The Nineteenth Century Farmer In Upper-Canada

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY FARMER IN UPPER-CANADA:

A COMPARATIVE BUTCHERING ANALYSIS OF FOUR HISTORICAL SITES IN ONTARIO

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Anthropology M.A. Program

May 1997

DWAYNE R. JAMES

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2012 by Dwayne R. James

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

ABSTRACT

The Nineteenth Century Farmer In Upper-Canada:

A Comparative Butchering Analysis Of Four Historical Sites In Ontario

Dwayne James

Historical subsistence has received a great deal of attention in the literature of recent years, yet it is still relatively misunderstood, particularly in respect to the 19th century North American immigrant. The interpretation of zooarchaeological remains have proven useful in contributing to the overall knowledge, but the analysis of faunal material is often mediocre because quantitative units are ambiguous, and the impact of taphonomic forces on the survival of skeletal remains is unclear.

It is proposed that a fuller understanding of subsistence may be achieved through the study of butchering patterns, specifically in respect to culturally relevant units of consumption. These units are calculated specifically for the domestic species of cow, pig and sheep, in four 19th century zoo-archaeological assemblages from across Upper Canada, including the Benares, Duff-Bâby, Macdonell and Moodie sites. Results illustrate the complexity of historical butchering patterns, and ultimately demonstrate that self-sufficiency, as it has come to be defined, did not exist, but took many varied forms in early pioneer life.

Credit where it’s due....

This thesis was made possible in part by a research grant from the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

All illustrations were drawn by the author unless otherwise noted.

Text was processed using Word for Windows Version 6.0, faunal material with dBASE IV, and graphics were designed using CorelDRAW Version 4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1 THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS

1.1 Dietary Preferences versus Dietary Practices

1.2 Seasonality

1.3 Animal Husbandry

1.4 Consumer Choice and the Market Economy

1.5 Ethnicity

1.6 Socio-economic Status

1.7 Conclusion

CHAPTER 2 THE UPPER CANADIAN FARMER

2.1 The use of Ethno-Historic Resources

2.2 To Settle in the Land of Plenty...

2.3 Butchering Practices

2.4 The Upper Canadian Farmer and the Canadian Economy

2.5 Local Laws and Regulations Concerning Farmers

2.6 The Upper Canadian Farmer and the Canadian Environment

2.7 Self-Sufficiency and the Farmer in Upper Canada

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Comparative Analysis

3.1.1 Aggregate isolation and sample size

3.1.2 Recovery Techniques and Sampling Procedure

3.1.3 Techniques of Faunal Identification

3.1.4 Sample Fragmentation

3.1.5 Towards a Greater Understanding of Taphonomy

3.1.6 Predictive Taphonomic Studies

3.2 The Quantification of Zoo-Archaeological Remains

3.2.1 A History of Quantification Theory

3.2.2 Ambiguities of Meaning

3.2.3 Number of Identified Specimens (NISP)

3.2.4 Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI)

3.2.5 The Minimum Number of Elements and the Recovery Rate

3.2.6 Calculations of Meat Weight

3.2.7 Meat Cut Designations

3.3 The Faunal Analysis

3.3.1 Sheep or Goat?

3.3.2 Large, Medium and Small Sized Mammals

CHAPTER 4 SITE DESCRIPTIONS

4.1 The Benares site (AjGv-30)

4.1.1 Archaeology and Benares

4.1.2 Stratigraphic Analysis

4.1.3 The Benares Faunal Assemblage

4.1.4 The Distribution of Skeletal Elements at Benares

4.1.5 Age profiles at Benares

4.1.6 Conclusion

4.2 The Duff-Bâby site (AbHs-10)

4.2.1 Archaeology at Duff-Bâby

4.2.2 Stratigraphic Analysis

4.2.3 The Duff-Bâby Faunal Assemblage

4.2.4 The Distribution of Skeletal Elements at the Duff-Bâby site

4.2.5 Age profiles at Duff-Bâby

4.2.6 Conclusion

4.3 The Macdonell site (BjFo-2)

4.3.1 Archaeology at Macdonell

4.3.2 Stratigraphic Analysis

4.3.3 The Macdonell Faunal Assemblage

4.3.4 The Distribution of Skeletal Elements at the Macdonell site

4.3.5 Age profiles at Macdonell

4.3.6 Conclusion1

4.4 The Moodie Farmstead (BcGn-9)

4.4.1 Archaeology at the Moodie farmstead

4.4.2 Stratigraphic Analysis108

4.4.3 The Moodie Farmstead Faunal Assemblage

4.4.4 The Distribution of Skeletal Elements at the Moodie farmstead

4.4.5 Age profiles at the Moodie Farmstead

4.4.6 Conclusion

CHAPTER 5 THE BUTCHERING ANALYSIS

5.1 Quantifying Butchered Units

5.2 Methodology of a Butchering Analysis

5.3 Historic Butchering Tools

5.4 The Historical Butchering Process

5.4.1 Stage 1 of the butchering process

5.4.2 Stage 2 of the butchering process

5.5 Wholesale and Retail Cuts of Meat

5.5.1 Stage 3 of the butchering process

5.5.2 Wholesale Meat Cuts

5.6 Units of Consumption

5.6.1 Units of Consumption at the Benares site

5.6.2 Units of Consumption at the Duff-Bâby site

5.6.3 Units of Consumption at the Macdonell site

5.6.4 Units of Consumption at the Moodie site

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND RESULTS

6.1 Topics of Discussion

6.1.1 Sample Size and Interpretive Accuracy

6.1.2 Market Accessibility and Self-Sufficiency

6.1.3 Ethnicity and Status

6.1.4 Quantification and Taphonomy

6.2 Site Descriptions

6.2.1 The Benares site (AjGv-30)

6.2.2 The Duff-Bâby site (AbHs-10)

6.2.3 The Macdonell site (BjFo-2)

6.2.4 The Moodie Farmstead (BcGn-9)

6.3 Results

6.4 Strengths and Weaknesses

6.5 Areas for Future Research

REFERENCES CITED

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 : Archaeological aspects of the four sites studied

Table 3.2 : The Taphonomic History of Recovered Bone

Table 3.3 : Survival rate of the bones of 64 goats exposed to carnivorous action

Table 4.1.1 : Taxonomic Distribution at Benares

Table 4.1.2 : The Distribution of domestic skeletal elements at Benares

Table 4.1.3 : Bovine age profile from the Benares site

Table 4.1.4 : Porcine age profile from the Benares site

Table 4.1.5 : Ovine age profile from the Benares site

Table 4.2.1 : Taxonomic Distribution at Duff-Bâby

Table 4.2.2 : The Distribution of domestic skeletal elements at Duff-Bâby

Table 4.2.3 : Bovine age profile from the Duff-Bâby site

Table 4.2.4 : Porcine age profile from the Duff-Bâby site

Table 4.2.5 : Ovine age profile from the Duff-Bâby site

Table 4.3.1 : Taxonomic Distribution at Macdonell

Table 4.3.2 : The Distribution of domestic skeletal elements at Macdonell

Table 4.3.3: Bovine age profile from the Macdonell site

Table 4.3.4 : Porcine age profile from the Macdonell site

Table 4.3.5 : Ovine age profile from the Macdonell site

Table 4.4.1 : Taxonomic Distribution of Avian and Mammalian taxa at Moodie

Table 4.4.2 : Taxonomic Distribution of Fish, Amphibian and Mollusc at Moodie

Table 4.4.3 : The Distribution of domestic skeletal elements at Moodie

Table 4.4.4 : Bovine age profile from the Moodie site

Table 4.4.5 : Porcine age profile from the Moodie site

Table 4.4.6 : Ovine age profile from the Moodie site

Table 5.1 : Butchering trends in the four faunal assemblages

Table 5.2 : State of butchered vertebrae at the Benares site

Table 5.3 : State of butchered vertebrae at the Duff-Bâby site

Table 5.4 : State of butchered vertebrae at the Macdonell site

Table 5.5 : State of butchered vertebrae at the Moodie site

Table 5.6 : Bovine Units of Consumption at the Benares site

Table 5.7 : Porcine Units of Consumption at the Benares site

Table 5.8 : Ovine Units of Consumption at the Benares site

Table 5.9 : Bovine Units of Consumption at the Duff-Bâby site

Table 5.10: Porcine Units of Consumption at the Duff-Bâby site

Table 5.11 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Duff-Bâby site

Table 5.12 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Table 5.13 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Table 5.14 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Table 5.15 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

Table 5.16 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

Table 5.17 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 : Survival rate of the bones of 64 goats exposed to carnivorous action

Figure 4.1 : Map of Upper Canada showing the four sites in this thesis

Figure 4.1.1 : Distribution of bovine skeletal elements at Benares

Figure 4.1.2 : Distribution of porcine skeletal elements at Benares

Figure 4.1.3 : Distribution of ovine skeletal elements at Benares

Figure 4.2.1 : Distribution of bovine skeletal elements at Duff-Bâby

Figure 4.2.2 : Distribution of porcine skeletal elements at Duff-Bâby

Figure 4.2.3 : Distribution of ovine skeletal elements at Duff-Bâby

Figure 4.3.1 : Distribution of bovine skeletal elements at Macdonell

Figure 4.3.2 : Distribution of porcine skeletal elements at Macdonell

Figure 4.3.3 : Distribution of ovine skeletal elements at Macdonell

Figure 4.4.1 : Distribution of bovine skeletal elements at Moodie

Figure 4.4.2 : Distribution of porcine skeletal elements at Moodie

Figure 4.4.3 : Distribution of ovine skeletal elements at Moodie

Figure 5.1 : A Butchering cleaver

Figure 5.2 : A Bone saw

Figure 5.3 : Sheep humerus butchered with a cleaver

Figure 5.4 : Sheep humerus partially sawn with a bone saw

Figure 5.5 : Cow metatarsal butchered with a cleaver

Figure 5.6 : Sheep axis cut laterally with a hand saw

Figure 5.7 : Lumbar vertebrae of a cow butchered with a hand saw

Figure 5.8 : Splitting a cow with a bone saw

Figure 5.9 : The wholesale meat cuts of the domestic cow

Figure 5.10 : The wholesale meat cuts of the domestic pig

Figure 5.11 : The wholesale meat cuts of the domestic sheep

Figure 5.12 : Lumbar vertebrae of a cow butchered as a steak cut

Figure 5.13 : The femur of a pig butchered mid shaft and incised with cut marks

Figure 5.14 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Benares site

Figure 5.15 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Benares site

Figure 5.16 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Benares site1

Figure 5.17 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Duff-Bâby site

Figure 5.18 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Duff-Bâby site

Figure 5.19 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Duff-Bâby site

Figure 5.20 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Figure 5.21 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Figure 5.22 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Macdonell site

Figure 5.23 : Bovine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

Figure 5.24 : Porcine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

Figure 5.25 : Ovine Units of Consumption in use at the Moodie site

Chapter 1:

The Faunal Assemblage and Cultural Systems

The basic assumption of any zooarchaeological analysis is that there exists a valid connection between the recovered faunal assemblage from an archaeological site and the subsistence strategies of its former occupants. Recent taphonomic studies have challenged this idea by suggesting that it may be differential preservation and not dietary preferences that is responsible for anomalies in skeletal distribution and taxonomic abundance. As a result, the recovered bone assemblage is increasingly being viewed as a single resource needing the corroboration of other, more varied source material. The current state of flux in the discipline is an ideal forum for further debate on the use of faunal material in interpreting aspects of cultural systems such as practices of animal husbandry, the effect of a market economy, seasonality, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.

Much work has already been done in these areas, but even a cursory examination of associated references reveals a singular American bias, with a specific focus on the area of New England (Beaudry 1993; Bowen 1988, 1992; Pendery 1992; Yentsch 1992). In response to this, my thesis will interpret the zooarchaeological data from four southern Ontario historical faunal assemblages from a perspective that considers conditions of settlement that were unique to Upper Canada in the early half of the 19th century. The comparative aspect of this thesis will deal specifically with the subsistence strategies of some of this nation’s earliest European settlers, and specifically how the livestock animals that were relied on for food were butchered prior to consumption. In order to maintain the integrity of this comparative analysis of disparate archaeofaunas, and consequently add to a broader understanding of the Upper Canadian settler’s way of life, it is imperative that the earliest zooarchaeological material is stratigraphically isolated in each of the four assemblages studied herein. The assemblages that will be examined for this analysis include the following:

1). The Benares site (AjGv-30) in Clarkson, Ontario, a rural farm on the urban periphery of York first occupied in 1835. The faunal assemblage from the earliest settlement on the site numbers 509 skeletal specimens.

2). The Duff-Bâby (AbHs-10) house in Windsor, Ontario, an urban site in the historical town of Sandwich that was built in 1798. The earliest faunal component consists of 590 skeletal specimens.

3). The Macdonell site (BjFo-2) located close to Point Fortune, Ontario on the banks of the Ottawa River, and first occupied in 1788. The isolated faunal component is comprised of 517 skeletal specimens.

4). The Moodie farmstead (BcGn-9) outside Lakefield, Ontario an isolated settler’s farmstead where Susanna Moodie and her husband Dunbar settled in 1834. The faunal assemblage from the site is made up of 2796 skeletal specimens.

back to top

1.1 Dietary Preferences versus Dietary Practices

The reconstruction of historical diets can focus on one of two aspects, that of dietary preferences or dietary practices (Jolley 1983:71). These terms, although quite distinct, are often confused, and the easiest way to keep them straight in one’s mind is to remember that dietary preferences are synonymous with consumption, and dietary practices, with procurement. Usually, a faunal specimen is indicative of one or the other, but occasionally, the distinction is blurred. For example, pig’s feet can be interpreted in one of two ways: as either butchering waste or as food. Therefore, they can be both a dietary preference, and one of practice, depending on the circumstance. If, for example, they had been discarded after consumption, then they are indicative of a dietary preference. If on the other hand, they were refuse from the process of butchering, then they are a product of dietary practice.

Failure to consider either one of these aspects in a faunal