-operation D were quite different from thoseremoved from 19H7D4. Of note here is thegreater importance of mammals in these prove-niences. The identified mammal bones representfour individuals, including a domestic cow (Bostaurus), a domestic pig, a domestic sheep and adomestic goat (Capra hircus). Bird remains aremore closely similar those found in 19H7D4.Two bobwhite quails were identified, along withone black duck or mallard duck (Anas sp.), adomestic goose, a passenger pigeon, and an east-ern meadowlark (Sturnella magna). Fish remainsidentified include one walleye (Stizostedioncanadense) and one perch-like fish (familyPercidae). As well, this context contained the

24 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

only reptilian remains found, those of a ratherlarge snake (family Colubridae). Table 1 summa-rizes these identifications.

The Privy (19H14)The faunal remains recovered from the privycontexts show a greater diversity of mammals.The privy provides the only remains of an eco-nomically important non-domesticated mammalin the entire analyzed sample, that of a white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). As well, theremains of at least two domestic cattle, onedomestic sheep, one domestic pig, and onedomestic cat were identified. Bird remainsinclude a black duck or mallard duck, a positive-ly identified mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), adomestic goose, a passenger pigeon, and a bob-white quail. Fish remains include only one iden-tified individual, a large lake sturgeon (Acipenserflavescens).

Refining Quantification Procedures Throughthe Incorporation of Historical Documents

It is particularly difficult to estimate the dietaryimportance of domestic species consumed at fortsites using traditional meat weight computationsbecause, according to historical sources, meatentered the forts in a butchered and packagedformat, rather than as live or whole animals. In atraditional faunal analysis framework, meatweight calculations would be computed by deter-mining the MNI of a particular species repre-sented by the faunal remains, and multiplyingthis number by an average live weight per speci-men, which in turn is adjusted by a constant toapproximate the total edible meat weight.However, in this instance, records exist indicat-ing that a traditional quantification of meatweights based on MNI calculations would mis-represent the actual dietary importance of cattleand swine in the diet of the men and womenwho lived at the fort. In particular, informationon the butchery and storage practices involvedwith the preparation and consumption of meatprovides the opportunity to refine these calcula-tions in an attempt to more accurately estimatethe meat contribution indicated by the remains.

CattleIn both features near the Officer’s Quarters andthose around the Privy, cattle bones represent alarge proportion of the identified remains. Theproblem with determining dressed meat weightsbased on MNI calculations at Fort George is thathistorical documents indicate that beef was sup-plied to the fort not as live animals but by thebutchered quarter. The Upper Canada Gazette, inthe Saturday, November 12, 1803 editionincluded an advertisement for fresh beef fromlocal merchants to be delivered by the quarter(Figure 3).

There is some evidence in the form of butch-ery marks on the cattle remains to support theinformation from the Gazette. Most cattle verte-bral fragments identified were butchered downthe midline with a large, obviously heavy, cleaver.Furthermore, butchery marks indicate that firstlumbar vertebrae were often cut transverselyacross the anterior end, in addition to the mid-line dissection, while the remaining lumbar ver-tebrae did not indicate this pattern. Both of thesepatterns are consistent with butchery by thequarter. Based on this evidence, and the docu-mentary sources, it is clearly preferable when cal-culating the percentage of meat weight from cat-tle at Fort George to determine not the mini-mum number of whole individuals, but the min-imum number of quarters accounted for by thefaunal remains. For both Operation 7 andOperation 14, the domestic cow remains werepooled and analyzed by all elements to determinethe minimum number of quarters represented ineach sample (Table 1). Front quarters wereexpected to include thoracic vertebrae and ribs,and all other anterior bones, while hindquarterswere expected to include the lumbar vertebraeand all posterior limbs (cf. Lyman 1977). It isexpected that few metatarsals, metacarpals, andphalanges would occur in the sample, as quar-tered remains should have the lower extremitiesremoved below the carpal and tarsal joints(carpals and tarsals are therefore likely to beincluded in the sample). As well, head bones arenot expected to contribute to the faunal sample,as these were likely removed in the originalbutchery process.

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 25

26 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

19

H7D

4 O

PE

RAT

ION

7

OP

ER

ATIO

N 1

4

NIS

P

MN

I R

evis

ed Q

uant

ific

atio

n E

dibl

eMea

t (k

g)

NIS

P

MN

I R

evis

ed Q

uant

ific

atio

n E

dibl

e M

eat

(kg)

N

ISP

M

NI

Rev

ised

Qua

ntif

icat

ion

Edi

ble

Mea

t (k

g)M

amm

alia

Bos

taur

us

– –

n/a

– 33

1

1 ri

ght f

ront

qua

rter

, 18

1 14

5 2

2 le

ft fr

ont q

uart

ers,

1 le

ft fr

ont q

uart

er,

2

righ

t fro

nt q

uart

ers,

1

righ

t hin

d qu

arte

r,

1

left

hin

d qu

arte

r,

1 le

ft h

ind

quar

ter

1

righ

t hin

d qu

arte

r. 27

7.82

Sus s

crof

a

1 1

1 Pr

ime

Gra

de b

arre

l 54

9

1 1

Prim

e G

rade

bar

rel

54

19

1 1

Prim

e G

rade

bar

rel

54O

vis a

ries

3

1 n/

a 12

.5

9 1

n/a

12.5

3

1 n/

a 12

.5Fe

lis c

atus

55

1

not e

cono

mic

ally

imp.

–

– –

n/a

– 1

1 no

t eco

nom

ical

ly im

p.

–C

apra

hir

cus

– –

n/a

– 1

1 n/

a 12

.5

– –

n/a

–O

doco

ileus

vir

gini

anus

–

– n/

a –

– –

n/a

– 1

1 n/

a –

Ave

sA

nas (

sp.)

1

1 n/

a 0.

70

4 1

n/a

0.70

4

1 n/

a 0.

70G

allu

s gal

lus

45

2 n/

a 0.

952

– –

n/a

– –

– n/

a –

Ana

s pla

tyrh

ynch

os

– –

n/a

– –

– n/

a –

2 1

n/a

0.70

Ans

er a

nser

4

1 n/

a 1.

89

1 1

n/a

1.89

2

1 n/

a 1.

89C

olin

us v

irgi

nian

us

1 1

n/a

0.20

8 8

2 n/

a 0.

417

1 1

n/a

0.20

8Ec

topi

stes m

igra

tori

us

1 1

n/a

0.20

8 3

1 n/

a 0.

208

1 1

n/a

0.20

8Pa

sser

iform

es

1 1

not e

cono

mic

ally

imp.

–

– –

n/a

– –

– n/

a –

Stur

nella

mag

na

– –

n/a

– 17

1

not e

cono

mic

ally

imp.

–

– –

n/a

–O

stei

chth

yes

Apo

lodi

natu

s gru

nnie

ns

1 1

n/a

1.35

1 –

– n/

a –

– –

n/a

–M

oron

e sp

. 23

1

n/a

0.36

7 –

– n/

a –

– –

n/a

–St

izoz

tedi

on c

anad

ense

–

– n/

a –

5 1

n/a

1.92

9 –

– n/

a –

Stiz

oste

dion

sp.

8

1 n/

a 1.

929

– –

n/a

– –

– n/

a –

Aci

pens

er fl

aves

cens

–

– n/

a –

– –

n/a

– 3

1 n/

a 24

.9Pe

rcid

ae

– –

n/a

– 10

1

n/a

0.36

7 –

– n/

a –

Rep

tilia

Col

ubri

dae

sp.

– –

n/a

– 56

1

not e

cono

mic

ally

imp.

–

– –

n/a

–

Tabl

e 1.

Freq

uenc

ies o

f rep

rese

nted

spec

ies f

rom

For

t Geo

rge.

Table 2 displays the element distribution ofBos taurus remains identified from the faunalsample. In most respects, the distribution reflectsthe quartering model discussed above.Metapodials are absent, while there is only onephalanx bone present. This is consistent with

butchery by the quarter. However, the compara-tively large number of skull and mandible frag-ments is puzzling, as these were not expected tobe included with dressed beef quarters. While theremains represent only one complete skull, theirpresence suggests the possibility that the butchers

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 27

PUBLIC NOTICE:THE Agent for Purchafes will enter into immediate engagements with fuch perfon asmay be defirous of furnifhing a supply of PORK at Kingfton, York, Fort George, FortChippawa, Fort Erie, And Amherftburg, for ufe of his Majefty’s Forces in UpperCanada; each Barrel to contain two hundred and eight pounds nett, and to be of firftquality, properly packed in good an fufficient Calks, warranted to keep found and goodfor twelve moths, after the delivery to the King’s Stores, which delivery must be madeone or before the 1ft day of May, 1804. Payments will be made by the Agent of the Purchafes, on producing thereceipts of the Commiffary, certified by the Officer Commanding, in quadruplicate, ofthe quantity delivered into the King’s Magazines at either of the aforementionedDepots, by Bills on the Deputy Paymafter General at Quebec. The Accounts to be madeup agreeable to the form heretofore tranfmitted to the Commiffary at each Poft, and thePurchafer’s Signature to be attefted by two Fubferibing witneffes. Agent for Purchafes Office, York, 10th Nov, 1803. JOHN McGILL Agent for Purchafes

Agent for Purchafes Office, York, 10th November,1803NOTICE is hereby given to fuch perfon or perfons who may be willing to fupply freihBEEF of good quality to the Troops ftationed at Kingston, York, Fort George, FortChippawa, Fort Erie and Amherftburg, for the months of October, November andDecember, 1804, January and February, 1805, to deliver in their Propofals, with thename of their Secority, to the Agent of the Purchafes at York, on or before the firft dayof March next, fpecifying the months for which they propofe to furnifh the fame, andthe loweft price. The Beef will be received by the Commiffary at each Poft, by the Quarter, andImmediately paid by him in Specie, or by Bills on Quebec at the option of the Contractor. Security will be required for the due performance of the Contraft. JOHN McGILL, Agent for Puurchafes.

Figure 3. Transcription of an adver-tisement calling for salted pork andfresh beef to supply the Great Lakesoutposts in the November 12th,1803 edition of the Upper CanadaGazette.

NISP MNE Right MNE Left MNE Total MAU %MAUSkull 18 – – 1 1 40Mandible 13 1 1 2 1 40Cervical Vert. 18 – – 7 1 40Thoracic Vert 25 – – 6 0.46 18.4Lumbar Vert. 17 – – 5 0.83 33.2Sacrum 1 – – 1 1 40Innominate 7 1 2 3 1.5 60Rib 32 8 5 13 0.5 20Scapula 18 1 1 2 1 40Humerus 11 2 3 5 2.5 100Radius 4 1 2 3 1.5 60Ulna – – – – – –Carpal 3 – 3 3 0.25 10Metacarpal – – – – – –Femur 3 – 2 2 1 40Patella – – – – – –Tibia 4 1 1 2 1 40Tarsal 3 1 2 3 0.3 12Metatarsal – – – – – –Phalanx 1 – 1 1 0.04 1.6

Table 2. Fort George Bostaurus (domestic cow) ele-ment distribution: all ana-lyzed contexts.

who supplied the fort included cranial materialwith the butchered carcasses. However, butcherymarks on the skull remains suggest that they werenot butchered in any standardized fashion. It ispossible that these remains are the result of occa-sional animals entering the system “on the hoof.”Nevertheless, the element distributions are atleast partially consistent with the model suggest-ed by the historical documents, and thereforequantification will follow a method consistentwith dressed beef quarters.

Usable meat weights for quarters were calcu-lated by dividing the known average dressedmeat weight of a cow by four, and then adjustingthis calculation by two constants – one toaccount for the percentage of edible meat avail-able from a cattle carcass and one to account fordifferences in weight between the front and rearquarters. The average cow of 1795 weighedapproximately 362 kg (Fussell 1929). Reitz andScarry (1985:70) state that the edible dressedmeat available from an adult cow was about 50percent of the total body weight. Therefore, theaverage edible meat available by the quarter fromcattle is about 45.25 kg (362kg/4 x 0.50).Further, front quarters average seven percentmore total weight than rear quarters (data gath-ered from modern butchers in Toronto,Ontario). In sum, front quarters, in general,would account for 48.41 kg, while rear quarterswould account for approximately 42.09 kg ofusable meat.

SwineDetermining the economic importance ofdomestic swine in the diet of the individuals sta-tioned at Fort George has posed many problems.Like the cattle remains, calculating meat weightsfor the pig remains by using MNI calculationscould prove misleading. There is direct docu-mentary evidence that the pork supplied to thefort was delivered not as live animals butbutchered and preserved in barrels (UpperCanada Gazette, November 12, 1803). This cre-ates serious problems for the archaeologist. First,did salted pork contain bones at all (cf. Wilsonand Southwood 1976:124)? Second, if so, is itpossible to determine the average number of

bones present in a barrel of salted pork? Finally,what proportion of the gross weight of a barrelactually consisted of edible meat?

In a roughly contemporary essay on the topicof pork slaughtering and packaging, WilliamMoore (1820) described the complete process ofpreparing pork for preservation in barrels.Apparently, salted pork could be purchased inthree grades: mess, prime, and cargo. Barrelscould be purchased in full (208 pounds) or bythe half (108 pounds). To judge from theNovember 1803 Upper Canada Gazette adver-tisement, Fort George accepted only full barrels.

At no time in his essay does Moore state thatbones should not be included in the barrels. Infact, he implies that only bones inconvenient inthe packaging process, such as canine portions ofthe jaws (i.e., tusks and anterior mandible),should be removed (Moore 1820:10). Mooregoes on to describe the contents of a full barrel ofpork for each grade:

Mess Pork to consist of the rib pieces of good fatHogs only...Prime Pork to consist of the next bestpieces, with not more than three shoulders in onebarrel, which shall contain no legs [hocks], normore than twenty pounds of head...and the thirdquality of pork shall be denominated CARGOPORK, in which there shall not be more in onebarrel than four shoulders without the legs asaforesaid and not more than two heads [Moore1820:7-8].

The November 1803 Upper Canada Gazetteadvertisement indicates that only pork of the“first quality” was purchased. This suggests thatthat cargo pork (the lowest grade) would nothave been purchased. The Upper Canada Gazettedated June 30, 1804, includes an advertisementindicating that “Prime” grade pork was desiredfor purchase for the Great Lakes Outposts.Moore (1820:8) states that Prime and Cargopork were to be sectioned into portions varyingbetween four and 12 pounds; obviously, thisleaves leeway in possible butchery practices.However, Moore also describes the general con-tents of a Prime grade barrel:

Accordingly, Prime Pork may consist (after theselection of Mess pieces [ribs]) from large Hogsof three shoulders, twenty pounds of head, and

28 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

every other part of the Hog to make up the qual-ity or weight. So, also, Hogs one and one half tothe barrel will inspect as lawful prime… PrimePork ‘shall contain no legs’; and accordingly thelaw is complied with, when cut handsomelyabove the knee and gambrel joints [Moore1820:9]

Based on this research, an approach has beenchosen that takes into account the amount ofmeat represented by a “prime grade” barrel whencalculating the economic importance of pork atFort George. It appears that the remains ofapproximately three sides of pork (less rib por-tions) were included in one full (208 pound)prime barrel; as Moore (1820:9) states: “Hogsone and one half to the barrel will inspect as law-ful prime….” It is therefore presumed that theremains of a prime grade barrel should representall anatomical bone elements. However, rib por-tions should be underrepresented in the remains.Nevertheless, it is expected that proximal rib por-tions may be included in the remains, as these areoften left attached to thoracic vertebrae when ribcuts are removed. In addition, as hocks were tobe removed during the butchery process, carpals,tarsals, metacarpals, metatarsals and phalangesshould be underrepresented. Although Moorespecifically states that “hocks” were not to beincluded in the product, it is not unusual toexpect that merchants may have padded theirbarrels with an occasional pig’s foot. In fact,

Wilson and Southwood (1976:124) note thatthis was a perennial problem for the commissary.

In practice, calculating a “prime grade barrel”from the faunal remains involved carefully com-paring all Sus scrofa elements to determine thenumber of sides accounted by all remains. Thus,for example, two right proximal tibial fragmentsand one left distal tibial fragment would accountfor three sides of pork, and thus one prime gradebarrel (note also that by using MNI, this wouldaccount for two whole animals). As a matter ofcourse, head and foot remains were treated simi-larly. Thus, one prime grade barrel was expectedto include bones accounting for approximatelyone and one half pig’s heads, sectioned sagitally(although in reality “twenty pounds of head”may account for only one butchered head).Although also likely an overestimation, theremains of no more than six pig’s feet wereexpected to account for one prime grade barrel.

Although the number of identified porkremains from the Fort George sample are small,they do not contradict these accounts (Table 3).There is evidence that cranial bones were presentin the Fort George faunal sample, and, occasion-ally, a rib fragment was identified (posterior ribsare included in short loin cuts, which include thelumbar vertebrae [Lyman 1977]). However, aspredicted by the model, the %MAU calculationsclearly display that ribs are underrepresented inthe sample. This distribution at least indicates

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 29

NISP MNE Right MNE Left Total MNE MAU %MAUSkull 3 – – 1 1 100Mandible 1 1 – 1 0.5 50Cervical Vert. 2 – – 2 0.28 28Thoracic Vert 2 – – 1 0.14 14Lumbar Vert. – – – – – –Innominate 3 1 1 2 1 100Rib 3 2 – 2 0.07 7Scapula – – – – – –Humerus – – – – – –Radius – – – – – –Ulna – – – – – –Carpal 4 4 – 4 0.25 25Metacarpal 4 4 – 4 0.5 50Femur – – – – – –Patella – – – – – –Tibia 2 – 1 1 0.5 50Tarsal – – – – – –Metatarsal – – – – – –Phalanx 5 2 3 5 0.1 10

Table 3. Fort George Susscrofa (domestic pig) ele-ment distribution: all ana-lyzed contexts.

that the highest grade pork was not purchased;the presence of head, vertebrae and limb bonesprecludes mess grade pork. This distribution sug-gests that the pig remains are the result of thepurchase of prime grade pork. It is interesting tonote that a relatively large number of manus andpes elements of swine were identified in the FortGeorge faunal sample (Table 3). This suggeststhat pig’s feet were indeed included in the saltedpork.

Moore (1820:7) states that each barrel was tocontain exactly 200 pounds (90.9 kg) of pork(the barrel itself weighing eight pounds). Theknown edible meat derived from a hog is approx-imately 60 percent of the live weight (Reitz andScarry 1985:70). Therefore, one prime gradebarrel could be expected to contribute approxi-mately 54 kg of edible meat to the diet of theFort George personnel (90.9 kg x 0.60), orapproximately twice the amount of meat from anaverage dressed hog of the time (for a discussionof historic pork, see Reitz and Scarry [1985:70]).

DiscussionTo reiterate, this paper represents an attempt toconstruct new quantification procedures thatmay be useful in determining subsistence strate-gies at British fort sites in the Great Lakes region.As such, the analysis should be viewed as an exer-cise meant to prove a point; that refinement inquantification procedures at historic sites is pos-sible. However, the documentary evidence usedto develop these procedures is temporally limit-ed, covering at most, three years in the 25 yearhistory of Fort George. While it is assumed thatthese advertisements are generally applicable forthe span of time that the fort was occupied (i.e.,that the fort continued to furnish its troops withsalted pork and beef by the quarter), it is at leastpossible that occasionally live animals, freshpork, or salted beef did enter Fort George(although no documents have been found sup-porting these arguments). This does not, howev-er, invalidate the refined quantification proce-dures. With documentary evidence indicatingthat the majority of beef and pork did enter thefort in specific, well-defined consumer units,would these units not represent the most prudent

method of quantifying the animal remains? Itshould be noted that all quantification tech-niques, including the new procedures developedhere, merely provide estimates of the actual meatcontribution indicated by the remains.Nevertheless, when studying broad subsistencestrategies at historic sites, the most cautious (andpossibly more accurate) method would be to basethose estimates on consumer units with a knownrelationship to the material being analyzed, notunits that have, in effect, an unknown relation-ship to that material.

Other SpeciesThe cattle and swine remains from Fort Georgerepresent a unique case, and therefore specialconsideration has been made in calculating theeconomic importance (in meat weights) derivedfrom these bones. Edible meat weights for otheridentified species, particularly the wild bird andfish species, were calculated in the standard man-ner, since there is evidence to indicate that theyentered the fort as whole animals. To producemeat weight values, the typical live weight of theaverage animal is multiplied by a constant (rep-resenting the percentage of edible meat per indi-vidual), which in turn, is multiplied by the MNIvalue to produce an amount of meat representedby the bone sample. The average weight per indi-vidual, the constants used to calculate the ediblemeat weights, and references to these are present-ed in Table 4.

Economic Inferences

Table 5 displays the percentage distribution ofedible meat weight of species identified from theanalyzed contexts. It is clear that the distributionof the 19H7D4 faunal material approximates themodel for Fort George subsistence derived fromthe historical documents; that is, domestic swineaccount for a majority (approximately 73 per-cent) of meat consumed in this context. Asexpected, freshwater fish, available locally, sup-plemented the diet to a fair extent; they accountfor five percent of the meat diet. Domestic fowlaccount for four percent of the edible meatweight, which, again, is not unexpected.

30 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

However, there are some deviations from themodel suggested by the historical sources. Mostnotably, domestic sheep account for 17 percentof the total meat weight calculated from this con-text. Sheep are not mentioned in any of the his-torical references. However it is likely that sheepwould have been available for purchase by thesoldiers or officers of the fort from the farms andtowns surrounding the outpost. The bones of

wild game birds (pigeon, duck and quail) indi-cate that the men took advantage of the naturalresources surrounding the fort to relieve themonotony of their daily ration, as suggested bythe contemporary sources.

The distribution of faunal remains inOperation 7 provides a surprising contrast tothat displayed by 19H7D4. One would expectthat contexts so closely associated would display

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 31

Weight Per Edible Meat Individual (kg) Source Constant Source Weight (kg)Mammalia Ovis aries 25 Lab specimen before dissection Capra hircus 25 Lab specimen before dissection 0.5 Reitz and Scarry (1985) 12.5Odocoileus virginianus 50 Reitz and Scarry (1985) 0.5 Reitz and Scarry (1985) 25Aves Gallus gallus 0.68 Reitz and Scarry (1985) 0.7 White (1953) 0.47Anas sp. 1 Friesen and Arnold (1995) 0.7 White (1953) 0.7Anas platyrhynchos 1 Friesen and Arnold (1995) 0.7 White (1953) 0.7Anser anser 1 cf. Branta canadensis live weight (Friesen and Arnold 1995) 0.7 White (1953) 1.89Colinus virginianus 0.2982 cf. E. migratorius of same size 0.7 White (1953) 0.2086Ectopistes migratorius 0.2982 Shroger (1955) 0.7 White (1953) 0.2086Osteichthyes Acipenser flavescens 24.9 Lab specimen before dissection 0.85 Wing and Brown (1979) 21.165Apolodinatus grunniens 1.59 Lab specimen before dissection 0.85 Wing and Brown (1979) 1.3515Morone sp. 0.4324 Lab specimen before dissection 0.85 Wing and Brown (1979) 0.3675Percidae 0.4324 Lab specimen before dissection 0.85 Wing and Brown (1979) 0.3675Stizostedion canadense 2.27 Lab specimen before dissection 0.85 Wing and Brown (1979) 1.9295

Table 4. Meat weight calculations for species identified at Fort George.

19H7D4 Operation 7 Operation 14 Edible Meat % Total Edible Meat % Total Edible Meat % Total (kg) (kg) (kg)MammaliaBos taurus – – 181 68.1 277.82 69.8Sus scrofa 54 72.8 54 20.3 54 13.5Ovis aries 12.5 16.8 12.5 4.7 12.5 3.1Capra hircus – – 12.5 4.7 – –Odocoileus virginianus – – – – 25 6.2AvesAnas (sp.) 0.70 1.0 0.70 0.3 0.70 0.2Gallus gallus 0.952 1.2 – – – –Anas platyrhynchos – – – – 0.70 0.2Anser anser 1.89 2.5 1.89 0.7 1.89 0.5Colinus virginianus 0.208 0.3 0.42 0.2 0.208 0.1Ectopistes migratorius 0.208 0.3 0.208 0.1 0.208 0.1OsteichthyesApoloinatus grunniens 1.31 1.8 – – – –Morone sp. 0.37 0.5 – – – –Stizostedion canadense – – 1.93 0.7 – –Stizostedion sp. 1.93 2.6 – – – –Acipenser flavescens – – – – 24.9 6.2Percidae – – 0.36 0.1 TOTAL 74.1 99.8 265.87 99.9 397.926 99.9

Table 5. Economic importance of faunal remains from Fort George.

similar remains. Of note in this operation is thegreat importance of fresh beef in the diet; it rep-resents 68 percent of the total edible meat weightrepresented by the bones in this context. This isa striking difference from the model presentedabove. It was inferred from historical documentsthat fresh beef was used only as a supplement inthe diet of the men at Fort George. The faunalassemblage suggests this was not always the case;rather, in at least some cases, the soldiers at FortGeorge must have relied much more heavily onbeef than on pork. Due to the great importanceof beef in this context, the proportional repre-sentation of other species in the diet is greatlyreduced. Birds (both domestic and wild) accountfor only one percent of the diet, and fish accountfor an even smaller fraction.

With two exceptions, the percentage distribu-tion of edible meat weight by species fromOperation 14, the privy, is very similar to thatdetermined for Operation 7. Again, beef pro-vides the majority of meat in the diet at 70 per-cent, followed by salted pork at 14 percent.Domestic and wild birds again account for a verysmall proportion of the diet at only one percent.In Operation 14, however, the only appearanceof a wild mammal in the entire sample occurs.White-tailed deer accounts for six percent of themeat represented by the privy faunal remains.Deer would certainly have been available in thearea surrounding Fort George. In fact, the FortGeorge Commons, the area cleared from forestdirectly surrounding the fort, would have pro-vided an ideal environment for deer to thrive.Clearly, the soldiers took advantage of the oppor-tunity to vary their diet by hunting wild game.

Finally the importance of fish in the privy con-text is noteworthy. Lake sturgeon contributed sixpercent of the meat represented by the bones inthis context. It is likely that fish contributedthroughout the spring, summer, and fall when thisresource was available. Historical sources indicatethat fishing was a routine activity for the soldiers atFort George. As Mrs. Simcoe recorded, “the 5th

Regiment have caught 100 sturgeon and 600whitefish a day in Nets.” (Simcoe 1965:92).

As mentioned earlier, feature 19H7D4 con-tained a unique artifact assemblage and an

unusual distribution of faunal remains. Cattleremains are non-existent in the sample, and itcontains evidence of a relatively greater reliance(nine percent) on hunted and captured wildgame. There may be two reasons for this differ-ence. First, Wilson and Southwood (1976:68)contend that the shallow rectangular pit(19H7D4) was created and filled much earlierthan any other feature in 19H7D. If this pit wereutilized prior to the decision to purchase freshbeef as a supplement to the normal pork ration,then it would not be surprising that pork consti-tutes such a large portion of the meat diet. If theother contexts were created after the decision topurchase fresh beef, then they would be expectedto contain evidence of beef use. Second, the arti-facts associated with this pit are believed to bethe remains of banquet activity (Wilson andSouthwood 1976:68). Historical documentsfrom the period indicate that the preferred bill offare at a banquet often included wild game andlocally available fish (Coffin 1864:122). If thispit were indeed used to dispose of banquet trash,then a higher proportion of wild game would beexpected. As a final note, since the pit is associat-ed closely with both the Officers’ Quarters andKitchen, one would believe it might reflect dif-ferential subsistence between the officers andenlisted men. However, as the artifactual remainsindicate this feature was the result of festivity, itcannot be taken as an accurate reflection of theOfficers’ daily rations.

The fact that the distributions of edible meatin Operations 7 and 14 are similar is encourag-ing. When taking into account the small samplesize (500 bones), and the fact that the two prove-niences are not associated spatially (Figure 2),their similar meat distributions promotes confi-dence that sound inferences can be made aboutFort George based on the two samples.Generally, the pattern displayed by Table 5 is ofheavy reliance on beef (68-70 percent), supple-mented by pork (13-20 percent). Other domes-tic mammals of importance include domesticsheep or goat (up to five percent in some con-texts). These data indicate birds, both domesticand wild, were relatively unimportant to the dietof the Fort George personnel. The only major

32 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

discrepancy between the two samples occurs inthe privy context with the appearance of deer (sixpercent) and evidence for a greater reliance onfish (five percent). As stated earlier, we know thatfish was of some importance to the diet of thefort’s personnel from historical records. Usingthis evidence, and by comparing the privy sam-ple to 19H7D4, five percent is probably a fairestimation of the importance of fish in the diet.Wild deer would most likely have been hunted asthe opportunity arose, but likely would not havebeen of great importance in the diet of the menat the fort.

Comparing MNI and Quarter/BarrelQuantification Techniques

Despite the careful consideration given to quan-tifying the true importance of cattle and hog inthe diet of Fort George personnel, the limitedfaunal sample analyzed does not adequately dis-play the usefulness of the technique. The differ-ence in meat weight calculations between theMNI-based calculations and those presentedhere are not pronounced due to the small samplesize. However, some trends appear when the twotechniques are displayed side by side (Table 6).

For cattle, calculating the meat weight byquarters has resulted in a decreased estimate ofthe amount of consumable flesh, as displayed byOperation 14. In other words, calculating themeat weight from MNI calculations resulted inan overestimation of the amount of edible meat(by 84.2 kg), and thus the inferred economicimportance, of cattle, when compared to thequarters method of quantification. Conversely,using barrel units to quantify the pig remainsresulted in the opposite effect. In both contexts(Operations 7 and 14), using MNI-based meatweight calculations resulted in an underestima-tion of the amount of edible meat provided by

swine, when compared to the barrels method ofquantification. This, however, was likely theresult of the low MNIs (MNI=1) calculated. Ifthese MNIs were increased, it is probable thatthey would overrepresent the amount of meatweight represented by the faunal remains.

The trends apparent in the sample analyzedfrom Fort George would likely be more pro-nounced if the sample size were increased. Whileit was not possible to analyze more Fort Georgematerial before completing this preliminarystudy, analyzed remains from other British GreatLakes outposts could be used to demonstrate theusefulness of the quantification techniques devel-oped here. Historic Fort Malden (also called FortAmherstburg) is located at the southern end ofthe Detroit River (Figure 1), on the Canadianside of the border. Its structural history is verysimilar to Fort George; it too was built in 1796,after the abandonment of a British fort (FortLernoult) ceded to the Americans under the Jay’sTreaty. The Fort was involved in the War of1812, and, like Fort George, was burned duringthis period. After the war, and throughout theearly to middle nineteenth century, the fort wasused primarily as a supply depot for the westernfrontier (Doroszenko 1980).

Faunal remains from Fort Malden can confi-dently be subjected to the same zooarchaeologi-cal scrutiny as those from Fort George. The his-torical advertisements on which the cattle andswine quantification procedures are based refernot only to Fort George but also to FortAmherstburg (Malden), as well as to FortChippewa and Fort Erie (Upper Canada Gazette,November 12, 1803).

Fort Malden was excavated, in 1979, underthe supervision of John Dewhirst and Peter Lane,under the auspices of Parks Canada. Excavationscentred around Operation 12, an enlisted men’sprivy, built in 1819-1820 and used until at least

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 33

Operation 7 Operation 14 MNI MNI Calculated Quarter/Barrel MNI MNI Calculated Quarter/Barrel Weight (kg) Calculated Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Calculated Weight (kg)Bos taurus 1 181 181 2 362 277.8Sus Scrofa 1 37.8 54 1 37.8 54

Table 6. Comparison of MNI based meat weight calculationsand the revised quantification techniques for Fort George (all contexts).

1848, when records indicate a drain was installedat the building (Doroszenko 1980). Faunal mate-rial from the privy was analyzed by DenaDoroszenko (1980) and Christine Caroppo(1980), under the supervision of Dr. HowardSavage. For the purposes of this paper, their sep-arate faunal analyses have been combined as asingle sample, as the units excavated are fromsimilar contexts associated with the privy.

Although the animal bones analyzed could notbe obtained for study, the excellent faunal data-base compiled by Doroszenko and Caroppo hasallowed a reconsideration of the sample for quan-tification in MNI units and barrel/quarter unitsfor the swine and cattle remains. While not hav-ing access to the actual remains was not an idealsituation, the detailed descriptions of elements(including portions) provided by the researchersallowed for a precise quantification of MNIsbased on the entire sample of elements from eachspecies. Similarly, all sample elements were con-sidered when quantifying barrel/quarter datafrom the sample. In total, 769 elements wereanalyzed in compiling this data, accounting forapproximately 87 percent of the total identifiedsample. Meat weights based on MNI units forswine were calculated using the matching proce-dure. Fogel (1965:206) states that the average

weight of dressed hogs in the year 1860 was 63kg. Retiz and Scarry (1985:70) indicate that theedible meat yield of a hog is approximately 60percent of the live weight. Therefore, a typicalhog of the period in question would have pro-duced approximately 37.8 kg of edible flesh(63kg x 0.60 =37.8kg).

The element distribution for the cattle remains(Table 7) from Fort Malden is very similar to thatfrom Fort George. Comparatively few metapodi-al or phalanx bones were discovered in the sam-ple, as is expected with dressed meat quarters.The %MAU calculations indicate that phalangesand metapodials are among the most underrep-resented element classes (at 6.4 percent and 14.3percent, respectively). Again, however, a largenumber of head bones were identified, mirroringthe pattern displayed at Fort George. It is notclear if this is “noise” caused by the occasionallive animal that entered the fort (the presence offoot bones is explained by this as well). Perhaps,however, heads were included either with thebeef quarters or were delivered separately, but aspart of the purchase of a large number of quar-ters. Nevertheless, the element distributions, par-ticularly the underrepresented metapodials andphalanges, indicate that despite the noise, theQuarters pattern is likely applicable.

34 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

NISP MNE Right MNE Left MNE Total MAU %MAUSkull 42 – – 2 2 28.6Mandible 13 1 3 4 2 28.6Cervical Vert. 55 – – 16 2.29 32.7Thoracic Vert 40 – – 12 0.92 13.1Lumbar Vert. 40 – – 9 1.5 21.4Sacrum 8 – – 2 2 28.6Innominate 21 4 2 6 3 42.9Rib 231 8 7 23* 0.88 12.6Scapula 37 1 3 4 2 28.6Humerus 17 1 3 4 2 28.6Radius 19 4 3 7 3.5 50Ulna 6 3 1 4 2 28.6Carpal 20 8 7 17** 1.41 20.1Metacarpal 4 – 2 2 1 28.6Femur 22 2 5 7 3.5 50Patella – – – – – –Tibia 42 10 4 14 7 100Fibula 2 1 1 2 1 14.3Tarsal 29 8 11 19 1.9 27.1Metatarsal 3 1 1 2 1 14.3Phalanx 13 6 5 11 0.45 6.4

*8 elements side unknown. **2 elements side unknown.

Table 7. Fort MaldenBos taurus (domestic cow)element distribution: allanalyzed contexts.

The element distribution of pork remains forthe Fort Malden sample is displayed in Table 8.Again, few manus or pes bones were identified,which is consistent with the butchery patternsdescribed in the historical documents. The onlynotable departure from the “prime barrel” modelis the large number of rib fragments. However,the %MAU calculations indicate that ribs wereunderrepresented (16 percent) in comparison tothe other elements. Furthermore, nearly half ofthese elements (19 specimens) were head andneck fragments which were cut or broken justafter (distal to) the tubercle. This portion of ribslikely would have remained attached to thoracicvertebrae when removing ribs for use in “messgrade” pork. Again, the remaining ribs may bepartially accounted for by posterior ribs (i.e., thethirteenth and fourteenth ribs), which are some-times included when separating the short loinfrom the rib meat cuts.

Table 9 shows the recalculated MNI and bar-rel/quarter calculations from the excavated FortMalden sample. These data provide striking evi-dence that traditional meat weight calculationsbased on MNI units result in very different esti-mates of the importance of swine and cattleremains from the revised quantification proce-dures. Specifically, in both cases, the MNI-basedcalculations resulted in the overestimation of the

economic importance of these species, in com-parison to the revised procedures. For the pigremains, the MNI-based meat weights were morethan twice those resulting from the barrel calcu-lations. The meat weights calculated from MNIunits for the cattle remains are 1.8 times as largeas those calculated by the quarter, representing adifference of 839.78 kg of edible meat. The rea-son for this deficit can be seen in Table 9 – sincethere were ten rear right quarters, but only fourfront right quarters, MNI calculations (which inthis instance estimated ten complete animals)overestimated the amount of beef represented.

Conclusions

When reconstructing historic subsistence, muchmay be gained by explicitly combining historicalrecords with archaeological evidence. In thisreport, the faunal analysis has augmented theinformation from historical documents, to pro-duce a more complete picture of subsistence atFort George. In addition, the consideration ofhistorical sources during the faunal analysisallowed for a revised quantification of thedomestic mammal remains recovered from thefort. It is probable that these procedures betterapproximate the actual diet of the personnel ofthese forts, as they are based on historical docu-

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 35

NISP MNE Right MNE Left MNE Total MAU %MAUSkull 13 – – 1 1 66.7Mandible 12 – 2 2 1.5 100Cervical Vert. 3 – – 3 0.42 28Thoracic Vert 8 – – 5 0.35 23.3Lumbar Vert. 2 – – 2 0.28 18.7Sacrum 1 – – 1 1 66.7Innominate – – – – – –Rib 41 3 6 9 0.32 21.3Scapula 3 1 2 3 1.5 100Humerus 1 – 1 1 0.5 33.3Radius 3 1 2 3 1.5 100Ulna 2 – 2 2 1 66.7Carpal 2 1 1 2 0.13 8.7Metacarpal – – – – – –Femur 6 – 3 3 1.5 100Patella – – – – – –Tibia 5 – 3 3 1.5 100Fibula 2 – 2 2 1 66.7Tarsal 10 4 4 8 0.6 40Metatarsal – – – – – –Phalanx 3 1 2 3 0.06 4

Table 8. Fort Malden SusScrofa (domestic pig) ele-ment distribution: all ana-lyzed contexts.

mentary evidence. It is also possible that thesequantification procedures are generally applica-ble to British Great Lakes outposts of the nine-teenth century; and they may also be applicableto British forts in other areas of Canada and, per-haps, to earlier British forts in America, wheremeat acquisition procedures were similar.

Evidence has been presented indicating thatFort George personnel ate more fresh meat thanwas originally assumed. Fresh beef was the dom-inant source of meat in their diet, not saltedpork, as had originally been inferred from thehistorical documents. Wild game such as deer,duck, quail, and pigeon were added to the dietwhen available, likely a welcome source of varietyin the menu. As well, fresh fish, such as walleyeand sturgeon, provided as much as five percent ofthe meat consumed at the fort. This analysisdepicts a British fort that relied not only on pro-visions provided by the military, but also on nat-ural resources abundant in the vicinity, to aug-ment the diet of its personnel.

The quantification procedures developed inthis paper may more accurately reflect the con-sumer units that entered Fort George and FortMalden. In fact, they demonstrate that, evenwith a small sample, quantifying the swine andcattle remains using traditional MNI unitspotentially overestimates the amount of ediblemeat represented, and thus, the economicimportance, of those domestic animals. It istherefore clear that these standard quantificationunits should be carefully reviewed for their appli-cability when historical documents exist thatdetail the consumer units entering the systemunder investigation. Quantification proceduresshould be adapted to more closely reflect con-

sumer units when historical documents exist thatdescribe these units.

The initial proponents of zooarchaeologicalstudy, in their fervour to provoke faunal studiesfrom historic sites archaeologists, advocated theuse of quantification techniques similar (or iden-tical) to those used in prehistoric faunal analysis(e.g., Lyman 1977; Paramalee 1960). However, itis clear that historical archaeologists must bemindful that the procedures used in historic fau-nal analysis need not be the same as those used inprehistoric studies, particularly when historicaldocuments exist describing butchery practicesand consumer units acquired during the periodin question. In fact, using prehistoric techniquesin these situations may lead to the misrepresen-tation of the economic importance of species inthe diet of those being studied.

Acknowledgements. The faunal sample analyzedin this report was provided by the Department ofCanadian Heritage, Parks Canada, Cornwall,Ontario. Special thanks goes to Helen Dunlop ofParks Canada for packaging and transferring thesample from the Collections Resource Centre inCornwall to Toronto. Matthew Peros and DebraLanger edited earlier versions of this manuscript.The volume editor, T. M. Friesen, and twoanonymous reviewers provided much needed,and appreciated, editorial and methodologicalcomments, which resulted in a vast improvementof the paper. Thanks also to Dena Doroszenkoand Christine Caroppo for providing access totheir research.

36 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

Fort Malden Sample (Operation 12) MNI Revised Quantification MNI Calculated Quarter/Barrel Weight (kg) Calculated Weight (kg)Bos taurus 10 4 right front quarters 1810 970.22

3 left front quarters 10 right rear quarters, 5 left rear quarters.

Sus scrofa 3 1 barrel 113.4 54

Table 9. Comparison of MNI based meat weight calculations and the revisedquantification techniques for Fort Malden: all contexts.

References Cited

Bellrose, F.1976 Ducks Geese and Swans of North America. 2nd

ed. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg.Brown, J., and J. Bowen

1998 Animal Bones from the Cross Street BackLot Privy. Historical Archaeology 32:72-80.

Caroppo, C.1980 Faunal Analysis of the Site of Fort Malden,

Amherstburg: 1979 Excavations. Ms. on File,Howard Savage Faunal-OsteologyLaboratory, Department of Anthropol-ogy,University of Toronto.

Cheek, C.1998 Massachusetts Bay Foodways: Regional and

Class Influences. Historical Archaeology 32:153-172.

Coffin, W.1864 1812: The War, and It’s Moral: A Canadian

Chronicle. J. Lovell, Montreal.Coleman, M.

1977 The American Capture of Fort George,Ontario. History and Archaeology 7(13):3-110.

Crass, D., and D. Wallsmith1992 Where’s the Beef? Food Supply at an

Antebellum Frontier Post. HistoricalArchaeology 26:3-23.

Diehl, M., L. Waters, and J. Thiel1998 Acculturation and the Composition of the

Diet of Tucson’s Overseas Chinese Gardenersat the Turn of the Century. HistoricalArchaeology 32:19-35.

Desloges, Y.1980 Structural History of Fort George. History and

Archaeology 3. National Historic Parks andSites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Doroszenko, D.1980 Final Report of the Faunal Material from Fort

Malden: 4H12G and 4H12J. Ms. on File,Howard Savage Faunal-Osteology Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, University ofToronto.

Fogel, R.1965 A New Provisional View of the ‘New

Economic History’. In New Views onAmerican Economic Development: A SelectiveAnthology of Recent Work, edited by R.Andreano, pp.201-212. Schenkman,Cambridge.

Friesen, T.M., and C. Arnold1995 Zooarchaeology of Focal Resource: Dietary

Importance of Beluga Whales to the PrecontactMackenzie Inuit. Arctic 48:22-30.

Fussell, G.1929 The Size of English Cattle in the Eighteenth

Century. Agricultural History 3:160-181.Huelsbeck, D.

1991 Faunal Remains and Consumer Behaviour:What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology25:62-76.

Jolley, R.1983 North American Historic Sites Zoo-archaeolo-

gy. Historical Archaeology 17:64-79Landon, D.

1996 Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zoo-archaeologi-cal Study. Historical Archaeology 30:1-153.

La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, F.A.F., Duc de1917 La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt’s Travels in

Canada, 1795, edited by William Riddell.Thirteenth Report of the Ontario Archives.A.T. Wilgress, Toronto.

Lyman, R. 1977 Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains.

Historical Archaeology 11:67-73.1987 On Zooarchaeological Measures of

Socioeconomic Position and Cost-EfficientMeat Purchases. Historical Archaeology21:58-66.

1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Markell, A., M. Hall, and C. Schrire.1995 The Historical Archaeology of Vergelegen, an

Early Farmstead at the Cape of Good Hope.Historical Archaeology 29:10-34.

Moore, W.1820 Remarks on the Subject of Packing and Repacking

Beef and Pork. Nahum Mower, Montreal.Parmalee, P.

1960 Vertebrate Remains from Fort Loudoun,Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeologist 6:26-29.

Reitz, E.1994 Zooarchaeological Analysis of a Free African

Community: Gracia Real de Santa Teresa deMose. Historical Archaeology 28:23-40.

Reitz, E., and C. Scarry1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an

Example from Sixteenth-Century SpanishFlorida. Special Publication 3. Society forHistorical Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Reitz, E., and E. Wing1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in

Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge

Schroger, A.1955 The Passenger Pigeon: Its Natural History and

Extinction. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.

Betts Augmenting Faunal Quantification Through Documentary Evidence 37

Schulz, P., and S. Gust1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th

Century Sacramento. Historical Arch-aeology17:44-53.

Simcoe, E.1965 Mrs. Simcoe’s Diary. Edited by M. Innis.

Macmillan, Toronto.Upper Canada Gazette

1803 Advertisement. Saturday, November 12th.Niagara.

1804 Advertisement. Saturday, June 30th. Niagara.Wilson, J., and L. Southwood

1976 Fort George on the Niagara: An ArchaeologicalPerspective. History and Archaeology 9.National Historic Parks and Sites Branch,Parks Canada, Ottawa.

White, T. 1953 A Method for Calculating the Dietary

Percentage of Various Animals Utilized byAboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity19:396-398.

Whittaker, W.1999 Production of Animal Commodities at Plum

Grove, Iowa City. Historical Archaeology33:44-57.

Wing, E., and A. Brown1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in

Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, NewYork.

38 Ontario Archaeology No. 69, 2000

Matthew W. BettsDepartment of Anthropology, University of Toronto100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3matthewbetts74@hotmail.com