71

Juliet K. Brophy and passengers between ports on the Mississippi,

Kevin Crisman Ohio, Missouri, and Red rivers (Crisman 2005).
In 1837, Columbus-based businessmen Chris-
topher Niswanger and William S. Sullivant
A Taphonomic Evaluation of contracted with the U.S. Army to procure and
Three Intact Pork Barrels from transport the following year’s resupply of provi-
the Steamboat Heroine (1838) sions to the 200-man garrison of Fort Towson in
the “Indian Territory” (present-day Oklahoma).
According to the contract’s terms, they were to
ABSTRACT GHOLYHU  EDUUHOV RI SRUN  EDUUHOV RI ÀRXU
220 bu. of white beans, 3,500 lb. of soap, 1,600
This study focuses on three pork barrels from the cargo of
lb. of candles, and 80 bu. of salt (Commissary
the Heroine, a steamboat that wrecked on the Red River in
1838 while carrying provisions to the U.S. Army garrison
General 1838). In March 1838, an agent work-
at Fort Towson, Oklahoma. The quantity and quality of the ing for the contractors hired Heroine to haul
meat, as evidenced by the bones in the barrels, are examined WKHVH VXSSOLHV XS WKH KD]DUG¿OOHG 5HG 5LYHU
to establish whether the meat matched the military contract, ironically, the steamer was only 2 mi. from
to ascertain the pork butchery and packaging procedures, and the fort’s landing when it was impaled by a
to determine any standardization in the types and quantities submerged log (or “snag”) and sunk on 6 May
of pieces in the barrels. The results suggest that the meat 1838 (Figure 1). Due to the low water levels at
represents a midgrade pork and generally agree with the qual-
the time, much of the cargo was reclaimed, but
ity expected by the military. Analyses reveal that processing
was similar to modern-day practices. Finally, a comparison
VRPH RI WKH SRUN DQG ÀRXU EDUUHOV FRXOG QRW EH
of the bones illustrates a lack of standardization among the salvaged (Niswanger 1838a, 1838b).
barrels. This research provides important information about Excavators of Heroine recovered three intact
pig processing and military-contract compliance, two areas pork barrels for study (Figure 2). The head of
that have not been extensively studied previously. one barrel still bore the stencil: A. S. REEDER
PACKER CIN’T, identifying it as a product of
Introduction and Historical Background Alfred S. Reeder’s meatpacking business in Cin-
cinnati, Ohio (Figure 3) (Woodruff 1836:142). It
In 1999 the wreck of a side-wheel steamboat is likely that most if not all of the pork shipped
was found sunken beneath the Red River in on Heroine was from Cincinnati, the leading
VRXWKHDVWHUQ 2NODKRPD ZKHQ D ÀRRG FDXVHG D processor of hogs in the United States for
shift in the direction of the river and exposed most of the 19th century. Known colloquially
the stern and part of the port side wheel. The as “Porkopolis” or “Hogopolis,” the city was
well-preserved hull and machinery together famous for annually transforming vast herds of
suggested that it was an early western river pigs into barrels of pickled pork. One visitor in
steamer, the earliest example of its type ever the 1820s remarked: “I am sure I should have
seen by archaeologists (Lees and Arnold 2000). liked Cincinnati much better if the people had
To learn more about the boat’s construction, not dealt so very largely in hogs. The immense
operation, and cargoes, Texas A&M University, quantity of business done in this line would
the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, and the hardly be believed by those who had not wit-
Oklahoma Historical Society jointly undertook nessed it” (Trollope 1949:88; Wade 2003). In
the excavation and recording of the site between 1837, when the pork in Heroine was packed,
2002 and 2008. Analysis of the archaeologi- the city processed 182,000 hogs (Cist 1846:319).
cal evidence and extensive historical research Within 25 years production would triple to
WRJHWKHU LGHQWL¿HG WKH ZUHFN DV WKH Heroine, a 600,000 pigs processed annually (Wade 2003).
vessel built at New Albany, Indiana, in 1832. A cheap and durable source of protein, salt
Heroine had a 5½-year career as a general-pur- pork was a staple of the American diet in the
pose carrier of produce, livestock, merchandise, 19th century, and thus it is not surprising that

Historical Archaeology, 2013, 47(4):71–85.

Accepted for publication 10 July 2013.
Permission to reprint required.
72
FIGURE 1. Map of the western rivers in the time of the steamboat Heroine. (Map by Kevin Crisman, 2005.)
the U.S. Army issued pork as part of its soldiers’
rations (Billings 1960). The discovery of three
army-contract pork barrels with their contents
intact in Heroine provides the opportunity to learn
more about the American pork processing industry
in the 1830s in general, and the U.S. govern-
ment’s procurement practices in particular. The
research presented here has three goals: to assess
the cuts and quality of the meat to determine
ZKHWKHU LW PDWFKHG WKH FRQWUDFW VSHFL¿FDWLRQV WR
identify butchering and packing procedures, and to
determine whether there were any standardization
in packing by comparing the barrels’ contents. J.
K. Brophy analyzed two of the barrels (Barrels
02-740 and 02-472), while the third (Barrel 02-35)
was analyzed by Gregory Lucas at the University
of Georgia’s Museum of Natural History (Lucas
2005).
&RQWUDFW6SHFL¿FDWLRQV
The U.S. Army’s Commissary General of
6XEVLVWHQFH OLVWHG D VWDQGDUG VHW RI VSHFL¿FD-
tions for pork in its requests for provisioning
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)
ELGV DQG LQ LWV ¿QDO FRQWUDFWV 7KHVH VSHFL¿HG
“each hog to weigh not less than two hundred
pounds [before butchering], and will consist
of one hog to each barrel, excluding the feet,
legs, ears, and snout,” adding: “side pieces may
be substituted for hams.” The meat was to be
“carefully packed with Turks’s Island salt” in
pieces not exceeding 10 lb. each (Pennsylvania
Reporter 1837).
Barreled pork was typically graded by the
skeletal parts and ratios of pieces, although
H[DFW GH¿QLWLRQV RI WKHVH JUDGHV YDU\ GHSHQG-
ing on the source. For example, Wilson and
Southwood (1976) and Mescher (2005) provide
GLIIHUHQW GH¿QLWLRQV IRU WKH VDPH JUDGHV RI SRUN
$FFRUGLQJ WR VWDWHPDQGDWHG GH¿QLWLRQV SXE-
lished in the Louisiana Daily Public Advocate
in 1830: “Mess Pork” consisted wholly of
VLGHV EHWZHHQ WKH VKRXOGHU DQG ÀDQN ³3ULPH
Pork” had three shoulders with the shanks cut
off at the knee, one-and-a-half heads halved
and divested of ears, snouts, and brains, a bal-
ance of side, neck, tail pieces, and up to two
hams, with side pieces forming the bottom and
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels 73

FIGURE 2. An intact barrel of pork (swathed in bandages and netting to maintain its integrity) is recovered from the wreck
of the steamboat Heroine in 2005. (Photo by Kevin Crisman, 2005.)

topmost layers in the barrel; and “Cargo Pork,”
at the bottom of the scale, consisted of “any
parts ... of merchantable pork,” including not
more than two processed heads (lower shanks,
brains, ears, and snouts were to be excluded).
:KLOH WKHVH VWDQGDUGV DUH GH¿QHG IRU WKH VWDWH
of Louisiana, the pork producers in Cincinnati
needed to ensure that their products would be
accepted in markets around the country and
would have adhered to these guidelines.
The contract for the meat in the cargo of
the Heroine parallels the list of standard pork
VSHFL¿FDWLRQV GH¿QHG E\ WKH FRPPLVVDU\ VWDWLQJ
that the hogs are not to weigh less than 200 lb.,
excluding the feet, legs, ears, and snout, and
highlighting that side pieces may be substituted
IRU KDPV 7KH FRQWUDFW GRHV QRW KRZHYHU GH¿QH
how many hogs should be in each barrel, nor
does it explicitly state which grade of meat
should be in the barrels.
The following section provides a description
of the bones from the three Heroine barrels by
skeletal part and the meat associated with those
bones. The skeletal parts and ratio of pieces
will demonstrate what grade of pork existed
in the barrels and if the barrel content met
the government requirements. Since the exact
names of the pork bones and meat that the
Cincinnati butchers used in the 1800s are not
documented in the literature, this paper relies
on the nomenclature from Savell (2000) and
illustrates the parts in Figure 4. Furthermore,
according to Savell (2000), the ham (pork
leg), loin, picnic shoulder, and Boston butt are
74
Figure 3. The stencil on this pork-barrel lid, though faded, is still legible: A. S. REEDER PACKER CIN’T. (Photo by C.
Wayne Smith, 2005.)
considered the lean, high-quality, primal cut,
while the jowl, belly, spareribs, feet, tail, and
neck bone are nonprimal, less-valuable pieces
(Figure 4). Primal cuts are the large, wholesale
pieces of the animal that are distributed by the
meat industry; they are considered more valu-
able and of higher quality than nonprimal pieces
(Savell 2000; Hasheider 2010).
Bone and Meat Description
Cranial
The barrels all contained longitudinally halved
pig heads; curiously, it was the right half in
every instance. Four halved heads were in Barrel
02-740, two in Barrel 02-472, and three in 02-35.
All but one of the maxillae exhibited deciduous
teeth, although third molars can be seen coming
into occlusion. According to Matschke (1967), the
third molar erupts in pigs at approximately two
years of age.
All of the barrels included mandibles; however,
none of them was articulated with a maxilla.
Barrel 02-740 contained five right mandibles
including one adult mandible with fully erupted
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)
permanent teeth and four with deciduous teeth.
Barrel 02-472 had two right mandibles: one with
deciduous teeth and another with permanent teeth.
Both of the right mandibles in Barrel 02-35 had
deciduous teeth. The eruption patterns suggest that
the pigs were two years of age or younger. The
mandibles are of particular interest due to the fact
that they were removed from the heads prior to
packing, and that there are more mandibles than
maxillae in Barrel 02-740. The mandibles were
removed in a fashion similar to those found in
the pork cargo of the William Salthouse (English
1990). The maxillae and mandibles provide attach-
ment for the cheek and jowl muscles. These parts
are considered the nonprimal, fattier cuts of meat
(Savell 2000).
Vertebrae
Cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebral
SLHFHV LQFOXGLQJ DWODVHV DQG D[HV WKH ¿UVW DQG
second cervical vertebrae, respectively), were
recovered from all the barrels. The vertebral
column is surrounded by the loin (Figure 4).
The loin consists of high-quality, lean, and
tender meat (Savell 2000).
 JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels 75

HOCK JOINT HIND FOOT

HIND FOOT BONES

{AITCH BONE HIND SHANK BONES

PELVIC BONE ÀEXOD
HIP BONE
tibia
STIFLE JOINT PORK LEG
KNEE CAP
patella
LEG BONE
TAIL BONES femur
caudal vertebrae (4)

BACK BONE
sacral vertebrae (4)
CHINE BONE
bodies of cervical, thoracic,
lumar and sacral vertebrae
BACK BONE
lumbar vertebrae (7)
FINGER BONES
transverse processes RIB CARTILAGES BELLY
of lumbar vertebrae LOIN
costal cartilages
RIB BONES
FEATHER BONES
spinous processes SPARERIBS
BACK BONE
thoracic vertebrae (14)

BREAST BONE
sternum
BLADE BONE
CARTILAGE BLADE BONE
scapula PICNIC
RIDGE OF ELBOW BONE
BLADE BONE BOSTON SHOULDER
olecranon of ulna
BUTT
FORE SHANK BONES
NECK BONE ulna
cervical vertebrae (7) radius

FORE FOOT BONES

ATLAS BONE FRONT

ARM BONE JOWL FOOT
humerus

FIGURE 4. Diagrams identifying pig bones (left) and their associated meat (right) (Savell 2000).

Ribs elbow of the forelimb, to the spine and can be

Numerous rib fragments were recovered from
the barrels. A majority of them included at least
part of the rib head, which articulates with the
vertebral column (Figure 5). The ribs closest to
the vertebral column are curved and considered
WKH EDFN ULEV ZKLOH WKH ÀDWWHU ULEV FORVHU WR WKH
belly of the pig are called spareribs. Together,
the rib and loin meat around the vertebral
column would be considered a “side piece.” The
military contract for the cargo stated that side
pieces may be substituted for hams. Side pieces
are considered primal, quality meat (Savell
2000). The barrels do not appear to contain any
spareribs or rib tips, the distal ends of the ribs.
Shoulder
Fragments of scapulae indicate that high-qual-
ity shoulder meat was included in the barrels.
The shoulder of a pig consists of everything
from the foreshank bones, approximately the
divided up into the picnic and the Boston butt
or butt (Savell 2000). The picnic includes the
elbow to the glenoid fossa (scapula socket), and
the Boston butt, which extends from the glenoid
fossa to the spine (Figure 4). These cuts are
considered high-quality meat.
Pelvic Region
The pelvic pieces in all three barrels were
similar, with innominate bones consisting of
the acetabulum, ischium, and part of the ilium
(Figure 6). Butchers often refer to the ilium as
the hip bone and the ischium as the aitchbone
(Figure 4) (Savell 2000). The term aitch derives
from the word nache, which is still used in
England to refer to the buttock area of animals;
however, it is unclear when and where the term
changed to aitch (Mayhew 1912). The pelvic
region is part of the pork leg or ham (Figure
4). Four right and four left pelvic pieces were
LGHQWL¿HG LQ %DUUHO  7ZR OHIW DQG WZR
76 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)

FIGURE 5. Rib bones from barrel 02-740. (Photo by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)

FIGURE 6. Three left and three right pelvic pieces from Barrel 02-740. The complete innominate (center) is a wild pig
used in the picture for reference. One right and one left piece not pictured here. (Photo by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels
right pelvic fragments were recovered from
02-472, while Barrel 02-35 had one right and
one left. Pork legs consist of very high-quality,
lean, primal meat (Savell 2000).
Arm
The humerus, or arm bone, is well represented
in the barrels. The distal ends of the humeri
were fused, while the proximal ends were not
fused. This fusion suggests an age of about
two years (Figure 7). The meat associated with
this area is the picnic or part of the shoulder
(Figure 4).
Foreshank
The foreshank, or forearm, bones consist
of a radius and ulna, and were evident in all
three barrels (Figure 4). Two left and two right
forearms were in Barrel 02-740, one left and
right in Barrel 02-472, and one left and right
in 02-35. In mature pigs, the two bones fuse
to become the radiulnar complex. While these
bones were not fused, there was a matching-side
FIGURE 7. Humeri from barrel 02-740. The complete humerus of a modern pig (center) is shown as a reference. (Photo
by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)
77
and -sized ulna for every radius in each barrel,
suggesting complete foreshanks were packed.
This cut of meat is often considered part of
the high-quality shoulder, though there is a
lower percentage of meat and higher percent-
age of tendon and bone at the distal ends of
the foreshank (Ockerman and Hansen 1999;
Savell 2000).
Leg
Legs were also recovered from all of the
barrels. The leg, according to Savell (2000),
consists of the femur bone, which articulates
proximally with the pelvis and distally with
the tibia (Figure 4). Three left and one right
bones were found in Barrel 02-740. One left
and one right femur were recovered from both
Barrel 02-472 and 02-35. The epiphyseal fusion
of the femora suggests that the pigs were juve-
nile. Only one of the femora in the barrels had
a fused epiphysis on the proximal end (Figure
8). Paired with the aitch bones, the meat around
the femora is called the pork leg or ham, and
is considered high-quality meat (Savell 2000).
78 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)

FIGURE 8. Femoral remains from Barrel 02-740. Only one proximal-end epiphysis is fused. Complete bones (center and
far right) are shown as a reference. (Photo by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)

eaten (Billings 1960; Homenuck 1965; Davis

Hind Shank 2003). Whatever portion of salt pork each
soldier received was usually boiled or used in
7LELDH DQG ¿EXODH RU KLQG VKDQN ERQHV ZHUH soups, lobscouse, and beans (Billings 1960). The
recovered from Barrels 02-740 (four tibiae and soldiers received bacon on rare occasions. Bill-
WZR ¿EXODH DQG  WZR WLELDH WZR ¿EX- ings (1960) describes how sometimes the meat
lae). The meat around the lower leg is consid- consisted of mostly fat, and other times the
ered low quality, as it has a high percentage of cuts were actually mostly meat. This statement
bone and tendon (Ockerman and Hansen 1999). suggests that soldiers were likely given different
Sometimes parts of the hind shank are included cuts of meat depending on what was available
in the pork leg, but, similar to the foreshank, without being told or knowing what specific
the amount of meat decreases at the distal ends cuts of meat they were consuming (Billings
of these bones (Figure 4). 1960; Homenuck 1965; Davis 2003).

Pork Consumption at Forts Contract Interpretation

The bones in the barrel demonstrate that
primal and nonprimal cuts of meat were being
shipped to Fort Towson; however, accounts
describing the pork consumed at forts do not
explicitly state which part of the pig was being
The contents of the Heroine barrels meet most
of the contract requirements. The wording of the
FRQWUDFW VSHFL¿FDWLRQV ³HDFK KRJ WR ZHLJK QRW
less than 200 pounds, excluding the feet, legs,
ears, and snout,” strongly suggests that most of
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels
the edible portions of the pig were acceptable as
long as the four parts listed were not included.
The barrels contain no foot bones. Therefore, in
terms of feet, Niswanger and Sullivant’s supply
of pork was in accordance with the contract.
Pig ears are made up of soft tissue that did not
survive in recognizable pieces; thus, no evidence
of ears exists in the barrels.
A snout, or the nose of the pig, is an area of
cartilage at the front of the cranium. No evidence
of soft snout tissue was found in the barrels.
Since the snout itself does not contain any bones,
the butchers could theoretically remove it without
affecting the cranium. However, when preparing
the Heroine pork, the butchers did not cut off
just the snout but removed both the snout and
the premaxilla bone (Figure 9). This evidence
reveals an important step in the processing of the
pigs. Mandibles were released from crania before
the snouts were cut off, due to the fact that the
skeletal part where mandibles would meet the
premaxillae is still complete, and no premaxillae
are in the barrel.
The contract also states that no legs should be
LQFOXGHG LQ WKH EDUUHOV KRZHYHU WKH GH¿QLWLRQ RI
a pork leg is ambiguous (English 1990; Savell
2000; Hasheider 2010), however. Therefore, it is
GLI¿FXOW WR LQWHUSUHW H[DFWO\ ZKLFK SDUW RI WKH KRJ
FIGURE 9. Illustration showing how the premaxilla is missing in the pig skull from Barrel 02-740 (left), while the anterior
portions of the mandibles are still in the barrel (right
5IFCSBDLFUEFmOFTUIFQSFNBYJMMBPGUIFSFGFSFODFQJHTLVMM 1IPUP
by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)
79
the U.S. Army wanted excluded. In the literature,
the “leg” can refer to the femur and the aitch
bone, the femur, the femur and the tibia, or just
the tibia (English 1990; Savell 2000; Hasheider
2010). The aitch bone and the femur carry the
ham and would be surrounded by high-quality
meat (Figure 4). Thus, it would make sense to
include this part of the pig in a pork barrel. The
tibia, on the other hand, carries less meat and
lower-quality meat than the femur, although it
still yields some protein. Based on the difference
in quality of the meats, the army was probably
referring to the tibia, or hind shank, in its use
of “leg.” In addition, it is probable that U.S.
Army contractors did not use the term “leg” in
the strictest sense, but rather used “leg” to refer
generally to the hind shank and the foreshank,
since, as Ockerman and Hansen (1999) stated,
they both consist of a low percentage of meat
and are considered poor quality (Savell 2000).
5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH GH¿QLWLRQ RI ³OHJ´ IHPRUD DQG
hind shanks are in Barrels 02-740 and 02-472,
while femora, hind shanks, and foreshanks (radii/
ulnae) were found in all three barrels, which was
not in accordance with the contract.
All of the barrels contain evidence of more
than one pig. While the 1838 contract for Fort
Towson did not explicitly declare how many
80
hogs should be in a barrel, the U.S. Army’s
Commissary General of Subsistence call for
contractor bids does state that each barrel should
have only one hog (Pennsylvania Reporter
1837). The bones suggest that select portions of
multiple individuals were included in the pack-
ing. In accordance with the contract, the overall
size, shape, and age indicators of the bones
suggest that the pigs were all approximately 200
lb. before butchering.
Overall, the bones from the three barrels sug-
gest that the quality of the meat was midgrade
and mostly compatible with the requirements of
the contract. Neither heads nor mandibles were
to be included in “Mess Pork” according to
WKH  6WDWH RI /RXLVLDQD VSHFL¿FDWLRQV FLWHG
above; thus, the contents of the Heroine barrels
DSSHDUV WR EHVW PDWFK WKH GH¿QLWLRQ RI ³3ULPH
Pork.” However, barrels also contained lower-
quality cuts of meat, specifically the “legs”
forbidden by the terms of the army’s contract. It
is also important to note that meat not attached
to a bone, such as bacon, might have been in
the barrel, but these pieces, if present, were not
SUHVHUYHG LQ DQ LGHQWL¿DEOH IRUP 5HJDUGOHVV
even if boneless high-quality meats were present
in the barrels, the evidence of lower-grade parts
demonstrates that the contents largely consisted
of low- to mid-quality pork.
Pork-Processing Procedures
Taphonomic marks on the bones can help
identify the processing procedures followed at
FIGURE 10. Occipital bone with cleaver mark (left), illustrating that the styloid processes and occiput were intentionally
removed (right). (Photo by Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)
Alfred S. Reeder’s (and possibly other) packing
houses in Cincinnati in the 1830s. The analyses
suggest that pork butchery at that time was
not exceptionally different from modern-day
practices, as described in Savell (2000). After
the pig was cleaned and gutted, the feet and
tail were removed, and the skull was separated
from the body at the point where the skull and
vertebral column meet. Clear processing marks
can be seen in three places on the Heroine
pig skulls. First, the back of one skull shows
that the occipital of this pig was cleaved at
an angle that separated the skull from the ver-
tebral column and severed the major muscles
and tendons holding the mandible to the skull
(Figure 10). Second, the premaxillae, the bony
area directly behind the snout, was cut off
all the specimens (Figure 9). Third, the skull
was halved in the sagittal plane, allowing the
removal of the brains.
As noted earlier, evidence suggests that max-
illae and mandibles were not articulated when
they were put into the barrels. The butchers
likely removed the mandibles at the same time
that they severed the pigs’ heads from their
necks. Another line of evidence demonstrating
that articulated maxilla and mandibles were not
included in the barrels is the fact that there are
more mandibles than maxillae in Barrel 02-740.
After the head of the pig was separated
from the body, the bones show evidence that
the body was cut in half sagittally down the
backside, cutting through the vertebral column
or as close to the vertebral column as possible.
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels 81

This process is similar to modern-day butchering
procedures (Savell 2000). Today this processing
is largely done with a table saw, but it can also
be accomplished with a handsaw (Savell 2000).
Unfortunately, the preservation of the bones is
not good enough to decipher the exact instru-
ment used in the processing of these pigs. The
pigs from Barrels 02-740 and 02-35 were cut
the tibia. The complete acetabula and proximal
femoral heads support the idea that the pelvis
and femur were still in articulation when packed
(Figures 6 and 8). Again, this process would
have kept the large pieces of ham intact in the
packing process.
The tibiae show signs of butchery. These
bones were separated from the femur at or just
alongside the vertebral column as evidenced
by the relatively complete vertebrae in the
barrel and by the missing transverse processes.
This cut would have been easier than chop-
ping directly through the vertebral body. The
vertebrae from Barrel 02-472 appear to have
been processed differently. The three vertebral
fragments are cut in half, suggesting that the
sagittal cut was made right through the vertebral
bone. Next, the shoulder/foreshank sections and
leg/hind shank sections were cut off from the
loin and ribs.
At this point, the loins and vertebral column
could be removed from the ribs or left intact for
transport. The vertebrae and the ribs were prob-
ably left articulated but cut into square sections
and put directly into the barrels as a complete
“side” piece due to the complete vertebrae and
rib heads recovered from the barrels (Figure 5).
It is possible to disarticulate the vertebrae from
the ribs and still have complete rib heads, but
WKLV LV D GLI¿FXOW WLPHFRQVXPLQJ SURFHVV WKDW
was likely not performed in the mass production
of pork (Mark Holzkopf 2012, pers. comm.).
The side piece would be cut as square as pos-
sible in order to facilitate secure, tight packing
and reduce the chances of spoilage (English
1990; Mescher 2005).
No butchery marks are visible on the pig
shoulder bones, including the scapulae and
humeri. However, the completeness of the proxi-
mal scapulae and the proximal humeri suggests
that articulated shoulder pieces were included in
the barrels (Figure 7). The scapula was likely
cut off from the loin, and the humeri were sev-
ered from the foreshanks. Evidence of the latter
processing can be seen in a butcher mark on a
proximal radius from Barrel 02-472 (Figure 11).
The leg area was likely processed in a
manner similar to the shoulder area, with the
pelvis and femur almost certainly articulated
when they were placed in the barrels. The
pelvis was removed from the rear loins, and
then the distal femur was disarticulated from
EHORZ WKH VWLÀH MRLQW )LJXUH  FKRSSLQJ WKH
proximal end of the tibia. The proximal heads
of three of the four tibiae from Barrel 02-740
and both of the heads in Barrel 02-472 were
severed. Furthermore, evidence for the removal
of the hind foot bones is apparent in a butcher
mark on the distal end of one tibia from Barrel
02-472 (Figure 4).
Standardization
Lastly, by comparing the skeletal parts and
ratios of bones in the three barrels, this study
addresses how strict Cincinnati’s pork packers
were about standardization of contents. Barrel
02-740 had a total of 117 identifiable bones
DQG D FROOHFWLRQ RI VPDOO XQLGHQWL¿DEOH ERQH
fragments. The barrel contained a minimum
number of individuals (MNI) count of five
different pigs. The MNI is the lowest number
of individuals necessary to account for all the
bones in the barrel. The five pigs in 02-740
were approximately two years of age based on
the occlusion of their teeth and fusion of their
epiphyses.
Barrel 02-472 is similar in content to the
SUHYLRXV EDUUHO EXW RQO\  LGHQWL¿DEOH ERQHV
were present. Also, the bones in this barrel had
an MNI of only two pigs, one adult and one
smaller, younger pig. This barrel had an increase
in the percentage of foreshanks and femora, and
a decrease in the percentage of ribs. Otherwise,
the cuts of meat were similar to those in the
¿UVW EDUUHO
7KH WKLUG EDUUHO  FRQWDLQHG  LGHQWL¿-
able bones (Lucas 2005). Lucas states that an
MNI of three pigs were in Barrel 02-35 based
on the cranial material and pelvic bones. The
barrel is more similar to 02-740 than 02-472
and contains fewer foreshanks and femora than
02-472. Barrel 02-35 includes no tibia/fibula
material but has a large number of ribs and
vertebrae (Lucas 2005). The quality of the meat
aligns most closely with 02-740.
82 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)

of foreshanks and femora than the other barrels.

Overall, the percentages of body parts and
varying numbers of pigs are inconsistent
enough across the barrels to suggest that strict
standardization criteria were not followed when
WKH EDUUHOV ZHUH EHLQJ ¿OOHG 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKH
pork processors probably knew approximately
how much material and weight should go into
each barrel and were not concerned with piece-
for-piece matching among the barrels.

Discussion and Conclusions

7KH FRPPLVVDU\ JHQHUDO¶V VSHFL¿FDWLRQV IRU

FIGURE 11. Illustration of the proximal end of a radius bone
with a clear processing mark (left). Bone on right illustrates
what the original bone would have looked like. (Photo by
Juliet K. Brophy, 2010.)
7DEOH  LOOXVWUDWHV WKH QXPEHU RI LGHQWL¿DEOH
bones, MNI, and percentage of bones found
in each barrel. While there is significant
overlap among the samples, there are some
important differences. Barrel 02-740 and 02-35
have similar numbers and percentages, while
Barrel 02-472 is slightly different, with fewer
enumerated pigs overall and a higher percentage
pork ensured, at least in theory, that U.S.
Army troops received a wholesome product that
stayed edible at least one year after delivery by
contractors. For the soldiers stationed at Fort
Towson, the quality and prompt delivery of
foodstuffs had serious implications in late April
of 1838. Even as Heroine struggled up the Red
River with Niswanger and Sullivant’s shipment
in its hold, Lieutenant-Colonel Josiah Vose, the
fort’s commander, was dealing with a crisis
caused by the spoilage of provisions supplied
in 1837. “I have found it necessary,” he wrote,
³RZLQJ WR WKH YHU\ LQIHULRU TXDOLW\ RI WKH ÀRXU
& especially the pork ... to direct an increase
RI RQHWKLUG IRU WKH ÀRXU  SRUN UDWLRQ  WKH

TABLE 1
PERCENTAGES OF IDENTIFIED BONES FROM EACH PORK BARREL

Barrel 02-740
,GHQWL¿DEOHERQHV 01, 

Cranial Pieces Mandibles Vertebrae Ribs Shoulders Humeri Foreshanks Pelvic Bones Femora Hind Shanks

21% 6% 17% 15% 8% 5% 6% 8% 6% 8%

Barrel 02-472
,GHQWL¿DEOHERQHV 01, 

Cranial Pieces Mandibles Vertebrae Ribs Shoulders Humeri Foreshanks Pelvic Bones Femora Hind Shanks

12% 5% 14% 7% 7% 5% 17% 9% 17% 7%

Barrel 03-35
,GHQWL¿DEOHERQHV 01, 

Cranial Pieces Mandibles Vertebrae Ribs Shoulders Humeri Foreshanks Pelvic Bones Femora Hind Shanks

40% 3% 24% 7% 4% 7% 3% 4% 3% 7%
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels 83

pork is so rusty that considerable part of each barrel. The butchers likely knew what quality
piece must be cut from the outside before it of meat was required for each grade of pork,
LV ¿W IRU FRRNLQJ´ 9RVH D 7KH VLQNLQJ
of Heroine on 6 May and consequent damage
or loss of part of the cargo, coupled with the
poor quality of aged foodstuffs already at Fort
7RZVRQ SURPSWHG 9RVH WR VHQG D MXQLRU RI¿FHU
to New Orleans to make an emergency purchase
of replacement provisions for the coming year
(Vose 1838b).
Heroine’s snagging, while unfortunate for the
contractors and the fort’s garrison, has allowed
an analysis of the bones found in three intact
pork barrels and provided a better understanding
of butchering and processing procedures in the
second quarter of the 19th century. The qual-
ity of meat in the barrels, as evidenced by the
bones, generally agrees with the quality of the
meat expected by the military; the inclusion of
heads, mandibles, and a wide range of pieces
suggests that the army was getting a product
resembling midgrade “Prime Pork.” Niswanger
and Sullivant (or their purchasing agents) were
conscientious enough to buy pork that did not
include snouts or feet. However, there were also
lower-quality pieces in the barrels, in particular
the fore- and hind shanks. The contract explic-
itly stated that “legs” were not to be included,
but some form of “leg” was included in every
barrel. Mescher (2005) stated that a typical
barrel of pork should weigh around 190 lb.,
and it is likely that if the primal, higher-quality
SLHFHV GLG QRW ¿OO WKH EDUUHO WKH EXWFKHUV PD\
have tossed in lower-quality pieces of pork as
³¿OOHU´ WR PDNH XS WKH H[WUD ZHLJKW
While pork was a staple commodity for many
Americans during the 1800s, little information
exists about the actual butchering of the pigs.
The practices of pork processing were probably
so commonplace that few felt the need to write
down a step-by-step procedure. Using the bones
from these three barrels, however, we were able
to make deductions about the butchering proce-
dures. In general, the practices did not appear
to be significantly different than modern-day
butchery (Savell 2000).
The three pork barrels exhibited varied pro-
portions of body elements and numbers of pigs
in each container. While the differences are
not extreme, it does suggest that there was
no standardization as to what went into each
ZKDW ZHLJKW WKH EDUUHO KDG WR EH DQG ¿OOHG LW
accordingly.
At least one key question remains unan-
swered: Was this pork packed specifically to
meet the terms of the U.S. Army contract,
under the direct supervision of Niswanger and
Sullivant or their agents, or was it simply taken
randomly from a much-larger production batch?
It is possible that the 240 barrels intended for
Fort Towson were purchased after the meat was
already in the barrels, with its selection based
on the grading provided by Alfred S. Reeder
(and possibly other pork merchants if some of
Fort Towson’s 1838 pork were bought from
more than one packing house). With such large
quantities of pork being processed and shipped
from Cincinnati, butchers likely prepackaged
pork barrels. More historical research on the
Cincinnati pork industry and the buying prac-
tices of private contractors have the potential
to answer this question.
The three intact pork barrels from Heroine
provide a unique firsthand look into primary
pork-butchery practices of the 1800s. This
knowledge can be useful from an historical
perspective to see whether butchers respected
government or industry meat-grading criteria
(or military contracts) in terms of the quality
of meat and how much of each part of the pig
was included in the barrels.
The bone assemblage can also add to discus-
sions about provisioning at military sites, i.e., to
help identify exactly which cuts of meat a sol-
dier’s rations contained. Furthermore, the bones
can also be compared to bones recovered from
military sites to see whether the pork consumed
at the site was salt pork from a barrel or locally
raised pork, since the bone assemblage would
differ if the pork had been delivered in a barrel
or was a locally raised and butchered pig (Eng-
lish 1990). While no archaeological evidence of
military sites relying upon locally raised pork
currently exists, assemblages are typically not
examined with this research question in mind.
Finally, these analyses and conclusions can be
used as a comparison model if archaeologists
are fortunate enough to find other barrels of
salt pork recovered in a similarly well-preserved
condition.
84
Acknowledgments
We would like to start by thanking the
cosponsors of the excavation: the Oklahoma
Historical Society and the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology at Texas A&M. We would also like
to thank Darryl de Ruiter for allowing us space
in and use of the comparative lab in the Zoo-
archaeology Laboratory at Texas A&M. We are
grateful to the Billington family, who allowed
us to collect feral pig bones from their property.
Finally, we especially thank the reviewers who
helped to improve this paper greatly.
References
BILLINGS, JOHN D.
1960 Hardtack and Coffee, the Unwritten Story of Army Life.
R. R. Donnelly & Sons, Chicago, IL.
CIST, CHARLES
1846 The Cincinnati Miscellany, or, Antiquities of the West.
Robinson and Jones, Cincinnati, OH.
COMMISSARY GENERAL
1838 Niswanger & Sullivant Fort Towson 1838. Contract
for Army Subsistence, Record Group 192, National
Archives and Records Administration, College Park,
MD.
CRISMAN, KEVIN
2005 The Heroine of the Red River. INA Quarterly
32(2):3–10.
DAVIS, WILLIAM C.
2003 A Taste for War: The Culinary History of the Blue and
Gray. Stackpole, Mechanicsburg, PA.
ENGLISH, A. J.
1990 Salted Meats from the Wreck of the William Salthouse:
Archaeological Analysis of Nineteenth Century
Butchering Patterns. Australian Journal of Historical
Archaeology 8:63–69.
HASHEIDER, PHILIP
2010 The Complete Book of Butchering, Smoking, Curing,
and Sausage Making: How to Harvest Your Livestock
and Wild Game. Voyageur Press, Minneapolis, MN.
HOMENUCK, HENRY PETER MICHAEL
1965 Historical Geography of the Cincinnati Pork Industry:
1810–1883. Master’s thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
LEES, WILLIAM B., AND BARTO ARNOLD
2000 Preliminary Assessment of a Wreck in the Red River,
Choctaw County, Oklahoma, USA. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29(1):120–125.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47(4)
LOUISIANA DAILY PUBLIC ADVOCATE
1830 Directions Providing for the Inspection of Beef and
Pork in the City of New Orleans. Louisiana Daily
Public Advocate 30 January. New Orleans.
LUCAS, GREGORY S.
2005 Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Contents of the
Heroine Pork Barrel. Manuscript, Georgia Museum
of Natural History, Athens.
MATSCHKE, GEORGE H.
1967 Aging European Wild Hogs by Dentition. Journal of
Wildlife Management 31(1):109–113.
MAYHEW, ANTHONY L.
1912 On Some Etymologies of English Words. Modern
Language Review 7(3):318–325.
MESCHER, VIRGINIA
2005 The Ubiquitous Pork Barrel. Association for Living
History, Farm and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM)
Bulletin 34(4):13–17
NISWANGER, CHRISTOPHER
1838a Letter to U.S. Army Commissary General George
Gibson, 28 April. Record Group 192, Entry 10, Box
46, National Archives and Records Administration,
College Park, MD.
1838b Letter to U.S. Army Commissary General George
Gibson, 14 June. Record Group 192, Entry 10, Box
46, National Archives and Records Administration,
College Park, MD.
OCKERMAN, HERBERT W., AND CONLY L. HANSEN
1999 Animal By-Product Processing and Utilization. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
PENNSYLVANIA REPORTER
1837 Separate Proposals Will Be Received. Pennsylvania
Reporter 4 August. Harrisburg.
SAVELL, JEFFREY WYATT
2000 Laboratory Manual for Meat Science, 7th edition.
American Press, Boston MA.
TROLLOPE, FRANCES
1949 Domestic Manners of the Americans. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York, NY.
VOSE, JOSIAH H.
1838a Letter to U.S. Army Commissary General George
Gibson, 21 April. Record Group 92, Entry 225, Box
1145, National Archives and Records Administration,
Washington, DC.
1838b Letter to U.S. Army Commissary General George
Gibson, 14 May. Record Group 92, Entry 225, Box
1145, National Archives and Records Administration,
Washington, DC.
WADE, LOUISE C.
2003 Chicago’s Pride: The Stockyards, Packingtown, and
Environs in the Nineteenth Century. University of
Illinois Press, Chicago.
JULIET BROPHY AND KEVIN CRISMAN—A Taphonomic Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels 85

WILSON, JOHN P., AND LINDA D. SOUTHWOOD JULIET K. BROPHY

1976 Fort George on the Niagara: An Archaeological DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Perspective. Parks Canada, History and Archaeology LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO
9. Ottawa, ON. 1032 WEST SHERIDAN ROAD
WOODRUFF, J. H. CHICAGO, IL 60660
1836 The Cincinnati Directory for the Years 1836–7. J. H.
Woodruff, Cincinnati, OH. KEVIN CRISMAN
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, MS 4352
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843