V‘A-‘JTv—‘_——m————v 4

 

 

22“.}

THE ETHNOZOOLOGY 0F
FORT MICHILIMACKINAC

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELIZABETH A. BUTSCH
1 9’7 0

I I III IIIIII In I III III III III I L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWWW~~.,.-, 4.4.-..

ABSTRACT

THE ETHNOZOOLOGY OF
FORT MICHILIMACKINAC

BY
Elizabeth A. Butsch

The French and British occupations of Fort
Michilimackinac resulted in depositions of large quantities
'of faunal remains. Archeological evidence for the varied
cultural nature of the occupations leads us to hypothesize
that these variations will also be reflected in the faunal
remains. Certain features which are thought to reflect these
cultural differences were analysed to test this hypothesis.
Relationships between certain types of features and groups
of species are postulated. These correlations should
reflect differences in the inhabitant's way of life,

economic status and perhaps nationality.

THE ETHNOZOOLOGY OF

FORT MICHILIMACKINAC

BY

Elizabeth A. Butsch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to all those who
helped in the preparation of this thesis. Special thanks
are due to the members of my committee, Dr. Charles E.
Cleland, chairman, and Dr. James A. Brown, for help with
organization and technical problems. The identification of
the faunal material was completed with the help of Dr. J. A.
Holman, Clair Ossian and Vivian Heacox. Nancy Underwood
prepared the maps and graphs. I wish to express my thanks
to the Bird Division of The University of Michigan Museums
and Dr. Robert Storer for allowing me to use their
comparative collections. The help of all these pe0ple, and
many others who gave me much moral support is greatly

appreciated.

ii

TABLE OF

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . .

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . .
THE FORT O O O O 0 O O 0 O C

The History . . . . . . . .
The Inhabitants . . . . . .

THE FEATURES . . . . . . . .
THE FAUNA . . . . . . . . . .

The Area . . . . . . . . .
The Species . . . . . . . .

THE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . .

CONTENTS

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . v
. . . . . . . . . . . . l
. . . . . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . 7
. . . . . . . . . . 9

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. List of Species Identified from Features
Excavated at Fort Michilimackinac
from 1967 " 1969 o o a o o o o o o o o o 36
2. Total Individuals and Meat Percentages
for the Basement Floors of SWHl, SWH2
and PH 0 O O O O O O O U C O O C O O O O 44

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Map of the Straits of Mackinac . . . . . . . 5

2. Master Map South-West Corner, west
Section, Fort Michilimackinac . . . . . . . ll

3. Master Map North-west Corner, west

Section, Fort Michilimackinac . . . .'. . . 13
4. Percent of Individuals (Occupation Floor

and Fireplaces) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Percent of Individuals (Wall Trenches

and Pilaster Pits) . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6. Percent of Individuals (Basement Floors

and Basement Fill) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7. Percent of Individuals (Basement Pit

and External Fences) . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Percent of Individuals (Latrine Pits

and Latrine Fill) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

9. Percent of Individuals (Boundary Ditches

and Chemin du Ronde) . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10. Percent of Individuals (Stockade and

Bastion Trenches and Garden Pits) . . . . . 40

THE PROBLEM

The faunal material from a site constitutes an
important part of the evidence for reconstruction of the
culture of the inhabitants. Where there is a large amount
of well-preserved bone it may yield clues to many facets of
the inhabitant's way of life, their economy, their eating
habits, and perhaps their personal tastes. The more than
sixty-five year occupation of Fort Michilimackinac
resulted in the deposition of large quantities of cultural
material which includes a substantial amount of faunal
remains. This material has been analyzed to test a two-fold
hypothesis. First, are there demonstrable differences in
proportions of species among different types of historic
features (e.g. pilaster pit versus occupation layer)?
Second, can differences in proportions of species be attri—
buted to different cultural activities and differential
depostion?

The faunal material recovered during the 1967,

1968 and 1969 field seasons was used to endeavor to test
these hypotheses. Only the material from recognizable
features of occupation zones was analyzed. This material

totaled some 33,000 pieces of bone, 21.6 per cent of which

was identified to the family or species level. The remain-
ing 78.4 per cent was not identifiable beyond the class
level.

After identification the resulting data were
treated in several ways. First, numbers of individuals
and amounts of usable meat were calculated to help determine
the importance of the species. Second, cumulative graphs
.were made of per cent of individuals for each functional

unit.

THE FORT

The History

 

The area of the Straits of Mackinac (Figure 1.)
is one with a long history of European occupation. The
Straits were early recognized as an important passage to
the west, and as a result were settled relatively early.
There is some confusion in the historical records as to
the exact dates of settlement (Maxwell and Binford l96l:9).
Settlements are known to have existed during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. One was at the site of modern
St. Ignace, one at Mackinaw City and one on Mackinac
Island. The exact date of the first construction of Fort
Michilimackinac is not known. Some time between 1715 and
1720 it appears that a small stockaded fort was built.
This Fort was part of the French plans to defeat the Fox
Indians and to continue the fur trade, which was a vital
part of French economy in the New WOrld. The archaeologi-
cal evidence supports the historical knowledge and indicates
a stockade of this period containing three rows of houses.

Between the time of its first construction and
1760 the Fort underwent many internal changes and was
expanded to more than three times its original size. In
1747 twenty—eight troops were garrisoned there. Much of

3

Figure 1. Map of Straits of Mackinac

 

o<2.xo¢l.4.:o.l

Lion
20:3:
ux<4
>F.o
’48.80¢2
o<z.xo<8 to nt<¢hn
B
02(42
(23.04!
uo<z¢.Fw

 

. ucaoi
o<z§o<l to which»
no at!

2(2228 ux<4

 

 

the land inside the Fort became private property during
the French occupation. During this period of its history
the Fort was much more a trading settlement of French and
French-Indians than it was a military establishment.

In 1760 the Fort was surrendered to the British.
It was taken over in 1761 and occupied by forty troops of
the 60th, or Royal American regiment. The privately-owned
land inside the Fort remained in the possession of the
original owners, which forced the British to rent it from
French landholdersduring most of their occupancy of the
Fort. In 1763 the Chippewa massacred part of the British
garrison, and took some members of the garrison prisoner,
including the commanding officer, Captain Etherington.
After this, Charles Langlade a French inhabitant, super-
vised the Fort until it was reoccupied by eighty British
troops. At this time the Fort was in very poor repair and
this occasioned the repair and replacement of many
buildings, as well as the construction of some new ones to
house the increased number of troops. During the period
between 1760 and 1780 the settlement at the Fort flourished
and in 1778 John Askin wrote that there were more than one
hundred houses around the Fort (Quaife 1928:69). By 1779
the defensive position of the Fort was of greater impor-
tance, due to the threats of the Revolutionary war. Con—
sequently in 1779 Lieutenant—Governor Patrick Sinclair,

then commandant of the Fort, began to move it across to

Mackinac Island, where it could be more easily defended.
During the winter some buildings were sledded across the
ice and in the summer they were dismantled and boated
across. By the fall of 1781 the Fort was completely razed

and abandoned.

The Inhabitants

 

Fort Michilimackinac was inhabited by people
belonging to two nations. Each of these represented a
culture which included a subsistence pattern developed under
specific conditions. As Cleland (n.d.) says:

While the French occupied Michilimackinac, the Fort
functioned primarily as a trading and mission center.
The society of this establishment must have been a
rather egalitarian one composed of a few soldiers,
private traders, their wives (who were frequently
Indian) and their children. These residents were more
or less isolated in the back country of New France at
the end of a long and tenuous supply line reaching to
Montreal and Quebec, hundreds of miles to the east.

As a result, these people were capable of surviving by
their own devices. The character of Michilimackinac
was abruptly changed under British domination. Then
the Fort became a military garrison linked to other
British army posts by a fairly well-developed line of
supply and communication. The social interaction of
the inhabitants was no longer based on egalitarian
principles, but was now highly stratified with a
privileged class consisting of the officers and wealthy
traders. The affluence of this society with its far-
mers, storehouses and comparatively heavy marine traffic
far outstripped the earlier French colony. When we can
observe such remarkable differences in the technologi—
cal, social and ideological systems of these two
societies, it is logical to assume that differences in
these systems would have resulted in significant
idfferences in the subsistence systems.

Cleland's analysis of data from French and British
refuse pits (Cleland n.d.) shows that the French subsis—
tence pattern was one which included foraging. Wild food
played an important role in their diet, whereas the
British depended most heavily upon imported domestic foods.
In each case they were utilizing the resources available to
them. Better transport systems of course provided the
British with greater food surplus including many domestic
animals. A group of people tends to use the food resources
which are most accessable, most abundant and yield the most
amount of food. The French and British, due to differences
of technology, had different resources available to them.
The French could not count on a supply of pork and beef,
so they hunted wild game, while the British, who were
assured a supply of these meats, were not required to hunt
to such an extent. The fact that they did not have to hunt
for food left the British with more time for leisure
activities, including hunting for sport.

The fur trade was a factor Which played a very
important role in the history and development of Fort
Michilimackinac. It was most important during the French
occupation of the Fort and declined after 1760. When the
British arrived, the military nature of their occupation
made fur trade a much less important part of the economy

of the Fort.

THE FEATURE S

After 1780 Fort Michilimackinac was abandoned for
one hundred and fifty years, unti1'1932 when a recon-
struction of the stockade wall was made as a W.P.A. project.
This reconstruction was not accurate, since it was not
based on archaeological evidence. In 1959 the Mackinaw
Island State Park Commission raised funds for an accurate
and complete restoration of the Fort. That season marked
the beginning of 10 years of excavations at the Fort by
the Michigan State University Museum personnel. At present
only about half of the interior of the fort has been
excavated and little has been done outside the recon-
structed stockade.

The data for this study are made up of faunal materi-
als obtained during the 1967, 1968 and 1969 field seasons.
During these years the excavations were undertaken as part
of a field school sponsored by the Michigan State
University Department of AnthrOpology under the super-
vision of Dr. James A. Brown.

The excavational units used throughout the excava-
tion of the Fort are ten-foot squares (see Figures 2 and
3). The grid for these squares was originally laid out

from a line passing through the center of the 1932 recon-

10

   

Sana

 

   

«:vu

1m

°auoou¢"

I

 

mmlvm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hutu

 

AAAA A
vvvv v

f‘f‘h
\JVV

 

 

l
O
u
N

 

 

 

ll

 

 

 

3.6: SE
m02<mt3km5
ZOCBSVUXN k0 kzmkxm III.
. coo: fl
mzotm I

:26 l

QZWQU4

I §

   

4.: S uium

in

Q\MUan o

0mg 00;

 

   

O J g ,
\. fx {I2 .J
maflxuohw
DNA 031* mIOUmt

0(2‘¥u<!~.:to;< stou‘
20>~Umm kmmtx

EMZQOU sawiltkbom
L1! QNkWVS

N mmawi

 

 

 

12

 

 

f:

 

 

1

 

‘0

~
2
k

 

  

   

it x ._ N o v,
1.” iwm.
. 5: i. h‘ow

 

          

  

 

 

\
§ . 0900‘ Will L. -o\: «a 1}.
l»).\l32‘:«u N ,4|\-\_4N :36 t. \
ilmnquuo; ,- \\\.\.,\\\\\ .1 o
,o \.\ . 1

 

 

 

 

 

   

..... fl

3! :5: _ :3 3

_
_
_
:55: .3 «=1 fT\|/ 8:32 ”Jr-:65:
.
r >

 

_
.

 

 

 

   

  

 

13

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

6...:
26:62.58 253°: .8 «SEE
36: Son Ixxxe
20:568.... .6 kzmtxu II
SSE u<2_xo<§.:zo.z Eon
mzohm nu 20:.omm Emmi
:30 | mmzmoo hmm3-I._.mOZ
ozwuw... .5233» Q<2 tubmcé‘
o_ __:; n mmboi
0a... OEJ 00.... 00...- 214 00.400.
.HI.W./:Vn-.1.
N u -I .. _
I -n. h a 1
U \. . w _
”I \. .fim "
. e \ ’ l 0
II ‘I...: \ I 4 I u on.
IV! ewes—3o \ \. a o. .
XII \ - u o g
. - in. he ..
_ tuthkh 1.. .
no: a . \ o n u o i
\ 8 I
\\ w .. m w u
\\ m . o:
.. m m .u ._
\ I " .fl
\\ O" N .
\ 0.... .I. ._

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

\
\‘\\
AAA-M

\\\

,\T"'\ \
:\ \\\\\-_ _
Twym

\
e
01)

 

 

 

 

 

0 O ..’o.0’

 

l4

structed stockade and the zero point on the water (north)
side of the Fort. Squares are then designated by their
south-west corner, the location left or right of the center
line being designated by a prefix L or R. For example, the
square 290L150 is located 290 feet south of the zero line
and 150 feet left of the center line (Figure 2.). Excava-
tion within the squares was done in three-inch levels,
relative to an arbitrary datum plane. As excavation
progresses, clearly recognizable soil units were given
feature status and numbered. The material from these
features were separated from the general level material.

The faunal remains from the features excavated in
the last three seasons constitute the data for this study.
These features can be divided into fourteen functional
categories. House features include occupation floors,
foundation walls and trenches, foundation pilaster pits,
fireplaces, basement fill, basement pits, and basement
floors. Latrine features are latrine pits and latrine
fill. Features outside buildings include garden pits,
and boundary ditches. Features associated with stockades
are, stockade and bastion trenches, Chemin du ronde, or
road around the inside of the original stockade, and
external fences.

The features can also be grouped by the structures
of which they are a part. A brief discussion of each of

these structures, and a list of included features, will aid

15

in understanding the analysis. The abbreviations listed
after the name of each structure will be used throughout

the rest of this study to refer to them.

South—west House 1 (SWHl)

W311 Trenches: F399, F414, F423A, F423B, F423C,
F423D.

Fireplace: F422, F422A, F422C.
Basement: Pit--F424, Floor--F424A.
Garden Pit: F419.

Boundary Ditches: F416, F416A, F416B, F428.

This is the first house of a group of British row
houses in the South-west corner of the Fort (Figure 2.).
It had a large fireplace and internal basement, or cellar.
There are some indications that it was occupied by people

of higher social status than those who occupied SWH2.

South-west House 2 (SWH2)
Occupation Floor: No feature number.
Wall Trenches: F371, F373, F402.
Pilaster Pits: F406.
Fireplace: F383.

Basements: Fill and Pit—-F39l, F411;
Floor--F391A, F411A.

Garden Pits: F438.

Boundary Ditches: F370, F370A.

This is the second house in the row of British

houses (Figure 2.). It also had a fireplace. The two

l6

basements or cellars are located outside the house in the

garden.

South-west House 3 (SWH3)

Garden Pit: F390.

Only a small part of this third row-house was
excavated during 1967, 1968 and 1969 (Figure 2.). Material

excavated previously is not included here.

Priest's House (PH)
wall Trenches: F359, F366.
Pilaster Pit: F360.

Basement: Fill--F358, F361, F363, F364;
Pit--F362; Floor--F358A, F358A-362A.

This large separate house is located in the north-
west section of the Fort (Figure 3.). This was the resi-
dence of the Catholic priests at the Fort. The cellar
complex, consisting of two main parts, contributed the

largest part of the material from the house.

North-west House 1 (NWHl)
wall Trenches: F398, F403.

Boundary Ditches: F398, F408.

As with SWH3, only part of this house was excavated
during the three seasons included in this study. The two
wall trenches are a corner of the house, with F398 extend-

ing as a garden boundary ditCh (Figure 3.).

17

Early House Group, North—west (EHGNW)
wall Trench: F388, F388A.
Pilaster Pits: F368, F389, F393, F394.

Fireplace: F392.

This group includes fragmentary remains from

several houses that date before 1750 (Figure 3.).

North—North—West House 3 (NNWH3)
wall Trenches: F413, F429.

Latrine: Pit—~F410A; Fill--F410.

This structure is a military latrine. It was built

in 1775, after use of NNWHS was discontinued. (Figure 3.)

North-North-west House 4 (NNWH4)
Pilaster Pits: F381, F396.

Boundary Ditches: F387.

This structure is earlier than NNWH3 and NNWHS.

Again, only parts of it have been excavated (Figure 3.).

North-North-West House 5 (NNWHS)

Latrine: Pit--F397, F397A; Fill-—F397B.

This is another large military latrine, which was

built prior to NNWH3 (Figure 3.).

Stockade and Bastion Trenches (ST-TR)
Stockade Trenches: Ultimate Stockade-—Fl4, F434:

Penultimate Stockade--F435:

18
Antepenultimate Stockade--F353, 353A, F431;
Early—-F8l.

Bastion Trenches: Early--F273, F382, F412.

These are the trenches and bastion trenches for
stockades of various dates and their additions. These
trenches lie over and under occupation features (Figures

2 and 3.).

Chemin Du Ronde (CR)

Ultimate Stockade—-F430; Penultimate Stockade-—F437.

These features represent the road which ran around

the inside of the stockade under the catwalk.

Early Stockade External Fences (ST-F)

F386, F395.

These features are fences which were located outside

the second stockades (Figure 3.).

THE FAUNA

The Area

 

The climate, flora and fauna of the region around
the Straits of Mackinac have not changed significantly for
approximately 5,000 years (Cleland 1966:23). This area was
heavily glaciated and shows the uneven topography typical
of such an area. The climate of the region is cool, with
only 80 to 140 frost-free growing days per year. The
climax forest on land near Fort Michilimackinac is a hard—
wood forest dominated by sugar maple, with yellow birch,
beech, elm, aspen, basswood, hemlock and white pine as
secondary members of the association. Two important sub-
climaxes are the black spruce, tamarack, cedar, fir, white
pine, white birch and alder association which occurs in
swampy areas, and the Norway, jack, White pine and hemlock
one which is found on poor sandy soil. Such a variety of
forest types provides habitats for a large number of
animals. The faunal material from Fort Michilimackinac
contained 71 species of animals, and the species present
seems to represent a fair cross-section of those that would
have been present during the occupation of the Fort. A

number of these are undoubtedly present as food remains.

l9

20

Others are present because of their economic value, such as
the fur-bearers, while still others such as the ground
squirrels, were inhabitants of the Fort itself. Some of

the birds demonstrate the Strait's position on a major flyway

for migration.

The Species

To clarify the picture of the wild foods being
used at the Fort and to show hunting methods and the reasons
for the presence of other species, a brief description of

their habits and habitats is included here.

Mammals

A Shorttail Shrew (Blarina brevicauda)

This shrew is most common in heavy forest and swampy
areas although they may be found in almost any land habitat
throughout Midhigan. They are insectivorous and burrow

about under leaves or snow in search of food.

Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

 

This animal lives in heavily wooded areas and
swamps. Although they den up and sleep through much of the
winter, they were sometimes killed in winter dens. Bear
was a profitable animal to hunt, since each individual
yields a large quantity of meat. Their range extends south-

ward to the Central Lower Peninsula of Michigan.

21

Raccoon (Progyon lotor)

 

Raccoons prefer deciduous forests and forest edges
throughout Michigan, especially areas with streams. In the
winter they may den up during cold spells, but they do not
hibernate. Raccoons may have been hunted for food and'

also for their fur.

Weasels (Mustelidae)
This family includes the weasels, marten, fisher,

mink, otter, badger, skunk and wolverine.

Marten (Martes americana)

 

The marten lives in mature coniferous forests.
Formerly its range extended into Central Lower Michigan.

This aboreal carnivore was an important fur animal.

Mink (Mustela vison)
This large weasel is found along streams and lakes,
and in woods in all parts of Michigan. Like the marten,

it is carnivorous. It was prized for its fur.

Otter (Lutra canadensis)

 

This animal is chiefly aquatic, spending most of
its time near water. It makes its home along stream banks
or lake shores. It is valued for its fur and its range
includes all of the Upper Peninsula and the northern half

of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.

22

Domestic dog (Canis familiaris)

The dogs of Fort Michilimackinac may have been
hunting dogs, as well as pets. The ones represented in
this sample were quite large, some approaching the wolf in

size.

Domestic cat (Felis domesticus)
The individuals represented here are generally

quite young, perhaps being surplus kittens.

WOodchuck (Marmota monax)

 

This large ground squirrel lives in forests and
brushy areas in all parts of Michigan. They feed on green

vegetation and may make their burrows under buildings.

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel (Citellus
tridecemlineatus)

 

These ground squirrels prefer grassland habitats,
which may include grassy beaches. Their range includes
only the Lower Peninsula. They feed on a variety of foods,

including both seeds and insects.

Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus)

 

This ground squirrel lives in all of Michigan, pre—
ferring brushy and forested areas. Their eating habits are
very similar to those of the thirteen-lined ground squirrel,

above.

23

Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)
These squirrels are principally found in coniferous
forests throughout Michigan. They may also take up

residence in buildings and become pests.

Beaver (Castor canadensis)

 

Beavers live in streams and rivers that are bor—
dered by deciduous forests, preferring aspen, birch, maple
and willow forests. This animal was an important fur
animal. Its range includes the Upper and northern Lower

Peninsula.

Deer Mouse or White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus £22)

 

Three species of this genus, P. maniculatus
bairdi, the Prairie Deer mouse, 2, m, gracilis, the WOod-
land Deer mouse, and P. leucopus, the White-footed mouse
are present in the Straits area. The last species seems
to be the most likely inhabitant of the Fort, as it pre-

fers brushy habitat and may enter houses in the fall.

Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)

 

This mouse inhabits low, moist areas where it
makes runways through the vegetation. Their range

includes the Straits area.

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)

 

Porcupines are confined to forests, but they may
cause damage to buildings in their voracious gnawing on

wood. They are easy to capture, and may be eaten and used

24

for their quills. Their range extends south to the central

part of the Lower Peninsula.

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)
These rabbits are found in the Upper and northern
Lower Peninsula and prefer spruce and cedar swamps. Their

fur is good and was at one time valued for felt-making.

Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus)

 

These rabbits are less common than the snowshoe
hare in the Straits area. They are found in brushy areas

and swamps.

White-tail Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

 

These deer live in brushy, semi-open areas through—
out Michigan. They are active at dawn and twilight and
would be available as food throughout the year. Deer are
a good food, supplying a fairly large amount of meat per

individual.

Elk (Cervus canadensis)

 

This large deer is found in forests with open
meadows. It would be available throughout the year, but
in limited numbers since it was never an extremely common
animal in Michigan. It could be an important food item,

when available.

25

Domestic Pig (Sus scrofa)

 

Pigs are hardy animals and would not require much
care in areas where there is sufficient forage. They would
be a very reliable source of meat and each individual yields

a large amount of meat.

Domestic Cow (Bos taurus)

 

The cow was a valuable food resource providing both
meat and milk. They were an important food animal yielding

a very large amount of meat.

Domestic Sheep (Ovis aries)

 

Only one sheep bone was found indicating that sheep
were probably not as common at the Fort as pigs and cows.

Compared to these two they yield a smaller amount of meat.

Birds

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)

 

This bird nests in suitable marshes throughout
Michigan in the summer. They are never found far from

water, and will dive, rather than fly, when approached.

Whistling Swan (Cygnus columbianus)

 

Swans pass through Michigan in the early spring and
fall on migration and rest during the day in lakes and

on large rivers.

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)

 

These birds also migrate through Michigan and nest

in the Straits area occasionally.

26

Blue or Snow Goose (Chen s2.)

Both of these are uncommon in Michigan, usually
migrating to the west along the Mississippi Valley, or to
the east along the Atlantic Coast. These geese would be a

good food source.

Ducks (Anatidae)

This family contains all types of ducks, including
domestic varieties. They are difficult to identify to
species, so they are grouped by family for the purpose of
this study. There is a possibility that some of the ducks
may be domestic. Wild species would be available in great—

est numbers in the fall when they migrate through the area.

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)

 

This duck is fairly common in Michigan, especially
during migrations. It is a diving duck, which feeds on

fish.

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)

 

This carrion-feeder is not common in the northern

parts of Michigan, but it occasionally wanders north.

Hawks (Accipitridae)
These hawks are common in Michigan and migrate

across the Straits in large numbers.

Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

 

This hawk is not common in Michigan. It is an
inhabitant of large forests. In the wild it eats grouse

and rabbits.

27

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

 

It is present in Midhigan and nests throughout the

area. It prefers open woodlands and margins.

Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)

 

This hawk is abundant and nests throughout the
state. Like the sharp—shinned hawk, they are found in open

woodlands and forest edges.

Red—tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

 

This is a very common hawk in Michigan. It prefers
open land and feeds primarily on mice and other rodents.

It also migrates across the Straits as do the Accipiters.

 

Red—shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)

 

The Red—shouldered Hawk is very like the Red-tailed

Hawk in habits, except that it prefers more wooded habitats.

Golden Eagle (Aquilla chrysaetos)

 

This is a very rare bird in Michigan. Michigan is
the extreme eastern edge of its range. The Lower Peninsula
is<inc1uded in its winter range, and the Upper Peninsula in

its summer range.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetos leucocephalus)
The bald eagle is not a common bird in Michigan,
but is present in limited numbers year-round. This eagle

lives near water and is a fish—eater.

28

Sparrow Hawk (Falco sparverius)

 

This tiny hawk is a valuable control on mice and
other rodents. It is found throughout Michigan in open or

semi-open country.

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus)

 

This bird is a permanent resident in Michigan's

Open woodlands and coniferous forests throughout the year.

Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

 

This bird is a resident of deciduous woodlands,
Where it occurs in open areas and clearings. When available
it would.be a good source of food, each individual yielding

a large amount of meat.

Domestic Chicken (Gallus domesticus)

Chickens were raised at the Fort as a food item.

Kildeer (Charadrius vociferus)

 

This shorebird is common along the beaches and

edges of ponds as well as in plowed fields.

Black-bellied Plover (Sguatarola squatarola)
This species appears in Michigan during fall migra—
tions. It would then be present on the beaches and dunes

along the Great Lakes.

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) and Ring—billed
Gull (L. delawarensis)

 

 

These gulls are common residents in the area near
the Fort. They are scavengers and are often present near

human habitations and at garbage dumps.

29

Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

 

Passenger Pigeons were at one time extremely abun-
dant in Michigan. They nested in vast numbers in Emmet and
Cheboygan Counties (Mershon 1907), and were very easy to
kill. They could be shot, or netted and the squabs could
be caught by hand. They were considered a great delicacy
and this contributed to their extinction, since they were

hunted without any restrictions.

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)

 

This large owl is a year-round resident of Michigan.

It exerts a valuable control on mice, rats and other pests.

Barred Owl (Strix varia)

 

This owl is also a Michigan resident. It has much

the same habits as the Great Horned Owl.

Yellow-shafted Filcker (Colaptes auratus)

 

This woodpecker is a common summer resident of
Open areas of Michigan. It spends much of its time

searching for insects on the ground.

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata)

 

This bird is a common summer resident of Michigan.
where it inhabits oak and pine woods. It is a scavenger

and is frequently found around dwellings.

30

Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)

 

These birds are common in Michigan. They are found
around garbage heaps and other refuse pits, where they search
for insects. Their habits may be destructive, since they rob

the nests of other birds.

Robin (Turdus migratorius)

 

The robin is a summer resident of Michigan. It pre—
fers moist woodlands and Open areas, where it searches for

insects and earthworms.

Red—winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoenicus)

 

These birds are common in marshes, and at edges of
lakes in the summer. They have little economic value.
Fish

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

 

This large fish lives in the shallow waters of lakes
and rivers, and was common in the Upper Great Lakes. It is
most available in spring during spawning runs. It can be

taken by spearing or with nets.

White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii)

 

This small fish is available year-round, but is
most concentrated during spawning runs in May and June.

It may be caught with dip nets or with hook and line.

31

Sucker or Quillback (Catostomus/Carpiodes)
These are found in shallow lakes and tributaries.

See the description above.

Redhorse (Moxostoma E23)
This fish is found in larger lakes and streams and

is available in large numbers during spring spawning runs.

Largemouth Bass (Micrqpterus salmoides)
This game fish is found in warm lakes and streams.

It may be caught with hook and line.

Northern Pike (Esox luscius)
These fish are found in shallow, weedy water in the
summer, and are in deeper waters in the winter. They may

be speared or caught with tackle.

Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum)
This is found in large, clear rivers and lakes.
They spawn in shallow water in the spring, where they can

be caught or speared.

Whitefish (Coregonus sp,)
This is probably 9. clupeaformis, the lake white-
fish, which lives in deep lakes and spawns in fall in

shallow water. They may be speared or netted.

Lake Trout (Salvelinus naymaycush)
These trout weigh 10 to 15 pounds on the average

in the Great Lakes. They are found in cold water (40-450F),

32

regardless of the depth. They may be caught with hook and
line, speared or netted, especially when spawning late in

the fall.

Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus gruniens)
This fish is a bottom-feeder in quiet waters. It
may be caught with nets or on a trot-line and occasionally

with hook and line.

Turtles

Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingi)

 

This semi-box turtle is found in marshes, bogs,

lakes and small streams.

Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica)

This turtle is found in large bodies of water.

WOod Turtle (Clemmys insculpta)

 

This turtle is quite terrestrial and may be found

quite far from water.

Amphibians

 

Toad (Bufo sp,)
Toads may be found almost anywhere. They only need
shallow water for breeding, moist places for shelter and

food.

THE ANALYS I S

Hypothesis 1

 

Are there demonstrable differences in proportions
of species among different types of historical features?

In order to test this hypothesis one method of
analysis was used. Cumulative graphs were made of the
percentages of individuals of each species present in
every functional feature type (Figures 4 through 10).
The functional categories used were those listed on page
14. These categories include features from any structure
in which they occur. For convenience the species were
numbered and grouped by categories of use types (Table 1.).
Species 1 through 4 are edible domestic animals, 5 and 6
are dogs and cats, 7 through 31 are edible wild animals,
32 through 36 are fur-bearers and 37 through 71 are wild
edible species. The resulting profiles of these graphs
then show the faunal composition of each feature category
and may be compared for similarities and differences.
The graphs show each functional unit of features to have a
distinct pattern which illustrates the use and disposal

of faunal resources.

33

PERCEN‘I

I00 I’

00"

roI-

60'-

50"

40"

IOI-

,.-
I
I
I
I
,.-..---.I
I
I
I
J
J- A.
5 IO

h--—----1
I
I
I
I
I

J.

-'I
I

I

I

I
J

h--

----- -—-‘

 

 

A «I.

20 25

34

 

 

FIGURE 4

PERCEN'I' OF INDIVIDUALS

 

OCCUPATION FLOOR

----- FIREPLACE!
1 a. .L I a. a. .l. .L .I.
SO 35 40 45 BO 53 CO 65 7O

SPECIES

PERCENT

IOOI'

’0‘

WI

ON:

30'-

EOI'

  

 

 

L------——

.a. a.
20 25

 

35

«L

 

FIGURE 5

 

WALL TREICIIEO

-- - -. PILASTER PIT.

«L J-

J- ‘AL‘L
CO ”5.0.570

SPECIES

PERCENT

IooI-

ROI:

TOI‘

POP

90"

 

 

 

36

  
   

r---
r------J

 

FIOURE C

 

IASEIEIIT FLOORS

----- IASEIEIT FILL

.54....4. 4.
ZSSOSSQOQSOOSSSO

gr
3

SPECIES

PERCENT

Iooi'

SOI-

TOI~

SOI-

 

 

 

37

 

FIOURE 7

IASENENT PIT

—-----EXTERNAL reacts

.LL.L&LL.L.L.LJ
25 30 SS 4045 50 SS 60 OS 70

SPECIES

38

r—----------- '-

IOOI'

   

_--..--- ---.-.I

00"

 

SCI

70"

SOI"

SOI’

FIOURE S

LATRINE PITS

 

L-

O
4

5.28010;

SOI'

LATRINE FILL

.L .I. .1
CO CS 70

.L
55

 

SPECIES

39

 

 

 

 

.
.
.
r3
.
. 9
u
. u
. U
C
J}. F
c
.
P-..
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J
.
r---J
.
..'-J
.
r- E- E '-
r Ir. a” .W L. LI LI
0 O
W N S 7 C S w

PZUQCUE

IOUNOARY OITCNES

OU RONOE

"" CNENIN

 

SPECIES

PERCENT

90"

«I-

TOI"

SOI'

4W

SOI-

 

 

 

 

 

FIOURE IO

 

STOCNAOE O IASTION TRENCNES

'--" OAROEN FITS

+.L.L.L.LJ
489053000810

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. List of Species Identified from Features Excavated
at Fort Michilimackinac from 1967 to 1969.
Usable
Reference Pounds
Species Number of Meat
Domestic Pig Sus scrofa 1 172.0
Domestic Cow Bos taurus 2 500.0
Domestic Sheep Ovis aries 3 40.0
Domestic Chicken Gallus domesticus 4 2.24
Domestic Dog Canis familiaris 5 15.0
Domestic Cat Felis domesticus 6 --
Black Bear Ursus americanus 7 210.0
Raccoon Procyon lotor 8 17.5
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 9 7.0
Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus 10 2.1
Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus 11 1.75
White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 12 85.0
Elk Cervus canadensis 13 300.0
Ducks Anatidaea 14 1.47
Whistling Swan Cygnus columbianus 15 9.6
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 16 5.6
Blue or Snow Goose gh§n_§p,b 17 3.8
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 18 2.4
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 19 1.1
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 20 9.6
Passenger Pigeon Ectopistes
migratorius 21 0.8
Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens 22 36.0
Sucker or Quillback Catostomus/Carpiodes 23 --
White Sucker Catostomus
commersonii 24 .
Redhorse Moxostoma E22 25 .
Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 26 1.6
Northern Pike Esox luscius 27 .
walleye Stizostedion vitreum 28 5.6
Whitefish Coregonus s2, 29 6.0

 

42

 

 

 

Table 1. Continued.
Usable
Reference Pounds
Species Number of Meat
Lake Trout Salvelinus naymaycush 30 14.4
Drum Aplodinotus gruniens 31 2.2
Weasels Mustelidae 32 -—
Marten Martes americana 33 2.1
Mink Mustela vison 34 1.05
Otter Lutra canadensis 35 12.5
Beaver Castor canadensis 36 32.0
Hawks Accipitridae 37 —-
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 38 --
Sharp-shinned Hawk A, striatus 39 --
Cooper's Hawk A, cooperi 40 --
Golden Eagle Aquilla chrysaetos 41 --
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus 42 ——
Sparrow Hawk Falco sparverius 43 --
Shorttailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda 44 --
WOodchuck Marmota monax 45 --
Thirteen—lined Citellus
Ground Squirrel tridecemlineatus 46 --
Chipmunk Tamias striatus 47 --
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus 48 -—
Deer or White-
Footed Mouse Peromyscus EB, 49 ——
Meadow Vole Microtus
pennsylvanicus 50 --
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 51 --
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 52 --
Red-tailed HaWk Buteo jamaicensis 53 ——
Red-shouldered
Hawk Buteo lineatus 54 --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

Table 1. Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Usable
Reference Pounds
Species Number of Meat
Kildeer Charadrius vociferus 55 --
Black—bellied Squatarola
Plover squatarola 56 -—
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 57 2.4
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 58 2.0
Owls Strigidae 59 --
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 60 2.0
Barred Owl Strix varia 61 --
Flicker Colaptes auratus 62 -—
Blue Jay Cyanocitta criStata 63 .64
Crow Corvus
brachyrhynchos 64 1.6
Song Bird Passeriformes 65 --
Robin Turdus migratorius 66 --
Red-winged Black
Bird Agelaius phoenicus 67 --

 

Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingi 68 --

 

 

 

Map Turtle Graptemys geographica 69 --
WOod Turtle: Clemmys insculpta 70 ——
Toad Bufo s2, 71 -—

a Anatidae = all ducks, the weight is an average of
several species.
‘§h§Q_§B.= Blue or Snow Goose, the weight is an average
of the weights of the Blue Goose and the Greater and

Lesser Snow Geese.

44

Occupation Floor (Figure 4.)

This unit is characterized by a very low percentage
of the domestic species and some of the edible wild species.
The largest percentages are passenger pigeon and Whitefish.
There are some wild non—edible species present, but they
also contribute low percentages. There are no domestic
dogs and cats.’ In relation to all the other categories the
occupation floor has lower percentages for domestic and wild
edible species; and similar or slightly different percen-
tages for the remaining fur-bearing and non-edible wild
species. It also has consistently lower percentages of
most species than fireplaces. These percentages show that
the occupants were not disposing of garbage by throwing it
on the floor, and further that this was not a trap or shel-
ter for the wild non-edible species. Those that did intrude
may have done so when the house was not occupied. In addi—
tion, the lack of remains of pets indicates that these
were disposed of outside the house. The large percentages
of passenger pigeon and Whitefish bones may be accounted
for in several ways. First, both species have small bones
which could be lost between floor boards, or in other
places, and second, they were both very abundant species at
the Fort. Larger bones were apparently disposed of in

other ways.

45

Fireplaces (Figure 4.)

This unit has high percentages of edible wild and
domestic species. Domestic pets and wild non—edible
species were absent. The percentages of the species found
in fireplaces are generally higher than all other units,
except latrine fill, Chemin du ronde and the external fences.
Fireplaces are similar to these three for most species.

The high percentage of food remains in fireplaces indicates
that garbage was being burnt and perhaps that some bones
were lost there during cooking. Beaver was the only fur-
bearing animal present and they are also an edible species.
The lack of wild non—edible species is predictable, as they
were not being eaten and did not find this a good shelter.
The same considerations as mentioned for the occupation
floor apply to the frequency of passenger pigeons and
Whitefish, as well as to ducks. This suggests that smaller
bones were burned and larger bones were removed from the

house for disposal.

Wall Trenches (Figure 5.)

 

The pattern of this category is somewhat different
than the preceeding ones. With the exception of pig, the
domestic animals exhibit small percentages. The wild
edible species have low percentages except for ducks,
passenger pigeons, sturgeon and Whitefish, which are abun-

dant in many of the feature categories. Fur-bearers are

46

represented only by beaver. There are more wild non-edible
species in this category than in the previous ones. The
material in the wall trenches would have more of these non-
edible wild species, since the trenches are outside the
house and include soil that has been mixed and gathered

from other areas. Also, some discarded food bones would be-
come mixed with the deposit. Some species could be included
because they burrowed into the trench in search of shelter
or food.

Compared to the other types, wall trenches are
similar to a number of the other units. Most similar of
these are basement fill, basement pit, boundary ditches
and external fences for the domestic and edible wild
species, and basement floor, and garden pit and stockade
and bastion trenches for the non-edible wild species. The
wall trenches have lower percentages than latrine fill,
chemin du ronde, and fireplaces, as well as external fences
for the fur-bearing animals and non-edible wild species.
Wall trenches have higher percentages of nearly all species
than the occupation floor. These associations show that
similar amounts of food remains were discarded, or not
discarded in these places. It is notable that there is a
high degree of similarity in species profiles in wall
trenches and stockade and bastion trenches and also with
boundary ditches. Since these are similar types of

features, it indicates that their composition is similar,

47

and that the material in them comes from similar

deposits.

Pilaster Pits (Figure 5.)

 

The composition of this unit parallels that of the
wall trenches, except that it has lower percentages of
domestic and wild edible species, and generally higher ones
for some wild edible species, the fur-bearers and non—
edible wild species. These pits are clay-packed footings
for house posts. The lower numbers of food bones
indicates that the material in the pits was not taken from
garbage dumping areas, or that food remains were purposely
not included. Several factors may account for the
increased number of bones from some of the wild edible
and non-edible species and the fur-bearers. Particularly,
the increase begins with the species which occurs in the
largest percentages, passenger pigeon, and continues with
the Whitefish. These species, moreover, have small bones
that would have been difficult to remove, if indeed bone
was removed from pilaster pit fill. There are few wild
non-edible species represented, which might be expected,
since fewer animals would seek shelter in a clay pit or
burrow into them. Overall, pilaster pits have lower
percentages of most species than latrine fill and fire-
places, and lower percentages than basement fill, base-

ment pits, chemin du ronde and stockade and bastion

48

trenches for the domestic and some of the wild edible
species. They have higher percentages than garden pits

and the occupation floor for the wild and domestic edible
species. Pilaster pits are similar to basement fill,
basement pits, latrine pits, the chemin du ronde and the
occupation floor for the wild edible and non—edible

species and the fur-bearing species. These patterns
indicate that these pit features were not ones in which
food remains were discarded. The amount of wild non-edible
species is comparable to other units, perhaps because there
are similarities of habits of these species, or because

there were similar patterns of waste disposal.

Basement Floors (Figure 6.)

 

These features contain a wide diversity of species.
There are appreciable amounts of many food animals, both
wild and domestic, and also quite a few non—edible wild
species. These percentages indicate that this area was
used to some extent as a place to dispose of garbage and
perhaps also as a storage area for meat. Again, a small
number of domestic pets indicates their disposal in other
places. The high percentages of wild non-edible species
also indicates this as a disposal area, as well as being
a natural trap where animals might be caught.

In relation to other units, basement floors are

most similar to basement pits, wall trenches, pilaster pits

49

and latrine pits; they have lower percentages than basement
fill, external fences, latrine fill and fireplaces in
general, and lower percentages for the domestic and wild
edible species than boundary ditches, and garden pits.
This unit has higher percentages than the occupation floor
for domestic and wild edible species. For fur—bearing and
wild non—edible species basement floors are similar to bound-
ary ditches, the chemin du ronde and stockade and bastion
trenches. They have lower percentages than garden pits and
the occupation floor for the fur-bearing and wild non-
edible species. The basement floors appear to be in the
middle of the range of distribution of percentages. This
would indicate basement floors were used for garbage dis—
posal or meat storage more often than certain other units,
(i.e., the occupation floor) and less than others, such
as the basement fill. The same applies to the amount of
wild non-edible species. The basement floors were a
natural trap that animals could accidentally fall into.
This would be especially true for the basements that are
located outside the houses.

Table 2 demonstrates the near identity of the
three basement floors with respect to domestic edible

wild and fur-bearing animals.

”5‘

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Total Individuals and Meat Percentages for the
Basement Floors of SWHl, SWH2 and PH.
SWHl SWH2 PH
U) -IJ In -IJ 0‘) -IJ
0'3 803 8 «.73 8

m 03 .. 22 0.3 .J 22 0.3 .. 22
0 H44 Ocnm QIO Ira Ocnm aIO uwI 0:00 0:0
'3 0.: 3'23 ”3 “’33. 3'23 “3 “t: 312% “'3
8 EU as “026 ms Hm ac ms mm
m a mom mm a mom mm 5: wow mm
m 2+4 :3040 nab 25H :30.o nab 2+4 23m o m::
Pig 3 519.0 36.5 2 344.0 31.5 2 344.0 16.7
Cow 1 500.0 35.1 500.0 45.7 2 1000.0 48.7
Sheep - — - - - - 1 40.0 1.9
Chicken 1 2.2 .2 - - — 2 4.5 .2
Edible

Domestic 5 1021.2 71.8 3 844.0 77.2 7 1388.5 67.6
Dog - - - - — - 2 30.0 1.5
Domestic

Pets - — - - - - 2 30.0 1.5
Black Bear 1 210.0 14.7 - - - 1 210.0 10.2
5n°WSh°e 1 2.1 .1 1 2.1 .2 5 10.5 .5

Hare
Cottontail

Rabbit - — - — - - 1 1.7 .1
Deer - — - - — — 85.0 4.1
Ducks 2 2.9 .2 1 1.5 .l 5 7.4 .4
Whistling

Swan - - — — - - 1 9.6 .5
Blue/Snow ~

Goose - - - - - - l 3.8 .2
Common

Merganser - - — — - - 2 4.8 .2
Ruffed

Grouse 2 2.2 .2 l 1.1 .1 6 6.6 .3
Passenger

Pigeon 28 22.4 5 18 14.4 .3 31 24.8 .
Sturgeon 1 36.0 . 1 36.0 . 2 72.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Continued.
SWHl SWH2 PH
m u m p m p
.—I It: .—I I6 r-I III
22 -2 22 2 .2 22 2 .2
m 'U u c t c O c
O LrH aIqu GIO Iva aIm «Io LhH aIm an
2' “’2 322 “3 “’2 32. °3 “’2 32. U3
3 22 22. 22 22 222 22 22 222 22
% 2H Dmo OD 2H sz mD ZH mm: m:
White
Sucker - - - l 1.2 .1 1 1.2 .1
Northern
Pike - - - 2 8.0 .7 - - -
walleye - - — 1 5.6 .5 — - -
Whitefish 13 78.0 5.5 12 72.0 6.6 4 24.0 1.2
Lake Trout 1 14.4 . 2 28.8 2.6 2 28.8 .
Drum - - - 1 2.2 .2 — - -
Edible Wild 49 368.0 25.7 41 172.9 15.7 63 490.2 23.8
Beaver 1 36.0 2.3 2 72.0 6.6 4 144.0 7.0
Fur-bearers 1 36.0 2.3 2 72.0 6.6 4 144.0 7.0
Cooper's
HaWk 1 - — - — _ _ - -
Sparrow
Hawk - - — _ _ - 1 _ -
Shorttailed
Shrew - — — - _ _ 1 _ _
RedSquirrel - - — — - _ 1 - _
Deer Mouse 1 - - — - — — — —
Meadow Vole - - - l - - 2 - -
Red-tailed
Hawk 2 - - 1 _ - - - _
Kildeer - - - - — - 1 — _
Ring-billed
Gull l 2.0 .l 1 2.0 .2 - — -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

Table 2. Continued.

 

 

 

 

SWHl SWH2 PH
m u m u m u
a m H m H m
2.6 m 0 4.6 m O 0.0 m 0
00 o u: on 0 .020b o u:
m r0 0 'U c U a
O spa O m ma) 044 0:0 0:0 LPH Ocn aIO
3 33 SE» 0303 Ban 0303 320 03
2 22 222 2222 222 2222 222 22
m 25H :20.2 0.2 ESPI 230.2 0.: 5521 230.2 0.D
Blue Jay - - - l .6 .1 — - —
Crow' - - — 1 1.6 .l - - -
Robin 1 - - — — — 2 - —
Toad l - - - - - — - —
Non-Edible
Wild 7 2.0 .1 5 4.2 .4 8 - -
TOTAL 62 1427.2 51 1093.1 84 2052.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basement Fill (Figure 6.)

Like the preceeding unit, this also shows a diverb
sity of species. Since the matrix is fill, the diversity
indicates that material from surrounding areas with dis-
carded food bones and buried remains of non-food species was
being utilized for the fill. The faunal composition of
basement fill is most similar to basement pits, boundary
ditches, stockade and bastion trenches, wall trenches,
external fences and garden pits. It is similar to latrine
pits for domestic and edible wild species, and to chemin
du ronde and pilaster pits for some wild edible species,

fur-bearers and wild non-edible species. Basement fill

53

has lower percentages than latrine fill and fireplaces for
all species and lower than chemin du ronde for edible
species and domestic pets. This fill is higher in overall
percentage than basement floors, the occupation floor and
also higher than pilaster pits for domestic and wild edible
species. As in the case of the basement floors, these
differences in percentages indicate the basement fill to be
in the middle of the distribution. The fill material does
not contain either a high or a low amount of any group of
species. It is predictably higher than some units, such as
the occupation floor, and lower than others where more food
remains were discarded and where more wild edible species

were present.

Basement Pit (Figure 7.)

 

This unit is like the other basement units in having
a diversity of species, and their percentages are quite
similar. This curve is also similar to boundary ditches,
external fences, and to garden pits as well as to latrine
pits, stockade and bastion trenches and wall trenches for
domestic and wild edible species. It resembles latrine fill,
the chemin du ronde, the occupation floor and pilaster pits
for fur-bearers and wild non-edible species. It has lower
overall percentages than fireplaces, and lower percentages
than latrine fill and the chemin du ronde for domestic and
wild edible species. It has higher percentages than the

occupation floor and pilaster pits for domestic and edible

54

wild species and latrine pits, stockade and bastion trenches,
and wall trenches for the fur-bearing animals and non-
edible wild species. These similarities and differences
once again show the basement pit to be in the middle range
of distributions. This unit is similar to the latrine pits
for domestic and edible wild species. The fact that it is
similar to boundary ditches and garden pits may indicate
that the material in all the units was originally deposited
in the same way. The higher percentage of non-edible wild
species than in latrine pits, stockade and bastion trenches
and wall trenches shows these species to have sought shelter

there, as well as being included in secondary depositions.

External Fences (Figure 7.)

This is a very small sample, which yields high per-
centages of the ten species present. The species present
are all ones that are used primarily for food, except mink
and beaver. These fur-bearers may be present as a result
of the fur trade activities, as these fences are associated
with early stockades. These percentages are most similar
to boundary ditches, wall trenches, and the basement
features. It is also similar to stockade and bastion
trenches for domestic and wild edible species, and to pilas-
ter pits for wild edible species, fur-bearers and non-
edible wild species. It has lower percentages than latrine
pits, chemin du ronde, and garden pits for the edible and

fur-bearing species,and to fireplaces and pilaster pits

55

overall. It has higher percentages than latrine pits and
the occupation floor; and higher percentages than latrine
fill, chemin du ronde, garden pits and stockade and bastion
trenches for non-edible wild species. The similarities to
other features of the same type, like the boundary ditches,
is interesting. These similarities indicate similar deposi-
tions of material. The lack of non-edible wild species in
this group may be due to the location of these structures
outside the stockade, or to its not being an area where

animals would seek shelter.

Latrine Pit (Figure 8.)

This is another category with a diversity of both
edible and non-edible species. One species present in this
unit and the next two, which was not present in preceeding
units, is the domestic cat. The individuals here are all
young. It is probable that they are unwanted kittens,
which were disposed of in the latrine pits. The high percen—
tage of non-edible species is to be expected, as the latrines
would be a natural trap for animals, both during their use
and afterwards, if they were not completely filled in. In
relation to the other units latrine pits are similar to wall
trenches and pilaster pits overall, to boundary ditches,
garden pits and basement units for domestic and wild edible
species, and to stockade and bastion trenches and basement
floors for fur-bearers and non-edible wild species. This

category contains higher percentages of species than stock—

56

ade and bastion trenches and the occupation floor for domes-
tic and wild edible species, and higher percentages than
garden pits for a few wild edible species, the fur—bearers
and non—edible wild species. It has lower percentages than
latrine fill, chemin du ronde and fireplaces overall and
lower than the boundary ditches, the occupation floor,
basement fill and basement pit for fur-bearers and wild non-
edible species. The similarities to the basement unit is
notable, since they are similar types of structural units,

although with different uses.

Latrine Fill (Figure 8.)

 

The composition of this unit is different from that
of the preceeding one in several respects. First, there
is a higher percentage of edible species, both domestic
and wild. Second, there are fewer wild non—edible species.
Since this material is a secondary deposition these differ—
ences may reflect the nature of the fill material itself,
rather than the nature of the area filled. Compared to
other units the latrine fill is most similar to the chemin
du ronde, boundary ditches, fireplaces and to garden pits,
the occupation floor and basement pits for fur—bearers and
wild non-edible species. It is higher for all species than
stockade and bastion trenches, wall trenches, pilaster pits,
basement floors, basement fill and higher than basement
pits, external fences and the occupation floor for the

domestic and wild edible species. This category has

57

generally high percentages. This may reflect the fact that
the latrines were used as refuse pits for disposal of many
things, including food and other faunal remains. It may
also indicate that the area from which the secondary fill
was obtained was a disposal area. The lack of wild non-
edible species probably reflects the nature of the fill.
The one species present is the meadow vole, which prefers
moist habitats and might intrude into the area after it was

filled.

Boundary Ditches (Figure 9.)

The diversity of species in this unit is quite
great. These ditches separate the gardens of houses and as
such cut through any previous deposits. This may result
in variation in the nature of the material in the ditches.
Faunal material included probably comes from the surrounding
garden areas and incorporates the faunal waste found there.
This would indicate that the garden area has a diverse fauna
also, perhaps because this was used for disposal of garbage.
The paucity of wild non-edible species would indicate that
these were scarce in the fill, and that few intruded sub-
sequently. In relation to other units this one is in the
middle range of distributions. It is most similar to
stockade and bastion trenches, garden pits, pilaster pits,
basement fill, basement pits, external fences and latrine
fill. It is also similar to the occupation floor, chemin

du ronde and basement floors for the fur-bearers and wild

58

non-edible species, and to wall trenches and latrine pits
for the domestic and wild edible species. It has higher
percentages than the occupation floor and basement floor
for the domestic and wild edible species and higher percen-
tages than wall trenches and latrine pits for part of the
wild edible species, the fur-bearers and the non-edible
wild species. It has lower percentages than fireplaces
generally and than chemin du ronde for the domestic and
wild edible species. At least for some species there is
similarity between this unit and the other trenches. Since
the various trenches might be presumed to be filled in the
same way, this indicates that their fill came from areas

of similar composition.

Chemin Du Ronde (Figure 9.)

 

The chemin du ronde is a deposit which would be
added to through the years of occupation and this might
help account for the high percentage of food remains as
well as for the presence of wild non—edible species. Rela—
tive to other units this has medium-high percentages. It
is generally similar to latrine fill and is similar to gar-
den pits, the occupation floor, pilaster pits, and basement
units, external fences, and boundary ditches for the fur—
bearers and wild non-edible species. It has higher percen—
tages than stockade and bastion trenches, wall trenches,
and latrine pits overall, and higher than garden pits, the

occupation floor, pilaster pits, the basement units,

59

external fences and boundary ditches for domestic and wild
edible species. It is slightly lower than fireplaces.

These associations show that this unit has a high amount of
both food remains and wild non-edible species. The fact that
this unit represents public property and is just inside the
stockade wall may indicate that garbage and other faunal
remains may have been disposed of there, rather than on

private property.

Stockade and Bastion Trenches (Figure 10.)

This unit contains high percentages of edible species
and several wild non-edible species. These percentages can
perhaps be accounted for in several ways. First, it may
have been customary to dispose of food remains just inside
of the stockade. Second, wild non-edible species would
probably be at least as active outside the stockade as
inside it, if not more so. Consequently, their bones would
be included with the stockade when additions or repairs were
made. In relation to other units, stockade and bastion
trenches are most similar to wall trenches, basement fill,
and boundary ditches. Also they are like garden pits and
pilaster pits for some of the wild species, numbers 22
through 28, like pilaster pits and external fences for
domestic and wild edible species, and like basement floors
and latrine pits for fur-bearing species and wild non-
edible species. They have lower percentages than fireplaces,

latrine fill and chemin du ronde for all species and lower

60

ones than the occupation floor, garden pits and basement
pits for fur-bearers and wild non-edible species, and than
pilaster pits and latrine pits for domestic and wild edible
species. The stockade and bastion trenches have higher
percentages than garden pits, latrine pits, the occupation
floor and basement floor for domestic and wild edible
species, and higher percentages than pilaster pits and

external fences for fur-bearers and non-edible wild species.

Garden Pits (Figure 10.)

These features had few species generally, and
relatively low percentage of those present. These pits were
specialized dumps in which various kinds of refuse was
disposed. It would appear that these pits were not areas
where wild non-edible species sought shelter and became
included in the material of the pits. These pits are most
like basement pits and boundary ditches, as well as like
stockade and bastion trenches, pilaster pits, and basement
floors for wild edible species, numbers 22 through 28, and
like latrine pits, latrine fill and chemin du ronde for
fur-bearers and wild non-edible species. The percentages of
species in garden pits are higher than stockade and bastion
trenches, pilaster pits, basement floors, and wall trenches
for fur—bearers and wild non—edible species and higher than
pilaster pits, basement floors, external fences, and latrine
fill for domestic and wild edible species. They have lower

percentages than stockade and bastion trenches, latrine

61

pits and chemin du ronde for domestic and wild edible
species, and than basement fill overall. These similarities
and differences indicate the similarity of deposition of the

matrices.

To summarize the relationships of these feature
types, it can be demonstrated that they exhibit certain
characteristic patterns of faunal composition as a result
of different places of deposition of food waste and other
animal remains, and the intrusion of non-edible species.
The units vary in the frequency of occurrence of each group
of species. Domestic food remains were deposited least
frequently in the house occupation floor and most frequently
in the fireplaces. There is, in general, a larger percen-
tage of food remains in features not directly associated
with buildings such as the trenches and fences. The
perimeter of the Fort (the chemin du ronde, and stockade
trenches) has a large amount Of the food remains. The
domestic pets were most frequently disposed of in the
latrines and the chemin du ronde, and are absent from the
house features, the occupation floor and basement units.

The deposition of edible wild animals is different
than edible domestic ones. Again the occupation floor has
the least, but the other units are not grouped in any
noticeable way. The low amount of these bones generally
makes such a small sample that the percentages may not be

representative. The fur-bearing animals are most frequent

62

in pilaster pits, external fences and stockade and bastion
trenches, and least frequent in the occupation floor and
other house units. Since these species may or may not have
been eaten, it is to be expected that they would be
distributed differently from food species.

The non-edible wild species are absent from fire-
places and the occupation floor. They occur most frequently
in latrines and basements, which would be areas of shelter
for them and also were natural traps for small animals. In
addition the latrines were general dumping areas for the
refuse of the Fort. Any animal found dead might be put
there as well as the remains of any other species not to be
eaten.

The results of this analysis lead to the conclusion
that there are differences in proportions of species in
various feature types, and that these differences are

measurable.

Hypothesis 2

 

Can different proportions of species be attributed
to different cultural activities and differential
deposition?

This hypothesis was tested by compiling total
pounds and percentages of usable meat and types of species
(edible domestic species, edible wild species, fur bearing
species, domestic pets and non-edible wild species) for
the various species present in the basement floors of SWHl,
SWH2 and the Priest's House. These features were used for
comparison because they are the only similar features
represented in all three structures, and because these
features are the closest to being primary deposits. The
results are shown in Table 2. Certain facts are apparent
when these results are examined. A great difference can be
seen in the importance of the groups when total number of
individuals are compared to total pounds of meat. The
edible domestic species yield the largest percentage of
meat relative to the number of individuals, whereas the wild
edible species yield less meat in relation to the larger
number of individuals. These figures show the relative
importance of each group in subsistence. The edible domes—

tic species yield the largest percentage of meat, the edible

63

64

wild species the next largest amount and the domestic pets
the least. This pattern reflects the dependence of the
British and other inhabitants of the 1760-1780 period on
domestic mammals for food, and support the same conclusion
presented by Cleland (n.d.).

An idea of the relative social status of the inhabi—
tants of each structure might be obtained by comparing the
percentages of meat from each group. Presumably, those of
higher status would have more money either to buy food
animals which were imported, or to maintain them. This
condition would presumably be represented by different
proportions of wild and domestic meat. we have seen that
domestic animals supplied the majority of the meat. The
importance of domestic animal foods as opposed to wild
animal foods is therefore thought to reflect the inhabitant's
ability to purchase and maintain domestic species as well
as their preferences for domestic species.

It was stated previously that SWHl was inhabited by
a family of higher status than that of SWH2. It could be
postulated also that the priests would be higher class than
some of the residents. They would be more likely to be on
a status level with the officers than with the soldiers.
From these hypotheses, it could be assumed that the percent-
ages Of meat from various sources in each basement floor
would reflect these differences. This hypothesis is not

borne out by the data. The percentages and number of indi-

65

viduals for each group on each basement floor are nearly
identical. This would indicate similar status and/or
similar food preferences.

In order to discover any differences of status or
preference in these three structures it is necessary to
examine the particular species present in each house. SWHl
and SWH2 have 18 and 19 species represented respectively.
The Priest's House has 26 species. This gives an indication
of the difference in composition between these three houses.
Ten species are present in all three houses. They are pig,
cow, snowShoe hare, ducks, ruffed grouse, passenger pigeon,
sturgeon, Whitefish, lake trout and beaver. All of these
are species which are very frequently represented in the
faunal material from Fort Michilimackinac, and which
contributed large amounts to the food resources. SWHl and
SWH2 have twelve species in common, and these are the ones
which yield the greatest percentage of the meat. Each
house has some species which are unique to it, but the
Priest's House has more of these than the others. Indeed,
some of these are the only occurrance of the species for
the total faunal material included in this study. The
animals that occur only in the Priest's House are the domes-
tic sheep, cottontail rabbit, whistling swan, blue/snow
goose, and common merganser. Even though these contribute
minor amounts of meat to the total for the Priest's House

they give an indication that the inhabitants had a slightly

66

more diverse selection of food species than the occupants
of SWHl and SWH2. The residents of the Priest's House
relied mostly on beef for meat, but supplemented it with a
large variety of wild foods. This pattern contrasts with
those of SWHl and SWH2 where slightly fewer wild species
supplemented beef and pork for meat.

Another difference that can be seen is the relative
amounts of fish in the three houses. SWH2 has 14.0 per cent
fish, SWHl has 9.0 per cent, and the Priest's House has
6.12 per cent. These percentages are totals for seven,
three and four species respectively. These figures demon-
strate that the occupants of SWH2 utilized a larger amount
of fish and a greater number of species. This may be a
result of the preferences of the inhabitants, or may reflect
an economic variable, since fish were probably less expen—
sive to obtain than either domestic or wild meat.

These differences in the faunal composition of the
structures shows that, although the percentages for the
species groups are very similar, the occupants of each house
had a slightly different group of species which composed
their food. With a larger sample and more comparable feature
units it might be possible to determine the relative social
status and food preferences of the inhabitants to an even

greater degree.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to investigate many questions using
the faunal remains from an archaeological site. From the
answers tc> these questions we may arrive at a better under-
standing of the lives and cultures of the occupants of
Fort Michilimackinac. Two questions were posed in this
study and were answered to the extent the data permitted.

It had been demonstrated that the disposal patterns of the
residents included disposing garbage on public property,

the chemin du ronde and inside the stockade, and to lesser
extents in areas outside the house. Basements or cellars
were not used to any great extent for disposal of garbage,
but the latrines received a large amount of garbage and

other faunal refuse. The interior of the houses was fairly
free of garbage, except the fireplaces where small bones were
burned and/or lost during cooking.

Comparing three basement floors shows some small
differences in the personal food preferences and similarities
in the economic status of the occupants of the houses. While
the groups of species contributed the same relative amounts
of food, the composition of each group shows particular

differences in the inhabitant's preferences.

67

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrows, W. B. Michigan Bird Life. Special Bulletin of
the Department of Zoology and Physiology of
Michigan Agricultural College. East Lansing,
Michigan, 1912.

Burt, W. H. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1957.

, and Grossenheider, R. P. A Field Guide to the

Mammals. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Miflin
Co., 1964.

 

Cleland, C. E. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology of the Upper
Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press, 1966.

. Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French
and British Refuse Pits at Fort Michilimackinac:
A Study in Changing Subsistence Patterns, n.d.

Conant, Roger. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and
Amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton
Miflin Co., 1958.

Cumley, R. W. Fisherman's Guide to Michigan FiSh.
Houston, Texas: Professional Publication Producers,
1969.

Maxwell, M. S. and Binford, L. H. Excavation at Fort
Michilimackinac, Mackinac City, Michigan, 1959
Season. Cultural SeriesLyPublications of the
Museum, Michigan State University, Vol. 1, No. 1.
East Lansing, Michigan, 1961.

Mershon, W. B. The Passenger Pigeon. New York: Outing
Publishing Company, 1907.

 

Peterson, R. T. A Field Guide to the Birds. Boston,
Massachusetts: Houghton Miflin Co., 1947.

68

69

Quaife, M. M. The John Askin Papers, Vol. 1: 1747-1795.
Detroit, Michigan: Detroit Library Commission,
1928.

Robbins, C. S., Bruun, B., and Zim, H. S. Birds of North
America. New York, New York: Golden Press, 1966.

 

MAY 2 2 1959

"IIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIITILII