Analysis of the faunal remains from the Machault

Transcription

Analysis of the faunal remains from
the Machault
by
Kaitlin MacLean
Supervisors: Thijs Maarleveld and Charles Dagneau
Master of Arts degree in Maritime Archeology
Univeristy of Sothern Denmark
Esbjerg Camps
24th January 2016
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank both of my supervisors for their hardwork and patience in
the writing of this thesis. I would also like to thank Parks Canadas Underwater
Archaeology Team for their assistance and for the use of their collection. I would
like to Thank Greg Baker at Saint Mary’s University for help with troubleshooting
some of the GIS issues. Lastly I would like to thank my family and friends for putting up with me while I wrote this.
2
Abstract
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Thesis Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 History of the Machault before its sinking..................................................................................................... 10
2. Methods...................................................................................................................... 19
2.1 Method of Excavation............................................................................................................................................ 19
2.2 Method for Identification..................................................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Method for Thesis.................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.Statistical Analysis...................................................................................................... 26
3.1 NISP26
3.2 Mammals..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Avians........................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Piscine........................................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Ship’s Animals........................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Tooth marks................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.7 Pathology.................................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.8 Age of bone............................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.9 Cut marks.................................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.10 Sawn........................................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.12 Burned....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.Distribution.................................................................................................................. 32
4.1 All remains.................................................................................................................................................................. 34
4.2 Sus scrofa.................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Bos taurus................................................................................................................................................. 37
4.4 Local remains............................................................................................................................................................. 39
4.5 Cut remains................................................................................................................................................................ 41
4.6 Sawn remains............................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.7 Burnt remains............................................................................................................................................................ 45
4.10 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 47
4
5. Frequency................................................................................................................... 48
5.1 Collection Frequency.............................................................................................................................................. 50
5.2 Sus scrofa ................................................................................................................................................. 53
5.3 Bos taurus................................................................................................................................................. 56
5.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................ 59
6.Discussion.................................................................................................................... 60
7.Conclusion................................................................................................................... 68
8.Refrences...................................................................................................................... 69
5
List of figures
Figure 1.Model of the Machault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2.Location of the Restigouche River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3.Plan of the Restigouche River in Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4.Final excavtion set up.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 5.Sawn bone1242. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 6.Cut bone 1337A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 7.Modified bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 8.Summary of specimens by species.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 9.Distribution of all remians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6
1. Introduction
1.1 Thesis Introduction
This thesis is focused on food ways aboard the Machault as evident by the faunal remains excavated by parks Canada in the late 1960’s early 1970’s. A significant amount study has already been
done on the various elements of the Machault from ceramic, to barrels, to bricks; these are all important parts of how the food ways of a ship operates. Thus far no one has looked in detail at the scope
of bones present at the site in terms of numbers, species, and distributions. This report will contribute some added knowledge to the food and food ways aboard the wreck. This can aid in reporting
some of the told or previously thought features of the wreck, such as some additional thoughts on
the scuttling of the ship, the presence or absence of galleys, if the food was for consumption or sale,
etc. There is also a chance to tell if there were both local, fresh species aboard, and if there were any
stored meats, this would help in determining how much of the Machault activities, if any, had already
moved to shore, or had been salvaged before destroying the ship. It will also be advantageous to attempt to determine the percentages of animal types, their locations, as well as their possible presence
as cargo.
The theoretical framework used for the interpretation and analysis of this shipwreck is more
processual in nature. Processual archaeology is a type of archaeological thought popular from the
1960’s through the 1980’s; it draws its inspiration from the French enlightenment movement in the
18th century and from the scientific method (Bintliff, 2008, 147). This stream of thought promotes the
use of statistics, scientific analysis and the use of computer-aided simulations and calculations (Bintliff, 2008, 148). In more recent years, theorists have softened the stress that was previously put on the
importance of ecological explanations and this has caused a surge in the importance of behavioural
archaeology for the theory (Trigger, 2006, 485). Behavioural archaeology attempts to analyse the
actions of humans in both broad and individual terms with particular focus on how people made and
used material culture (Trigger 2006, 491-5). In addition to adopting behavioural archaeology, many
American archaeologists have been aiming to combine processual and post-processual archaeology
7
to form a more well-rounded theory which addresses both behaviour and culture (Trigger, 2006, 497).
Post-processualism was a response to the processual theory that started to emerge in the 1970’s and
1980’s. This theory was at first seen as a contrast to processualism because it rejects the thought that
archaeology can be approached scientifically because of an archaeologists personal biases and the
inability for repeatable experiments and controls that are cornerstones of the scientific method (Trigger, 2006, 444-6). Archaeology is not repeatable, strictly speaking, but that does not mean that similar
sites are not useful in understanding the results of the site that you are analysing. However, a personal bias occurs in all scientific endeavors it is important to understand our own biases and make all
attempts to not let them interfere with your interpretations of the data; in almost all scientific papers
you will find a statement of bias. A personal bias may be found in many forms, from a person’s national origins, here it would be Canadian; education, in this case the author had schooling in Anthropology and Biology in Canada and in Maritime Archaeology in Denmark; to a person’s own political
and theoretic approaches, as described above.
In this thesis I will make use of statistics, distribution maps, frequency diagrams, and other
graphics to help understand patterns in the data. Elements of other schools of thought will also be
used in accordance with the newer ideas of theory which aims to combine multiple approaches. The
data that has been created will then be combined with the findings of other authors who have done
research on this vessel to form a well-rounded discussion of what was found and why that may be.
There will be reference to the ship possibly being not wholly represented as an at sea based
diet because of the prolonged duration of their anchorage in the Restigouche River. This means that
the anchorage could have an impact on the cargo and shipboard materials, such as tools, that would
normally be found onboard a ship.
Physical landscape studies such as site formation processes are important and should be addressed when attempting to derive a socially relevant research question from the use of spatial analysis. As Oscar Törnqvist says “Posing socially relevant research questions to a pile of planks is not done
without some effort” (26). It is important to consider the site formation process before offering any
8
interpretations of the wreck or the site (Törnqvist, 2014, 28). Some important factors in the interpretation of the seascape and site formation include; the waves and currents; the sedimentation process;
and the wind, including its interactions with waves; as well as the coastal dynamics (Törnqvist, 2014,
29). Michael Schiffers theories for site formation processes are well established in Archaeology. His
theory revolves around two types of process that can transform or distort a site; these are C-transforms and N-transforms. A C-transform, or a cultural formation process, takes into account how the
activity of people affects the site (Schiffer, 1996). In Maritime Archaeology these factors include the
potential salvage or the intentional wrecking process. An N-transform, or a natural formation process,
takes into account how nature affects the sites formation (Schiffer, 1996). This includes much of what
Törnqvist has described, with factors like sedimentation, ice formations, currents and animal activities.
I will be approaching the theme of food ways first through the distribution, and frequency of
the faunal remains to see if it is possible to garner any patterns for this particular ship. The other studies that are relevant will also be discussed to see if they correlate to my interpretation of the faunal
data. An example of this would be to see if the ships cooking tools were also found in patterns.
The primary collection itself is around 1,500 fragments of animal bone, mostly mammal, which
has been already identified to the species and the bone name, where possible. Some preliminary statistical work has also already been done.
This interpretation will revolve around three main research questions;
1. Does the Machault have a pattern of both local and imported foodstuffs based on their extended stay in the Restigouche River?
2. Are there discernible patterns in the locations of faunal remains, possibly near the galley(s)
or cargo hold(s)?
3. Do these patterns correlate to the patterns found by other authors whose research also pertains to items used in the food ways of the Machault?
9
1.2 History of the Machault before its sinking
The story of the Machault starts with the Fourth Intercontinental war, also known as
the French and Indian war, which was the North American theatre for the Seven Years war between
Britain and France that took place from 1754 to 1763. The events of the war that are relevant to the
Machault are briefly summarized here. The war saw the Colonies of British America pitted against New
France and the Native populations for control of the region. By the fall of 1759 France was in a tight
position, they had recently lost Quebec City and Louisbourg to the British and supplies were running
low in Montreal (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 4). The leaders and officials in New France were well aware
of the grave situation and requested supplies from France; this request was written by Joseph Cadet,
the mutionnaire, as he was familiar with the supplies that would be needed (Beattie and Pothier, 1996,
4). As the mutionnaire Cadet was primarily involved with the procurement and supply of food for the
French Army, some mutionnaires were also involved in the procurement of munitions.
Vaudreuil, the governor, decided to send the messages with the head of his artillery to France
Figure 1. Model of the Machault ( Wiki media commons)
10
to convince the government of the desperate need for supplies (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 6). Pierre
de Rigaud de Vaudreuil de Cavagnial’s campaign as the governor of New France started in 1755, he
was appointed after successfully serving as the Governor of Louisiana from 1741-1753 (Eccles,1979).
Almost Vaudreuil’s entire governorship of New France was scarred by the Sevens Years war. He had
troubles with the procurement of supplies and with the meager troops he possessed in comparison with the British (Eccles, 1979). These problems were worsened by many of the officials of New
France, especially Louis-Joseph de Montcalm who was the commander of the forces in New France,
not following and event completely disregarding his orders (Eccles, 1979). Vaudreuil would be the last
Governor of New France.
Figure 2. Location of the Restigouche River (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 6).
The officer Vaudreuil sent arrived in Versailles in December of 1759, among the requests he
made were 4,000 men and twenty-thousand quarts of salt-pork, with hope of the King sending extra
food supplies which could be sold before it rots, as there are no more pigs to be butchered (Full text
of request rendered in Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 9). In December the Navy Board gave their approval
for the expedition, albeit with meager supplies and vessels outfitted as inexpensively as possible (Be11
attie and Pothier, 1996, 10). The Machault, which was owned by Cadet, was outfitted by Ravesies and
Louis Cassan, with five other vessels to accompany it; Bienfaisant, Soleil, Fidélité, Aurore and Marquis
de Malauze (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 11). When the party left on the 10th of April 1760 there were
in total only 400 men sent, and the stores and supplies were also reduced. With so few supplies and
such a late start in the season, the outcome of the voyage did not look promising (Beattie and Pothier,
1996, 11).
The Machault was a 500 ton frigate, Captained by François Chenard de la Giraudais and run
by a 150 man crew (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 11). As a part of this crew there were man of over 50
different trade needed aboard (Proulx, 1984, 44). A frigate is defined as a three masted, square rigged
vessel that carried between 24 and 36 guns (Proulx, 1984, 18). A frigate would usually run between
110 and 125 feet in length with a beam of 32 feet (Proulx, 1984, 18). This class of ship was lighter and
more streamlined than other of its time, and thus was much faster and more maneuverable in good
weather. However they had a strong tendency to go off-course in bad weather (Proulx, 1984, 20).
Machault had been built in 1757 in Bayonne, France, and was originally outfitted with 26 cannons as
a privateer (Proulx, 1984, 21, 35). Although it was originally made with 26 guns she may have held as
many as 32 when refitted for the crossing to New France as a supply vessel (Sullivan, 1986, 32). Much
of the timber used to build the Machault was red oak and the outer planking averaged nine centimeters thick to reinforce in against enemy fire (Sullivan, 1986, 11).
During the voyage to New France both Soleil and Aurore were captured by the British, while
Fidélité sunk (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 12). Despite its challenges the remaining meager fleet managed to capture a number of British ships that they had encountered en route to Chaleur Bay (Beattie
and Pothier, 1996, 12). It is unclear why Giraudais headed for Chaleur Bay at all, as he found that the
British had beaten him to the St. Lawrence from the ships he had captured, and his instructions, if this
were to occur, were to instead sail to New Orleans (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 13). One of the reasons
thought for this decision to disobey orders, was the lack of rations onboard as much of them had
12
become rotten, although the cargo of meats was still intact and also because the Restigouche River had become a centre for Acadian refugees (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 13). Times had become so
desperate for some of these refugees that they had taken to eating cattle and beaver hides (Full text
of request rendered in Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 14).
Camp was made in the Bay around the 18th of May; the sailors set up a battery and some
Figure 3. Plan of the Restigouche River in Canada. Dedicated to Monsieur le Chevalier de Bouquinville. With the
various battles of the frgate Machault. Scale 180 toises. (Bibliotheque NationaleMinistere de la Defense [Marine],
from a copy in the National Archives of Canada)
13
ovens, and unloaded some of the stores while news from the ships was sent to Montreal (Beattie and
Pothier, 1996, 14). Vaudreuil in Montreal, sent word to France, and received the troubling news that
no more aid would be sent for the year, as the Crown thought what they had sent was sufficient to
hold out against the English (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 15). Vaudreuil, realizing the peril that they
were sent orders to set up a main post at the Restigouche river and assemble the Acadians there; orders were also given to unload the cargo of the Machault, and the other vessels, and to have it stored
in a safe place as well as making a complete inventory for each vessel (Full text of request rendered in
Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 19). The Machault and its two accompanying vessels were free to leave once
they had unloaded their stores, as they had no orders from the King to fight (Full text of request rendered in Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 19). Although these instructions were drafted by Vaudreuil on the
17th of June, they did not leave Montréal until the 9th of July, at which time the British were already
moving against the French fleet (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 20). The British reacted quickly to the reports of a French fleet in Chaleur Bay; sending two fleets to meet them, one from Quebec City and the
other from Louisburg, for a total of eight ships (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 21).
The two sides first made contact on the 22nd of June when the British Command-
er from Louisbourg, Byron, captured a small recognisance schooner (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 22).
Although Giraudais was not expecting an attack he most definitely held both a tactical and strategic
advantages in the defensive position, where he had at his disposal the Machault, Bienfaisant, Marquis
de Malauze as well as around 25 other local schooners and sloops (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 23). On
the 24th Giraudais decided to transfer some of the Machault cannons to the hastily finished battery,
and put her in the channel behind a line of scuttled sloops and schooners (Beattie and Pothier, 1996,
24). By the 26th the rest of the British fleet had arrived from Quebec City and on the 27th they set
out to find the channel into Chaleur Bay (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 25). The 28th saw the first real
skirmish when two English ships ran aground a received a rather half-hearted artillery attack from the
French, who pulled back after cross fire from the Fame (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 25). Giraudais then
ordered an even more defensive position by sending Bienfaisant and Marquis de Malauze as far up-
14
stream as possible and brought the Machault just beyond the reach of the English guns at the mouth
of the river, with the previously captured British prisoners in the hold (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 25).
By the 2nd of July the British were still trying to find a proper channel into the Bay, all
the while the Fame was firing on the French battery, which, for the most part, did not, or could not,
return fire (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 31). The 2nd also saw the English land at Pointe à la Batterie
where they found the battery and associated camp had already been abandoned and burned; Giraudais had ordered his troops to establish a new camp, and ordered two new batteries to be built at
the mouth of the river (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 31). By the 5th British Commander Byron had finally
found a channel and had cleared the line of scuttled vessels by the first battery (Beattie and Pothier,
1996, 32). The 7th and 8th saw Giraudais move his prisoners to the Marquis de Malauze and to sink a
second line of schooners to slow the English as well as the completion of the two new batteries, which
initially caused a brief British retreat but somehow the Repulse and the Scarborough managed to get
past the defences (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 33). In the early morning of the 8th of July the Machault found itself nearly within cannon range
of the Repulse and the Scarborough, the Repulse was shortly stuck on a shoal and sustained heavy
fire from by the battery on Pointe de la Mission and from fire from the Machault (Beattie and Pothier,
1996, 34.) However, the Machault was not safe from danger as it was woefully unprepared for such
an attack and was running low both on powder and ammunition (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 34). This
coupled with nearly seven feet of water in the hold made Giraudais decide to abandon the ship and
surrender the vessel by mid-morning (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 34). By mid-day Repulse had managed to free itself, and together with Scarborough resumed fire on the battery (Beattie and Pothier,
1996, 34). At around noon, the Machault was scuttled by an explosion, with Bienfaisant soon following suit with her full cargo still in the hold (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 34). At this time the Machault
was not fully unloaded as the French did not think that the British could successfully travel that far up
15
the channel. Shortly after, the British captured the now abandoned Marquis de Malauze and after rescuing the prisoners set it ablaze with its entire stores and continued to destroy the remaining French
vessels well into the night (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 35).
This was the last naval battle between France and Britain for the control of North Ameri-
ca (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 42). Their destruction of the remainder of the French forces and supplies
ensured the French’s inability to re-take Quebec City and to continue to hold their positions in Montreal (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 42).
1.3 Zooarchaeology and its applications in shipwreck research
Zooarchaeology is used extensively in the analysis sections of this paper. Its importance could
not be understated as it is pertinent and essential to all three of the research questions. Without the
basis of identifications from Zooarchaeology it would be impossible to determine which bones were
of local or imported origins. Without the use of Zooarchaeology to identify the bones to each species
it would be much more difficult to determine patterns in the remains.
Zooarchaeogoloy is defined as the study of animal remains recovered during an archaeological
excavation (Reitz, 2008, 8.1). Any type of bone found on an archaeological site that has been modified
in any way, including being used for food has gone through the “cultural filter” and must be considered an artifact in its own right (Daily, 1969, 146). The goal of the discipline is to further understand
the relationship between past peoples and their relationship with animal populations (Reitz, 2008, 81).
In the beginning of the discipline, bone was just a list of species, if at all, and then it gradually evolved
into more complex studies and aimed to be linked to climatic and economic activities (Daily, 1969,
146). The study of this relationship is broad and varied in its uses which may include nutrition, resource use, economies, ritual, social patterns and identity and many other aspects of human life (Reitz,
2008, 82).
16
Understanding the composition of bone and patterns of bone survival are just as important as
understanding the site formation process. Bone is composed of an inorganic lattice work of calcium
phosphate and various carbonates and fluorides as well as organic tissue made of ossien (Hamilton,
1998, 15). The inorganic lattice constitutes 70% of the bone by total weight of the material, while the
organic ossien is only 30% (Hamilton, 1998, 15). Bone can easily be warped by both heat and moisture and is decayed by water (Hamilton, 1998, 15). In waterlogged sites, such as this one, the bone
can become spongy as the ossien is decayed by hydrolysis and the inorganic lattice is decayed by
acids (Hamilton, 1998, 15).However, in sites that have large amounts of sedimentation, this prevents
oxygen from reaching the bone, thus persevering it better than if it had been on a land site (Waddell
and Zacharchuck, 1984, 69). A full restoration of bone is often impossible; but satisfactory stabilization
can be achieved (Hamilton, 1998, 15). Stabilization of the bone means that it has settled into a state
of equilibrium and will no longer continue to decay given the correct storage environment. It is currently unclear what methods were used to preserve the specimens in this report. However, upon visual
inspection of the bones one will note that most appear to be in good condition and are not overly
odorous.
Bone specimens once recovered should be indentified and sorted so that, at minimum, there is
an attempt at determination for species, age, body region, the minimum number of individuals, and
if the bone has been worked (Daily, 1969, 147). All of these categories are present in the preliminary
identification done in 2007 as well as a few additional categories which include, burning, staining, disease, and more precise definitions for the working of the bones. With the modern advances of science
much more can be learned from bone than ever before. New fields are emerging with the help of
molecular sciences, these can use DNA to determine what species an individual remain is, if there are
any ancestral population links, if the individual has known relatives, their sex, and if they had any diseases (White et al, 2012, 494-5). These newer molecular methods also include the use of Amino acid
studies and most importantly for archaeology, isotope analysis. Isotope analysis is used to locate the
origins of an individual based on the isotopes that they have present in their bones; these are usually
17
acquired through diet (White et al, 2012, 494-5). Although none of the molecular studies were undertaken in this research paper it is suggested that further isotope analysis be done in order to further
our understanding of the collection, especially for a greater understanding of the first research question which aims to determine if the remains are locally or foreign sourced.
Certain bias should be addressed when thinking about the collection. These biases can include
the differential resistance to decay, the bias in the ability to identify a particular bone, for example
a pig has more identifiable bones than a deer would, and the amount of meat that can be garnered
from each species and or bone specimen, and the fact that only certain animal parts will normally be
transported (Daily, 1969, 149). The way that bone is identified does lead in some circumstances to
some animals, such as pigs having more identifying features than a deer. This occurs because of the
shapes of the bones and the locations of the features that are used to identify them, such as specific
facets or fossas, and around a dozen other features. In some animals these features are less likely to
be prominent or in other cases are more likely to be worn down. A facet is a specific area of smooth
bone that often would have articulated with another bone (White et al, 2012, 17). A fossa is a depression or shallow area in the bone ((White et al, 2012, 17). Each of these individual elements can have a
very large impact on the final assessment of a collection.
Consideration of site formation process is important for adequate interpretation of faunal remains (Reitz, 2008, 89). Site formations may, move, introduce or remover relevant artifacts over time.
The consideration of exaction methods is equally important (Reitz, 2008, 89). The cultural context of
the deposit of faunal remains is often the key to interpreting them in a meaningful or useful way.
18
2. Methods
The methodology of this thesis largely relies on previous research, as most research does. This
thesis will rely especially heavily on the research done by Darlene Balkwell in her identification of the
remains for Parks Canada. Although only a very short and limited written evaluation was done, around
four pages, the raw data produced is quite large. Without this identification it would not be possible
to do the analysis of these bone fragments, nor would it be possible to give any tangible meaning
to the overall discussion of this wreck. Unfortunately, there have only been scattered reports written about the wreck, usually focused on a single type of assemblage. In 1984 the original excavators
released a publication by with very limited conclusions about the project and mainly focused on their
methodology. Perhaps the best, and only, full synthesis of all of the work thus far published on the
Machault is a PhD thesis by Charles Dagneau written in 2008.
In this chapter the methodology for the excavation of the Machault in the late 1960’s and early
1970’s will be presented. Next the methodology for the 2007 identification of the faunal remains by
Darlene Balkwill will be outlined. Finally the methodologies for this thesis will be given. These include
finding patterns in the data that related to the identification of local versus imported species, distribution patterns, and more general patterns in species, age, tooth and tool marks, etc. These patterns will
be discussed to provide greater insight on the complexities of the food ways of the Machault before
its scuttling with the focus of these methods being used to shed light on the three main research
questions.
2.1 Method of Excavation
At the time of the Machault excavation underwater archaeology was a relatively new discipline
and not much study had been done on specific methods or tools to be used. This lack of prior knowledge lead the team to have to experiment more with the methodology from year to year than most
excavations today would, to find out which methods would work for this particular site and perhaps
for future excavations as well. This excavation of the Machault was the largest underwater archaeo-
19
logical site that Parks Canada, or anyone else in the world, had attempted at the time (Waddell and
Zacharchuk, 1984, 5). Many methods and mechanical aids had to be used on a trial and error basis,
and those that proved the most effective continued to be used, and modified throughout the excavation (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 29).
Figure 4. Final excavtion set up. (Waddell and Zachrchuck,, 1984, 46)
The excavation started with the preliminary task of finding the Machault. Using three
historical maps dating from around the time that Machault sank in 1760, Parks Canada set out in
primary searches of the Restigouche River in 1967 (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 22). During the
searches divers located two hulls which were contemporary with Machault and tentatively called one
Bienfaisant and did not assign a name to the second contemporary ship (Waddell and Zacharchuk,
1984, 22). A magnetometer survey was then conducted on the winter ice in 1968 and was successful
in locating 13 anomalies for investigation, and the largest four were identified as being; 1M Bienfaisant, 2M Machault, 3M a large anchor and 4M likely a jettison from during the battle, potentially the
20
remains of the Marquis de Malaize (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 25). Four seasons of excavation
were planned form 1969 to 1972 (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 25).
The excavation took place in the Restigouche River near the modern town of Campbell-
ton, New Brunswick. The Restigouche River is a tidal river that empties into the Bay of Chaleurs and
was a very important shipping channel to the Canadian interior. The first three seasons of excavation
were focused on excavation of the ship and its cargo, while the fourth was aimed at raising sections of
the hull (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 29). The diving conditions were not favourable to an excavation, with an estimated 50% of the dive time in zero visibility (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 30).
The lack of visibility combined relatively little experience lead to a problem with provenience control;
as a result many of the bone fragments belong to unit 2M99A, which is the code marker for unknown
location. This problem of provenience is especially concerning when for the distribution section of this
thesis as many of the remains will not be able to be used in the analysis, it also puts into questions
the accuracy of the remains that do have an exact provenience. The divers used standard dive gear,
including wet suits in 1969 and 1970, dry suits in 1971 and hot-water suits were tested in 1972 (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 33). 1972 also saw the introductions of communications systems (Waddell
and Zacharchuk, 1984, 34). Prior to this one of the communication methods was to use the pipes of
the air lifts; the air would be shut off so the surface could communicate to the diver through a series
of knocks on the pipe (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 43).
Much of the 1969 season was spent clearing the wreck to prepare for the installation
of the grids (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). Due to the river being used for logging many of the
larger logs that had settled on or near the wreck had to be sawn before being lifted to the surface
(Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). In subsequent seasons, 1971 & 1972, this process was simplified
by the use of a deck crane from the diving platform (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36).
The grid was anchored to the keelson at the southern end where a pin that was part of
the keel-keelson assembly once was (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). The keelson would provide
the backbone of the grid structure (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). Galvanized pipe was used to
21
make 10ft by 10ft squares, these squares were then further subdivided into 5ft by 5ft quarters (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). These 5ft square quarters were the basic unit of the excavation (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). These grids were installed in succession, parallel to the first grid, out
to 30ft in most places, but further in others, so that they formed a series of squares that covered the
entire wreck(Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 36). In order for the grid to remain horizontal they were
allowed to rest on the futtocks, where available, or using rods where the corners met when not (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 37). Different pipe diameters and attachment methods were tested during
the duration of the excavation (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 37). For a reason that is unexplained
in the Waddell report, some of the grids near the top of the excavation were named and numbered
differently; they were installed in larger, narrower rectangular shapes but still had a 5ft x 5ft base grid
as the unit for excavation and recording. These top units are more systematic in their numbering. They
have a three digit code for the column that increases sequentially from left to right and a letter for the
row that ranges from A to F. In practice a unit number for this wreck could be 2M116F. The units that
were installed in squares of four 5ft x 5ft units have a two digit number code, that do not follow much
of a systematic pattern in the way that the numbers are given. Each of these four base units is given a
letter code as well. In practice a unit number for this part of the wreck could be 2M23D.
Underwater recording was done by attempting to make a scale drawing on Mylar sheets
on which the standardized scaled 5ft by 5ft grid was printed (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 39).
When there was zero visibility tactile observations were made and after a measurement was obtained
a diver would rise, often to the surface, until the measurement could be read and drawn in (Waddell
and Zacharchuk, 1984, 39). Various types and modifications of jetting hoses, suction dredgers, trash
pumps, downthrusters, hand and pneumatic tools, explosives, and submersible chainsaws were employed and tested (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 39-52). However, airlifts were the primary means
of artifact removal from the site, acting like suction tubes they brought the artifacts up to the surface
and onto a sorting screen, anything too large or delicate was brought up by hand (Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 43). Provenience numbers were assigned to all of the artifacts, the first two characters,
22
2M, refer to the site and the vessel, the next number was a grid number, some units have a one or two
digit number and some units have a three digit number, and the letter refers to the sub-op, or specific 5ft by 5ft unit, these are A-D in the units that were installed in squares of four and A-F in the units
that were installed based on a column and row system. As these provenience numbers vary slightly it
means that you can have unit numbers like 2M116G, or 2M24A.
2.2 Method for Identification
For a large amount of time the faunal collection sat in storage with being identified or analysed
in any way. It is unknown how the remains were handled, or washed, preserved or stored for much
of their time with Parks Canada. The collection is currently stored in Ottawa, near the Underwater
Archaeology Teams offices. The bones are stored in plastic bags with bubble, and foam wraps. These
bags are then stored within cardboard office filing boxes. There are a total of 13 boxes of remains.
The collection of faunal remains was identified by Darlene Balkwill in 2007 by directly comparing the
Machault faunal remains to known species in the Osteology Collection at the Canadian Museum of
Nature in Ottawa (Darlene Balkwill, Personal communication, June 11, 2015). Where possible she identified the bone to the species level with the bone name, body region, and noting any unusual features,
such as burning, bite marks, tool marks, and staining. The results of which was a four page written
report delivered to parks Canada and a very large spread sheet of raw data which leaves much interpretation yet to be done.
2.3 Method for Thesis
Secondary sources pertaining to the Machault were read and discussed to form the basis of the
introductory material and to aid in the interpretations of the results from the analysis done in chapters
three to five. The faunal remains were viewed in person at the Parks Canada Underwater Archaeology offices in Ottawa, Canada. Certain artifacts were selected to be photographed because they were
seen as being either unique, or as being typical for this collection. The majority of the analysis in this
23
thesis will be based on the raw data from Darlene Balkwill’s 2007 assessment with the aims of providing a good discussion centered on the three main research questions that were presented in the
introduction. To properly analyze the distribution and frequency of faunal remains it was decided that
figures would be made using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This type of programme allows
for detailed geographic placement that can be sorted and have further analysis conducted by attributes. The specific programme used was Quantum Geographic Information Systems (QGIS) because
of its open-source platform.
The data was first taken from its original format in an excel spread sheet and was imported into
a Microsoft Access database. The data was then sorted and queried to provide useable information
for both the distribution maps and the frequency graphics. For the distribution map, the original site
plan was used in .pdf format that was then imported into QGIS. A grid was then made using the same
number of squares as on the site plan and was geo-referenced to the site plan. Each box in the grid
was then assigned a name that corresponded to the unit provenience number on the site plan. The
data previously sorted in access was imported, and joined to the grids table via the provenance number of each artifact. The distributions were set to Jenks natural breaks because it produces categories
that make the most epidemiologically accurate map (ERSI, 2015). This is achieved by an algorithm that
aims to reduce the variance within a category but to increase the variance between the categories
(ESRI, 2015).
For the frequency graphics, the method of importing the data was much the same. A .tiff of an
appropriate animal skeleton was digitized in QGIS and named to one of six body regions as described
by Balkwill in her initial assessment; head (HEAD) trunk (TRUNK), extremities (EXT), pelvic girdle (PVG),
pectoral girdle (PTG), or limbs (LIMB). The data previously sorted in access was imported and joined to
the table via the body region name. The distributions were also set to Jenks natural breaks.
The results of this analysis will be discussed in order to understand vital patterns in the collection, as these patterns form the core of two of the research questions. These patterns can help us
24
understand the food location and use aboard this ship, the frequency can aid in the understanding
of matters like the processing and conditioning of the ship-board materials. These patterns will also
be discussed with other studies previously done on the Machault to form a well-rounded view on the
activities and state of the food ways aboard the Machault. Special emphasis will be placed on discovering where the food based items are stored and what implications that has on whether the items are
for trade or consumption. The presence, or absence, and locations of galleys will be discussed, as well
as the manner of scuttling and what the faunal remains can tell us from that event. Another important
factor to be touched upon is whether the cargo is representative of a fully laden ship, and why that
may be.
25
3.Statistical Analysis
This section presents some of the basic facts of the collection. These small sections may
seem unimportant at first glance but they will be foundation on which the conclusions and interpretations will be built when combined with later sections.
3.1 NISP
The NISP (number of individual specimens present) given in the original report has 1413
fragments identified with 1386 being identified as Mammals, 97.74%, 17 fragments belong to Birds,
1.20%, and 10 fragments belong to Fish, 0.71% (See Figure 8).
3.2 Mammals
The mammal category has 1386 specimens, or is a total of 97.74% of the collection. The largest percentage of this category is domestic cattle (Bos taurus) which accounts for 37.52% of all bone
fragments. Domestic pig (Sus scrofa) accounts for just over 21% of the total collection. Unidentified
mammals are split into three categories, with large mammals being nearly 20% of the fragments
present, small mammals making up less than one percent and mammals with no size distinction being
12.37%. The pig/sheep/goats make for almost 3%. The rest of the mammals identified make up less
than 1% of the total collection; they include the snowshoe hare, European hare, hare family, rat family,
domestic dog, dog/wolf/coyote, domestic cat, white-tailed deer, cow/horse/moose, domestic sheep,
and sheep/goat.
3.3 Avians
The birds category contains six different species that each account for less than one percent
of the collection total. They are in descending order of percentage; domestic chicken (Gallus gallus),
common merganser (Mergus merganser), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), unidentified bird, and
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) both domestic and wild.
3.4 Piscine
The fish category accounts for less than one percent of the total collection when all four differ26
ent specimens are added together. In descending order of percentage they are; Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), unidentified fish, and cod family (cf. Gadidae).
3.5 Ship’s Animals
Based on the remains found the ship would have had at least two young cats aboard. There
were 10 feline bones found, 6 of them form an almost complete skull and there are 3 tibia present
meaning that there were at minimum two individuals present. The size and fusion patterns of the
bones indicate that the cats were both juvenile. Based on the findings of two right scapulas there
were at least two dogs aboard the ship as well. The first one is estimated to be a small dog about the
size of a spaniel and the second is slightly larger.
3.6 Tooth marks
A small number of tooth marks were noted on the bone. 26 cattle, five pig, and four unidentified large mammals show signs of marks, for a total of 35. Some of these tooth marks are from rodents, but most of them are from carnivores.
3.7 Pathology
A very small number of the bones exhibited pathologies. The sacrum, radius, and lumbar vertebrae of domestic cattle showed signs of bony growth, which is indicative of arthritis. There were signs
of a bone or cartilage infection present on the distal end of a rib from s large mammal. A cow innominate showed a partially healed break in the pubis.
3.8 Age of bone
An age summary with four categories (Adult, Young Adult, Immature and Juvenile) was prepared for both domestic pigs and domestic cows. It is important to note that this refers to the age of
the bone and not the age of the animal as a whole. This is because different bones and even different
parts of the same bone will fuse at different times in an animal’s life. Data on the age of ephiphysial,
this is when the shaft of the bone fuses to the ends, and tooth eruption are available for a variety of
a species. A total of 297 of the cattle bones could be assigned to an age class. There are 166 bones
in the adult classification, nine young adults, 115 immature, and seven juveniles. A total of 171 pig
27
bones could be assigned to an age class. There are 30 bones in the adult classification, zero young
adults, 132 immature, and nine juveniles.
3.9 Cut marks
A large proportion of the remains show butchery marks from cutting. The largest group of cut
remains belongs to Bos taurus with 344 out of 532 faunal remains displaying cut marks. That means
that around 65% of the recovered cow remains have signs of butchering from cut marks alone. Of the
298 remains of Sus scrofa 67 of them show cut marks, or 22%. Bones identified to be mammalian have
127 displaying cut marks of the 468 total (27%). Three deer (Odocoileus virginiana) fragments were
also found to have been cut. Three bird bones were also found to have been cut.
3.10 Sawn
A much smaller proportion of the fragments found have saw marks. This can be distinguished
from cut marks based on the striations left on the bone from the teeth of the saw (Byers, 2008, 385).
See Figures 5 and 6 for a comparison of cut and saw marks. A total of 21 remains feature saw marks.
The greatest number of these comes from cow remains, 17. There are 2 mammalian bones, one pig
and one turkey. The sawn turkey bone is the only 18th century example of such in North America
according to Darlene Balkwell, who did the identification (Balkwell, 207, Parks Canada internal report).
3.12 Burned
There are a total of 230 fragments that exhibit signs of burning. The vast majority of these belong to the mammalian category. This category has a total of 468 elements of which 195 exhibit signs
of burning, or 42%. This large percentage of burning could explain why these fragments were unable
to be further identified because of the damage caused by burning. Pig (Sus scrofa) has 11 positively
identified burned specimens.
28
TAXON
NISP
BUTCHERED
CUT
SAWN %
Burned
CHARRED CALCINED %
BUTCHERED
Mammals:
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginiana
Bos taurus
Bos/Equus/Alces
Sus/Ovis/Capra
Mammalia
298
8
532
5
42
468
67
3
344
1
1
127
2
Birds:
Branta canadensis
Gallus gallus
2
6
1
2
Meleagris gallopavo
1
17
22.82
37.50
67.86
20.00
1
27.56
6
23
11
189
TOOTH
% WITH
BURNED MARKS
TOOTH MARKS
8.05
5
1.68%
26
4.89%
4
0.85%
26.19
41.67
50
33.33
1
100
(domestic)
Figure 5. Modified bone (Darlene Balkwell).
29
Figure 6. Sawn bone1242.
Figure 7. Cut bone 1337A
30
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Nom commun
NISP
% NISP
MAMMALS
Lepus americanus
Lepus sp.
Snowshoe hare
Snowshoe/European
Lièvre d'Amérique
Lièvre d'Europe
1
2
0.07
0.14
Leporidae
Rattus sp.
Canis familiaris
Canis sp.
Felis catus
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginiana
Bos taurus
Bos/Equus/Alces
Ovis aries
Ovis/Capra
Sus/Ovis/Capra
hare
Hare and rabbit family
Norway/Roof rat
Domestic dog
Dog/Wolf/Coyote
Domestic cat
Domestic pig
White-tailed deer
Domestic cattle
Cow/Horse/Moose
Domestic sheep
Sheep/Goat
Pig/Sheep/Goat
Famille du lapin-lièvre
Rat surmulot
Chien domestique
Chien-Loup-Coyote
Chat domestique
Cochon
Chevreuil
Vache
Vache-Cheval-Orignal
Mouton domestique
Mouton-chèvre
Cochon-mou-
3
3
4
1
10
298
8
532
5
1
7
42
0.21
0.21
0.28
0.07
0.71
21.02
0.56
37.52
0.35
0.07
0.49
2.96
Mammalia (large)
Unidentified large
ton-chèvre
Grand mammifère non 286
20.17
Mammalia (small)
mammal
Unidentified small
id.
Petit mammifère non
1
0.07
mammal
id.
Mammalia
Unidentified mammal Mammifère non id.
SUBTOTAL MAMMALS
182
1386
12.83
97.74
BIRDS
Branta canadensis
Mergus merganser
Gallus gallus
Meleagris gallopavo
Meleagris gallopavo
Aves
SUBTOTAL BIRDS
FISH
Catostomus catostomus
Gadus morhua
cf. Gadidae
Osteichthyes
SUBTOTAL FISH
Canada goose
Common merganser
Domestic chicken
Turkey - domestic
Turkey - wild
Unidentified bird
Bernache du Canada
Grand harle
Poulet domestique
Dinde domestique
Dindon sauvage
Oiseau non id.
2
5
6
1
1
2
17
0.14
0.35
0.42
0.07
0.07
0.14
1.20
longnose sucker
Meunier rouge
2
0.14
Atlantic cod
cf. cod family
Unidentified fish
Morue franche
Famille de la morue
Poisson non id.
5
1
2
10
0.35
0.07
0.14
0.71
1413
100
GRAND TOTAL
Figure 8. Summary of specimens by species. (Darlene Balkwell)
31
4.Distribution
This section is a series of distribution maps according to species. These maps will aid in
the discovery of patterns of the distribution for the faunal remains, which guides the interpretations
of the last two research questions. These patterns can help determine the faunal remains functions
on the ship or its storage technique and can also help determine if the remains are imported cargo or
local catches.
The diagrams produced for this section show the distribution of identified bones, and bone
fragments across the excavation site. The base map used in these diagrams was one made for the
original excavation that also shows the locations of the timbers that were found. This will be helpful
for visual reference when orienting the find locations in the site. The number of bones per grid unit
is represent by a coloured square; the scale goes from white for no finds, to dark for the greatest
number of finds. In the dataset for each of the maps, each individual square is able to be queried for
its specific value. However, for simplicity, a range of vales are set to correspond to a colour, with the
number of categories determined by the GIS programme for the maximum statistical accuracy of the
map (Jenks natural breaks).
All of the remains were used in the making of these maps, and are included in the data for
charts and statistics. However there is one location co-ordinate that does not have a corresponding
grid square on the maps. This “unit” is 2M99A; this unit code was used by the excavation and record
keeping teams to denote a find whose location context had been lost, for a variety of reasons, either
during or post excavation. Nine separate distribution maps were prepared to show the spread of all,
Sus scrofa, Bos taurus, local, cut, sawn, and burnt remains.
32
Bones per unit
All faunal remains
1- 5
5 - 14
14 - 30
30 - 49
49 - 141
Author: Kaitlin MacLean
Distribution of all remains found on le Machault
Data Source: Parks Canada Underwater Archaeology Team
Figure 9. Distribution of all remians
33
4.1 All remains
The map for the distribution of all remains has five different categories of per-unit bone
counts; 1-5 in pale blue, 5-14, 14-30, 30-49, and 49-141 in dark purple. The majority of the units, exactly 100 of them, fall into the 1-5 category. This means that most units on the maps had a very small
number of bone fragments found on them. These lower-numbered units are also the only ones to
extend to, and beyond, the stern of the ship. The 5-14 category has 30 units, all located approximately
amidships and forward. The 14-30’s has 14 units in its ranks and again all are located approximately
amidships and forward. The 30-49 group boasts seven units, with five of those is very close proximity
to each other in rows 2M111A-2M116A. The last section of 49-141 has only a single unit 2M8A near
the bow of the ship. With this we can see that the majority of the faunal remains are located either towards
the bow or amidships in the vessel. These are likely the in the main hold and a subsidiary smaller
cargo hold, each of the following maps will discuss the locations in greater detail. Because some of
the remains are found in low number past the stern of the wreck it can be inferred that this was the
direction of the waters flow and the dispersal pattern of the fragments. In their 1984 report of their
findings Waddell and Zacharchuck mention that the ebb tide, when the water flows outward from the
land, was stronger than the flow tide (69). Since the river flows to the north-east this would support
the hypothesis that some of the smaller fragments, being much lighter in weight than the porcelains
or other cargo, could have been caught in the ebb and travelled further up with the tide. This means
that some of the fragments towards the stern of the ship could have been deposited there after, or
during, the sinking of the ship.
34
4.2 Sus scrofa
The maps for the distribution of Sus scrofa, or pig, remains has five catagories of bones
per unit; 1-3 is represented by a pale blue, 3-8, 8-17, and 17-24 which is represented by a navy blue.
In total there are 73 units that contain remains. The Majority of the units that contain remains belong
to the 1-3 group with 50 units, with these units spread throughout the ship and some extending past
the stern. The second group, 3-8 contains 15 units with none extending past column 116. The 8-16
category contains just six units, and all but one is clustered in the middle of the ship, from column
113-118. There are only two units that fall into the highest classification group of 17-24, these are
located at 2M8D and 2M116A.
As with the map of all remains there appears to be two main clusters on this map, this
larger cluster would be in the main hold. The biggest cluster of remains is amidships around unit
2M116A. The second, smaller cluster is right before the bow in 2M8A. However, the smaller cluster
is unusual in its placement, as it seems to be in a separate hold, further forward in the bow. The only
other objects found in this section were some porcelains and some English earthenwares that appear
to have been for trade (Dagneau, 2008, 281). Was this separate cask the personal ware of one of the
crew for consumption or trade?
35
Bones per unit
Sus Scrofa remains
1-3
3-8
8 - 17
17 - 24
Distribution of Sus Scrofa remains found on le Machault
Figure 10. Distribution of Sus scrofa.
36
4.3 Bos taurus
The distribution of cow, Bos taurus, remains are displayed by five coloured categories,
with a total of 91 units having remains. The first category is represented by a pale orange and contains
units that have between one and four bones, or fragments of bone in them. This group has 65 units
that are dispersed throughout the map. The second group is displayed as a light orange and has 18
units. The units are primarily concentrated in the middle of the ship, with a few extending near the
bow. The third group is coloured a bright orange and has only six units, all of which are located near
the middle of the ship. The last category, 19-28 bones per unit, has only two squares, 2M17D and
2M114B, which are represented by the colour red. Bos taurus distributions have a different pattern
with only one large clustered area in the middle of the ship.
This singular cluster falls fairly neatly into the main hold of the ship. Although the main
concentration of remains is within the hold there are two main focal points for this that indicates that
there could be at least two different casks present.
37
Bones per unit
Bos taurus remains
1-4
4 - 11
11 - 19
19 - 28
Distribution of Bos taurus remains found on le Machault
Figure 11. Distribution of Bos taurus.
38
4.4 Local remains
The distribution of local remains has only three categories; 1 is represented by a peach
colour, 2 is represented by a nude colour, and 4 is represented by a tan colour. The local remains are
those of a six species that were determined by Darlene Balkwell to have local, wild origins in her initial
2008 assessment. The five species are: deer (Odocoileus virginiana), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), Canada goose (Branta Canadensis), merganser duck (Mergus merganser), wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo), and sucker (Catostomus catostomus). The first category, with one bone per unit, has 10
units on the map. The second category, with two bones per unit, has two units on the map at different
ends. The last category has one unit located at 2M34D and contains four bones, or fragments. These
remains do not appear to follow any pattern and seem to be widely dispersed throughout the wreckage.
It is unlikely that a significant amount of local remains were stored in the cargo holds
because of the land based camp that they were occupying. Some food may have been quickly
re-loaded before the battle but it is difficult to tell this based on the archaeological record.
39
Bones per unit
local remains
1
2
4
Distribution of local remains found on le Machault
Figure 12. Distribution of local remaians.
40
4.5 Cut remains
The map for the cut remains has five categories. The first has 1-3 bones per unit and is coloured a light pink-grey. There are 67 units in this category and they cover the entire span of the map.
The next has 3-7 bones; there are 18 spread from the middle and forward. There are seven of the next
category, 13-24, most are located amidships with one near the bow. The remaining category, 24-36,
represented by magenta has just one at 2M17D.
There are quite a large amount of cut remains and they span the entire grid. However the majority are clustered in the middle of the ship in the main hold. The middle of the ship is also where the
majority of the Bos taurus remains were found. According to the statistical data Bos taurus also has
the largest number of cut remains, with 344, or 65% of the total Bos taurus remains. The next largest
amount belongs to the otherwise unidentified mammals with 127 displaying cut marks. Only 67 Sus
scrofa remains have any signs of cut marks.
41
Bones per unit
cut remains
1-3
3-7
7 - 13
13 - 24
24 - 36
Distribution of cut remains found on le Machault
Figure 13. Distribution of cut remains
42
4.6 Sawn remains
Sawn remains are very infrequent in the collection in total, and that makes for a sparse map.
There are only three groups in this map represented in shades of pink. The first is only one bone per
unit and has 11 units. The second category, with two bones per unit, has two units. The third group,
with three bones per unit, has a single unit. The remains are very spread out on the wreck. However,
most interestingly they are completely void in the centre of the ship, where a large portion of the
other remains are found within the main cargo hold, There are a total of 21 sawn bones with the
greatest number of these coming from cow remains, at 17. There are 2 mammalian bones, and one of
each pig and turkey.
The relatively low numbers of these remains may indicate that they have a more local origin
in their butchery. It is unlikely that a barrel sent with the crew from France would include only one or
two sawn bones, as is the case for the mammalian and Sus scrofa remains. It does not exclude the
possibility that these bones were first sent in the barrels and the further butchered by saw on board.
This is further supported by the inclusion of a sawn turkey bone, as the turkey is definitively a local
species. The large number of cattle bones found to have been sawn could have all been sent in a barrel or they could have been a local butcher as there is evidence that at least one whole (non-barrel
packed) cow was present during the sinking (See section 5.3). It is often impossible to be completely
certain of the origins of certain animals without doing a full isotopic analysis to determine provenience.
43
Bone fragments per unit
Sawn
1
2
3
Distribution of sawn remains found on le Machault
Figure 14. Distribution of sawn remains
44
4.7 Burnt remains
The burnt remains are divided in three categories, 1-2, 2-5, and 5-13. The first has 22 units
represented. The second has five units and most of them are near the bow. The third has only one
located at 2M7D. All of the units are located before the middle of the ship and most are very near the
bow. Usually finding burnt remains would likely indicate the location of the kitchens, as the bone is
burnt during the cooking process. This ship is different though, as the ship was scuttled with the use
of explosives it is more likely that the large section of burnt remains is from this instead.
When the Machault was scuttled it is possible that the barrels of gunpowder used to ignite
the ship also caught the powder in the blaze and caused an explosion near the rear of the ship (Dagneau, 2008, 287). After the explosion enough of the ship remained above water to continue to sustain
enemy attacks and to burn (Dagneau, 2008, 287). The midsection to the forward part of the bow on
the port side sustained fire damage as evident by the charred timbers observed during the excavation
(Waddell and Zacharchuk, 1984, 69).
45
Bones per unit
All burnt faunal remains
1-2
2-5
5 - 13
Distribution of burnt remains found on le Machault
Figure 15. Distribution of burnt remains
46
4.10 Conclusions
The all remains map shows two apparent clusters of deposit areas, one near the bow
of the ship in the region of unit 2M8A and the other in the middle of the ship around the unit of
2M114A.These appear to be two separate and distinct cargo holds. With the main hold being near
the 2M114A cluster. The secondary cluster is a bit more unusual as the other cargo in the old is only
English earthen wares and porcelain (Dagneau, 2008, 281). In the map there is also a section of bones
found in small number continuing from amidships past the stern, it is possible that this has been redeposited. Sus scrofa follows the same general clusters as the all remains map with the largest being
at 2M114A and the smaller cluster being located at 2M8A. Bos taurus distributions have a different
pattern with only one large clustered area in the middle of the ship, likely the main hold. The local remains appear to be spread throughout the wreck with no discernible pattern. The cut remains spread
the entire wreck but are mainly located in the middle of the ship. The sawn remains are spread out
but are absent in the middle of the ship, unlike most other distributions. The burnt remains are located fairly far forwards in the ship and are clustered.
47
5. Frequency
This chapter focuses on the creation and analysis of frequency diagrams for the entire
collection of remains, as well as for Sus scrofa and Bos taurus individually. These diagrams will aid in
interpretation of the first research question, along with the butchery patterns. This question asks if the
food stuffs originate locally or from a foreign source.
The Diagrams produced for this section show the number of identified bone fragments
per body region. In Darlene Balkwells original identification of the remains she identified and classed
six individual body regions. EXT is the extremities which include the metacarpals, metatarsals, metapodials, tarsals, carpals, and phalanges. In laymans terms theses would be approximate to the hands and
feet of the animals. The HEAD category includes all the bones of the skull, mandibles and teeth. LIMB
contains the humerus, radius, ulna femur, tibia, fibula, patella, tibiotarsus; meaning all the bones of
the front and hind legs. The PTG is the pectoral girdle, which includes the scapula and the coracoids,
otherwise called the shoulder. The TRUNK is the chest and abdomen of the animal; it includes the vertebrae, sternum, sacrum and ribs. The final category is the PVG which is the pelvic girdle which contains the innominate. Figure 16 shows where these sections are located on a generalized mammalian
skeleton. This skeleton is not representative of any one species but shows the approximate skeletal
form for all mammals. These same zones are used for both the Bos taurus and Sus scrofa frequency
diagrams.
48
Body Region
Body Regions
Head
Trunk
PTG
Limb
Ext
PVG
Data source: Parks Canada Underwater Archaeology Team
Body Regions Defined
Figure 16. Body regions for frequency alaysis defined
49
5.1 Collection Frequency
The first frequency diagram shows all of the bones that have been identified by body region.
A large number of bone fragments, 280, have no body region identification and were not able to be
used in this part of the analysis. In this diagram 189 fragments are available to show the frequency of
bone fragments per body region identified as being of the order mammalian but have however not
been classified into a specific genus or species. Often it is possible to identify a bone fragment from a
particular body region or specific bone, say an ulna, but it is much more difficult to assign an individual species to that ulna because you lack the number necessary bone features to make a proper identification as many mammalian ulna are quite similar in their appearance. The rest of the fragments
have been classified to specific species; Sus Scrofa (298), Bos Taurus (532), Assorted identified small
mammals (32), Assorted semi-identified large mammals (55), Assorted birds (17), Assorted fish (10)
(See Figure 8).
In figure 17 there are a total of 1,136 bone fragments that have been identified to a particular body region. This means that the vast majority of the collection, 80.4 %, has been identified to at
least a Family level. The largest category of fragments is the TRUNK, which has 411 individual fragments identified. The LIMB region contains 380 fragments. The HEAD has 148 fragments of bone. The
EXT has 120 fragments. The PVG has only 42, and the smallest number of fragments per region is the
PTG which contains only 35 fragments (See Figure 17). It is expected that both of the girdles have significantly lower number of fragments as they are very large bones that offer relatively small amounts
of meat for their size and weight. Especially for larger mammals it is often impractical to transport
these parts (Daily, 1969, 149). The results of the over-all collection are consisted with what is to be expected of a butchered animal. A significant number of the bones found are from the more meat-rich
areas of the animal.
50
Region
Number of fragments
Percentage
TRUNK
411
36.3%
LIMB
380
33.4%
Head
148
13.0%
Ext
120
10.6%
PVG
42
3.7%
PTG
35
3.0%
TOTAL
1136
100%
Figure 17. Totals and percentages of collection frequency by body region.
51
Bone Frequency
All remains
0 - 35
35 - 42
42 - 148
148 - 380
380 - 411
All remains frequency by body region
Figure 18. Frequency of all remains
52
5.2 Sus scrofa
This frequency diagram displays the number of bone fragments per body region for bone identified as being from Sus scofa. The total number of bones fragments that have been identified as Sus
scrofa and have a body region label is 298. Three regions have almost identical numbers of bones;
the LIMB has 77, the HEAD 76, and the TRUNK 71. The EXT tallies 52 fragments. With the PVG having
20 and the PTG having only 2 fragments present (See table 3).
These frequency charts and body part analysis are often used as part of the traditional zooarchaeological analysis of sites (Chapin, 1990). The body part analysis works by looking at the frequency
of each individual bone element of the given species, in this case Sus scrofa, to determine if the proportions of elements fit in line with what would be expected for fresh or salt-pork. However some authors, such as Tourigny (2009, 167) argue that evidence of the remains being from barrelled salt pork
can not be established based on body part analysis and butchery alone. With this caution in mind, it
might still be possible to use the body frequency chart, along with butchery patterns, and the historical evidence, such as the inventory lists from their departure in France to glean some understanding
of the assemblage.
Another problem in identify fresh or salt-pork from body part analysis is the relatively limited
information on the subject. The unusually large number of HEAD fragments found could be an indicator of quality of the pork barrels. Guiry (2012, 2013) cites an anonymous French author who in 1762
wrote Traité d’Honoré Chéris which states that all Louis XV ships, galleys and supply vessels were to
be supplied with salt-pork that is free of heads, hocks or feet. In the early 19th century standards from
Montréal were in place for three different qualities of salt-pork, thigh highest, Mess, was supposed to
contain only the ribs of the fattest hogs while the mid to low grades, Prime and cargo, could contain
all body parts except the feet (Morris, 1820, 7).
53
However Guiry goes on to the provide the example of Samuel Kelly, a sailor who in 1781, stated that the quality of pork in the barrels was so poor that “the barrels of pork consisted of pigs’ heads
with iron rings still in the nose, pigs’ feet and pigs’ tails with much hair thereon” (2012, 2014). More
evidence of the slack standards of the quality of salt-pork can be found in La Dauphine which sank in
1760 where a very large percentage of the bone found was from the head with extensive cut marks,
61% (Guiry 2012, 2014).
Based on this evidence it can be concluded that different grades of salt-pork existed and that
the cuts contained in each barrel would differ based on the price point. The Machault was known to
have been outfitted on a tight budget (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 10). This may explain the relatively
high frequency of head, (25.6%) and feet bones (17.4%). Although it does not eliminate the possibility that some of the animals were alive at the time of the explosion, as not 100% of the bones feature
butchery marks, although a large percentage do, at 23%. It is a known certainty that there were barrels of salt-pork aboard when the Machault sank as the National Historic Site Museum for the Battle
of the Restigouche has a barrel of salt-pork from the Machault excavation. Unfortunately, the bones
and fragments in that barrel have not been counted and identified and have not been included in this
study. It would be an excellent and informative resource if that barrel could be looked at for its frequency of bones per region so that it would give more insight to not only the results found here but
to all of the studies using a similar type of analysis as not many records of this type exist.
Region
LIMB
HEAD
TRUNK
EXT
PVG
PTG
TOTAL
Number of fragments
77
76
71
52
20
2
298
Percentage
25.8%
25.6%
23.8%
17.4%
6.7%
0.7%
100%
Figure 19. Totals and percentages of Sus scrofa frequency by body region.
54
Bone Frequency
Sus Scrofa
2 - 20
20 - 52
52 - 71
71 - 77
Sus Scrofa bone frequency by body region
Figure 20. Frequncy of Sus scrofa
55
5.3 Bos taurus
This frequency diagram displays the number of bone fragments per body region for bone identified as being from Bos taurus. The total number of bones fragments that have been identified as Bos
taurus and have a body region label is 532. The TRUNK region has by far the largest number of bone
fragments at 268. The second largest section is the LIMB at 163. The EXT has 62. The HEAD has only
14 bones, which is a very big contrast to the percentages of bone found for Bos taurus and Sus scrofa.
The PVG has 15 bones while the PTG has only 11 (See table 4).
Even less historical research has been done on salt-beef than has been done on salt-pork, but
similar principles do apply. The greatest quality of meats would be the trunk and limb sections, and
we see these sections amassing for over 80% of the fragments found. This combined with the fact that
over 67% of the Bos taurus remains found display butchery marks, it can be concluded that most of
the remains were already butchered, possibly salt packed at the time. One would not expect to find
large bones such as the pelvic girdle, shoulder girdle or skull in a salt-beef barrel as these bones are
very large and contain very little amounts of meat. Very small portions of these have been noted on
this site, including a skull fragment with an attached piece of horn (Figure 22). This could suggest that
at least one of the specimens aboard when the ship was scuttled was not barrel packed.
Region
TRUNK
LIMB
EXT
HEAD
PVG
PTG
TOTAL
Number of fragments
268
163
62
14
15
11
532
Percentage
50.4%
30.6%
11.6%
2.6%
2.8%
2.0%
100%
Figure 21. Totals and percentages of Bos Taurus frequency by body region.
56
Figure 22. Bos taurus horn with attached skull. 1235.
57
Bos Taurus bone frequency by body region
Bone Frequency
Bos Taurus
11 - 15
15 - 62
62 - 163
163 - 268
Figure 23. Frequency of Bos taurus
58
5.4 Conclusions
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from body frequency diagrams alone but with the
use of historical documentations and a critical eye at the butchery marks it is possible to draw some
tentative conclusions. Section 5.1 which documents the frequency patterns of the entire collection
alludes to the idea that most of the faunal remains were probably in a butchered state when the
ship sank due to the comparative frequencies. It is also highly likely that salt-beef and salt-pork were
aboard the ship at the time it was scuttled due to the large amount of butchery marks found on the
remains, with 23% of the swine, 67% of the cattle and almost 23% of the entire collection bearing
either saw or cut marks. It is also likely that the salt-pork was of a poor quality due to the large number of non-prime meat quantities and the slim budget the vessel was outfitted on. There is historical
evidence that different types of barrels of salt-pork existed with different ratios of body parts based
on the price of the barrel. There is also a known barrel of salt-pork on display at the museum for the
National Historic site for the Battle of the Restigouche.
The best evidence for the existence of butchered animals aboard is with the cattle, with a very
concise frequency chart and a high number of butchery marks. However, there is a possibility that at
least one non-butchered cow was aboard the ship because of a skull found with an attached horn and
because of the small numbers of shoulder and pelvic girdle fragments that were recorded, it would be
unusual to find these items in a salt-beef barrel but it is not impossible given that the beef may also
be of a low quality due to the cheap outfitting budget. It is often impossible to be completely certain
of the origins of certain animals without doing a full isotopic analysis to determine provenience and I
would suggest this be undertaken in the future.
59
6.Discussion
This chapter aims to bring together the analysis of the previous chapters along with
some of the previous research by other authors to provide a comprehensive investigation of the
research questions. First the compounding factors that make this wreck unique must be thoroughly
addressed. Then the discussion will turn to the first research question that deals with the issue of local
versus imported food stuffs. Then the discussion will advance to the next research question; this will
address the patterns of faunal remains within the ship itself. The final research question pertaining to
faunal patterns will be compared to patterns of other items found in the excavation.
One of the largest factors at bay that makes the Machault such a unique situation is that they
made anchor in the Restigouche River for an extended period of time. The camp on shore was made
on the 18th of May while word was sent to Montreal for further instructions (Beattie and Pothier,
1996, 14). For this camp a large amount of the stores were unloaded, including the majority of the
cooking utensils, ovens, and food supplies (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 14). Vaudreuil, the Commander of New France based in Montreal, also ordered that the foods and supplies be taken ashore and
stored in a safe place (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 19). In fact, the only objects found on the ship at
the time of its sinking were those that would not be useful in a land based camp (Waddell and Zacharchuck, 1984, 71). The Machault was not engaged in battle until the 28th of June, and wasn’t sunk
until the 8th of July, which leaves almost two months for the camps to be prepared and the necessary stores to be moved to shore. Although Captain Giraudais was caught off guard by the British
fleet there was still time for almost all personal belongings to be removed from the ship before it
was scuttled and almost all goods pertaining to everyday human activity were also removed(Waddell
and Zacharchuck, 1984, 69-71). Ross also notes that the items meant for the war relief absent from
the ship (Ross, 1981, 337). Therefore, the only remains left on the ship were cargo. Many of the crew
members would have brought small goods to trade in North America for their own personal profit,
and the officers would have brought a larger quantity of higher quality goods (Waddell and Zacha-
60
rchuck, 1984, 70). It is also important to note that ship was not the property of the Crown but rather
belonged to Joseph Cadet, who was a prominent merchant and the munitionnaire in Montreal (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 11).
The process of the ships sinking is also important to consider. At the time of the decision to
scuttle the Machault it had already sustained heavy artillery damage and had several feet of water
in the hold (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 34; Dagneau, 2008, 278). Assuming the ship was scuttled in
the normal fashion several barrels of gun powder would have been placed under the decks and this,
combined with the location of the powder deck, would ensure the sinking of the ship (Dagneau, 2008,
278). This caused a large explosion in the rear of the vessel, with divers later observing a portion of
the decking a staggering 400 feet from the wreck (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984, 69). After the area
near the stern had exploded the wreck sank but, the water was so low that a portion of the ship remained above water and continued to draw enemy fire (Dagneau, 2008, 278). It is also clear that the
ship continued to burn from the port side mid-ship down to the bow (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984,
69). It can also be seen in Figure 15 that there is a concentration of burnt bone near the bow of the
ship and along the port side.
How the site formed is a very important factor in what is preserved or not and therefore is
available to be studied by archaeologists. When the ship went down the port bow was the furthest
downstream and the lowest in the mud (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984, 69). Because of the tides the
artifacts in the port bow were silted in, which allowed them, especially the organic materials, to be
excellently preserved (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984, 69-70). Evidence of drifting from the currents
can be observed in the locations of some of the bones that are found well past the stern, see Figure
9. Woodhead in her 1978 paper also mentions that the river currents have washed some of the items
away from their original locations (Woodhead, 1978, 101). The starboard bow however appears to
have been sheared off by ice (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984, 69). The stern took more damage from
61
the ice and current over time because it was more exposed than the bow (Dagneau, 2008, 278). These
factors all contribute to what is known as n-transforms, or natural transformations of the site (Schiffer,
1996). The local environment caused little disruption at this site as kit settled into a relative stability
(Dagneau, 2008, 277). The other factors that affect the formation of the site are what are known as
c-transforms, or cultural transformations (Schiffer, 1996). These are relatively limited for this wreck
after its sinking because it was inaccessible for salvage post sinking, as evidenced by much of the material that would normally be salvaged remaining intact on the vessel (Waddell and Zacharchuck 1984,
70).
The first main research question of this thesis is if the Machault will have a pattern of both local
and imported foodstuffs based on their extended stay at the Restigouche River. Looking at the distributions for what faunal remains are of known local origin, see chapter 4.4, it becomes clear that there
is no discernible pattern in the locations of the known local species, as they span the entire wreck in
meager quantities. It is unlikely that a significant amount of remains would have been taken from the
shore camp and placed back on the Machault, but a small amount may have been put onboard for
provisions during the battle. However the near absence of cooking tools onboard makes this theory
hold little ground (Ross, 1981, 301,337).
In the frequency chapters for Sus scrofa (Chapter 5.2) and Bos taurus (Chapter 5.3) we
again gain insight into this issue. The Sus scrofa chapter details that the large amount of undesirable
cuts of meat, heads and extremities, in such relatively large proportions indicate that the meat was
salt-pack and of a low quality. There is also a full barrel of salt-pork from the Machault at the Battle of
the Restigouche National Historic Site museum. Yet more evidence of a foreign origin for the pig bone
would be from the historic manifests of what the convoy of ships was to bring with them to Montreal,
which includes large amounts of salt-pork (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 10). The conclusion from the
Bos taurus frequencies are similar, with the vast majority of the remains being attributed to salt-beef.
62
With one possibly exception due to the inclusion of a skull fragment with horn still attached, see Figure 22.
If we look into the butchery patterns, they too can aid in the investigation of this ques-
tion. The large number percentage of cut marks found on the Bos taurus remains, over 65%, does
contribute to the idea that they were imported as salt-beef. The percentages of cut Sus scrofa are
smaller but still significant at 23%. The overall percentage of cut remains for the entire collection is
also around 23%. If we look at the distribution of cut remains, chapter 4.5 and Figure 13, we can clearly see that are concentrated in large numbers in the main hold of the ship.
However, the sawn remains in chapter 4.6 and Figure 14 present a slightly different account.
There are only 21 sawn bones in the entire collection, 17 of them are Bos taurus and interestingly one
of them is from a known local species, turkey. These sawn bones have an unusually large dispersal
pattern, but the majority are found towards the bow. It seems unlikely that a barrel sent from France
would include such small number of sawn bones. However it does not exclude the possibility that they
were. With the majority of the sawn bones being cattle and at least one cow being possibly butchered
locally it could be suggested that this is in line with thinking that the sawn bones are of a local origin.
However, it is often impossible to be completely certain about the origins of animal products unless
some type of further study, such as isotope testing has been performed.
Insight into storage containers may also give some indications of whether the remains were local or foreign. If we look at the non-cask storage vessels for food we find relatively few in the Machault assemblage. There is a 49 centimeter tall earthenware vessel that has a mouth opening large
enough to ladle out the contents that could have been used to store or transport food supplies or
water (Sullivan, 1986, 60). It is not clear what this vessel contained but it does resemble other vessels
that were used to transport water, there is also the risk of spoilage from oxygen entering from the
mouth of the vessel. There are also several French made glass bottles for food, drink, or other prod-
63
ucts (Sullivan 1986, 60). These glass bottles are likely to have been too small to be useful to transport
meat in. At least one oak barrel was found that contained salt-pork, but its location is unknown (Sullivan, 1986, 60). Many of the staved containers found were not for food but instead for armory based
activities (Bradley, 1983, 6). However Bradley does note that a small number of salt-pork kegs that
would hold 23.86 litres each were found (Bradley, 1983, 9). This again confirms the existence of saltpork on the ship when it sank.
The second main research question of this thesis is that there will be a discernible pattern in
the locations of faunal remains. Most of the analysis for this research question is covered in chapter
four. A possible reconstruction of the ships functional interior, including the locations of its holds can
be seen in Figure 24. In this we can see that the main hold is where the majority of the faunal remains
are found, see Figure 9. In this main hold we find one of the Sus scrofa clusters as well as almost all of
the Bos taurus remains, see Figures 10 and 11. The cut remains also seem to originate from this main
hold, see Figure 13. The local and sawn remains do not have any apparent patterns of dispersal, See
Figures 12 and 14.
The second cluster of the Sus scrofa remains and the majority of the burnt remains, most of
which are identified as being Sus scrofa, are found forward of the mast in a seemingly separate hold
based of the dispersal patterns, see Figures 10 and 15. More evidence of two separate holds can be
seen in the all remains map, Figure 9, where there appears to be a gap in the coverage of the remains,
perhaps because of the presence of a bulkhead. This storage area could be the section marked with
“?” in Figure 24. These patterns are important to establish but little can be said about why these patterns exist until they are compared to the patterns of other goods found.
To better understand why these items are in their locations it is important to connect with the
previous research. In Dagneau’s 2008 PhD thesis he summarises the previous researches distributional
64
data into a single map, which can be seen in Figure 25. This map, and research, will be instrumental
in deciphering the distributions from other goods and comparing them to the patterns found for the
574
Figure 24. Possible reconstruction of the Machault . (Dagneau, 2008, 574)
Figure 159. Reconstitution vraisemblable des espaces à bord du Machault, d’après un devis de frégate de
1757 (Davis, 1982: 42-43; Parcs Canada, 1992: 52-53) (C. Dagneau, d'après Devis d'une frégate... 1757).
65
faunal remains. This is the third research question of this thesis, how do the patterns of faunal remains
intersect with patterns of other goods?
Starting in the bow with the cluster of burnt and Sus scrofa remains that appear to be separate
from the rest of the remains we can see from Figure 25 that there is only one corresponding cargo,
the English earthenware. This area would have been better protected from the explosion caused by
the scuttling of the vessel (Dagneau, 2008, 281). Although there is no recorded archaeological evidence for the presence of a wall or bulkhead (Dagneau, 2008, 238) the distinction between this area
and the main hold is evident based on the location of the cargo. The English earthenware is undoubtedly cargo (Dagneau, 2008, 238). Why then, are there the remains of Sus scrofa, not in the main hold,
with this cargo? There is a possibility that this particular cluster of remains were private cargo from
one of the officers or crew. As all crown provisions were reportedly removed from the ship after they
made camp (Beattie and Pothier, 1996, 19).
However the location of the galley was nearby, as evidence by the remains of bricks (Myles,
1980, 3). These bricks thought to have come from the galley stove were found forward in the bow on
the port side (Myles, 1980, 3). According to Myles the galley, or kitchen, would normally be on the
upper gun deck in the bow area just after the foremast (14). From the analysis form Ross’s 1981 study
of the tools found aboard he concluded that galley was located in the forward mast area (340). It is
strongly noted that not many artifacts are found, and that most would have been removed prior to
the ships sinking (Ross, 1981, 337). In Dagneau’s map, Figure 24, you can see the location of the galley
is right on top of the storage areas marked with a”?”. The burned bone, often associated with the
cooking process is also found in the forward location, see Figure 15, but keeping in mind that the ship
was scuttled and continued to burn after its scuttling it is more likely that the burning of the remains
is from this instead.
66
If we continue aft in the vessel we will come to the main hold, where all of the Bos taurus remains are located and the second group of Sus scrofa remains are, see Figures 11 and 10. We will also
encounter the majority of the cut remains here, see Figure 13. When consulting Figure 25 it is evident
that the majority of the cargo is also in this hold. Which begs the question why are the remains here?
573
The
Figure 25. Sythesis of cargo ranges (Dagneau, 2008, 573)
Figure 158. Synthèse des aires de répartition de mobilier. Épave du Machault (C. Dagneau, vectorisation T.
most
logical
all of the factors combined is that this food would be cargo
Boyer,
dessinconclusion
P. Waddell – with
Parcs Canada).).
intended
for trade, or private consumption. This conclusion is made on the proximity of the other trade cargos,
the removal of all crown supplies, the removal of all tools and other items associated with human
everyday activities.
If we move further aft in the vessel the faunal remains are extremely sparse and can not be
considered to be significant. It is worth noting that this area was more greatly impacted by the explosions of the scuttling. This area also suffered from using a less rigorous method of excavation than the
areas further forward (Dagneau, 2008, 279). In a vessel of this size it would not be uncommon to have
a second galley in this area for the captain; however the study of bricks provides no evidence of this
67
(Myles, 1980, 15). In Woodheads 1978 study she supports the conclusion that a captain’s galley was
not present of this vessel (Woodhead, 1978, 101). There is also no support from the faunal remains
for this theory as not many remains were found in this area.
68
7.Conclusion
The aims of this thesis were to indentify patterns in the collection of faunal remains from the
Machault that relate to their origins, distributions and connections with other goods. The origins of
the remains seem to be largely foreign, with some exception. The pattern of distribution with the
Machault was that the majority of the remains were located in the main hold and a smaller section
was nestled in bow. In connection with the other items found in on the shipwreck and the compounding factors of the wreck it becomes a logical conclusion that the remains were likely cargo. These
conclusions were made based on the analysis of the data through general statistical, distribution, and
frequency breakdowns.
69
8.Refrences
Beattie, J. and Pothier, B. (1996). The battle of the Restigouche. Ottawa, Canada. Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage. Retrieved from http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/saah/restigouche.pdf. Accessed on July 8, 2015.
Bintliff, J. (2008). History and Continental Approaches. In Bentley, et al (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham.
Bradley, C. (1983). Preliminary analysis of the staved container remains from the underwater excavtion of the french pricateer le Machault. Microfiche report series 113. Ottawa. Parks Canada
Byers, S. (2008). Introduction to forensic anthropology. Boston, United States. Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapin, R. (1990). A Faunal analysis of the 17th century galleon Nuestra Senora De Atocha. Arizona,
United states. MA Thesis, The University of Arizona.
Dagneau , C. (2008): La culture matérielle des épaves françaises en Atlantique nord et l’économie-monde capitaliste, 1700-1760. Université de Montréal. Montréal. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/6426/Dagneau_Charles_2009_these.pdf;jsessionid=69F9575B33A942367D5720769042DF7B?sequence=1
Daily, P. (1969). Approaches to Faunal analysis in Archaeology. American antiquity 32 (2), 146-151. Retrieved from http://users.clas.ufl.edu/davidson/proseminar/Week%2014%20Subsistance/Daly%20
1969%20faunal%20analysis.pdf. Accessed on May 12, 2015.
Eccles, W. (1979). Rigaud de Vaudreuil de CavagniaL, Pierre de, Marquis de Vaudreuil in Dictionary
of Canadian Biography, vol. 4, University of Toronto/Université Laval, accessed January 10, 2016,
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/rigaud_de_vaudreuil_de_cavagnial_pierre_de_4
ESRI. (2015) GIS Dictionary. Retrieved from http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary/
term/Jenks’%20optimization. Accessed on June 10, 2015.
70
Guiry,E. et al. (2012). A stable isotope method for indentifying transatlantic origin of pig (Sus Scrofa)
remains at French and English fishing stations in Newfoundland. Journal of archaeological science
32 (39), 2012-2022.
Hamilton, D. (1998). Methods of Conserving Underwater Archaeological Material Culture. (Report
Conservation Files: ANTH 605) Location: university. Retrieved from http://nautarch.tamu.edu/CRL/
conservationmanual/ConservationManual.pdf Accessed on may 12, 2015.
Morris, W. (1820). Remarks on the subject of packing and re-packing beef and pork, containing, also,
the material parts of the act, regulating the inspection of those articles for exportation from the
province of Lower Canada. Montreal. Nahum Mower.
Myles, V. (1980). Bricks fomr the wreck of the Machcault. Microfiche report series 101. Ottawa. Parks
Canada.
MG1. C]1A. Vol. 87. Part 3. Vaudrcuil to D’Angeac. 17 June 1760. pp. 368-83Text translated in Beattie
and Pothier p. 19
NA. MG1. E. Carton 21, Bigot to minister. 20 June 1760. p. 4. Text translated in Beattie and Pothier p.
14
Na.MG2.B Vol. 30 Evenements du Canada depuis Le mois de septembre 1760. Pp. 286-95. Text translated in Beattie and Pothier p. 9
Proulx, G. (1984) Between France and New France. Life aboard the tall sailing ships. Toronto and
Charlottetown, Canada. Dundrun press limited.
Reitz, E. (2008). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, L. (1981). Tools from le Machault. Microfiche report series 137. Ottawa. Parks Canada.
Schiffer, M. (1996). Formation process of the archaeological record. University of Utah press. Salt Lake
City.
71
Shinder, J. The Zoo-archaeology of shipwrecks. (Report)Florida: University of Western Florida. Retrieved from http://uwf.edu/argojournalapp/admin/body/faunal%20poster%20brown.pdf. Accessed on February 17, 2015.
Sullivan, C. (1986). The legacy of the Machault. Ministry of supply and services Canada. Ottawa.
Tourigny, E. (2009). What ladies and gentlemen ate for diner: yhe analysis of faunal materials recovered from a seventeenth century high status household at Ferryland, Newfoundland. Newfoundland, Canada. MA Thesis, Memorial University.
Törnqvist, O. (2014). The Skeleton in the Dune, Unlocking the Explanatory Potential of Shipwrecks
through Physical Landscape Studies. In Adams & Rönnby (eds.), Interpreting Shipwrecks: Maritime
Archaeology Approaches. Oxford.
Trigger, B. (2006). A history of archaeological thought; second edition. Cambridge university press.
New York.
Waddell, P. J. and Zacharchuk, W. (1984). The excavation of the Machault, An 18th century French
Frigate. Ottawa, Canada. Parks Canada. Retrieved from http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/
saah/excavation-machault.pdf Accessed on February 15, 2015.
White, T. and Black, M. with Folkens, P. (2012). Human Osteology: Third edition. Elsevier Academic
press. London.
Woodhead, E. (1978). Artifacts from the Machault related to foodways, artificial lighting and personal
use and wear : metal and organic materials. Microfiche report series 86. Ottawa. Parks Canada.
72

Analysis of the faunal remains from the Machault

Transcription

Similar documents

the Not So Usual Suspects Poster PDF

MSNews - Medical Services

The phrase “hips don`t lie” says it all. Hips not only provide shape

Pfeiffer syndrome is a rare craniofacial syndrome that mainly affects

How to make a wingbone call with photos.wps

"HEY, THAT TICKLES"—Eleven-month

Leon`s Testimonial Oct 26-10

Size Sorting Bones