Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 26

Analysis of Animal Remains from the Old Fort Point Site, Northern Alberta

by Anne Meachem Rick

Discussion and Conclusions

Bones of most of the larger fish species occurring in Lake Athabasca were found among the faunal remains. Walleye and pike were the most abundant species, both in number of bones and MNI; these are fish of fairly shallow water habitat and can be caught during most months of the year. The whitefish, staple food of fur-trade wintering posts, here ranks only third in numbers of individuals, but whitefish bones are fragile and they may not have survived as well as those of walleye and pike. Grayling. Thymallus arcticus, and goldeye, Hiodon alosoides, were not found although both are good-sized, edible fish occurring in the delta area at the west end of Lake Athabasca (Scott and Crossman 1973: 302 map, 328 map).

The Peace-Athabasca delta, just a few miles west of Old Fort Point, is an area extremely rich in waterfowl, particularly during spring and fall when many species migrate through the area: thus it is interesting that so few waterfowl bones were found at the site. If the site is assumed to be Fort Wedderburn II, then this paucity becomes more understandable, for the occupants would have been there after the major flights of migrating birds had passed southward in fall and before spring migration began in earnest. The presence of grouse and ptarmigan in the faunal remains indicates that these edible birds were hunted as well as the larger aquatic species. Probably all birds found at the site were used for food although the trumpeter swan was valued for its skin as well as its flesh and goose skins were also occasional trade items at the fur posts.

Among the mammals, all three large ungulates which ranged through this region — caribou, moose and bison — were found at this site. Only two varying hares occur although this species was often a major food item at posts. Four furbearers — beaver, Arctic fox, red fox and otter — were definitely identified and as many as seven (adding the unidentified mustelid, wolf and possibly coyote) might have been present. Of this group only beaver and otter were valued highly for meat as well as fur; however, during periods of food scarcity almost any kind of meat was eaten. Thus the furbearers found here could have been food items, animals trapped near the site and brought into camp to be skinned, or both.

Of domestic animals, the dog was almost certainly present despite the fact that no single canid fragment could be identified unequivocally as this species. The dogs at Fort Wedderburn I were probably taken along in the move to Fort Wedderburn II. No domestic ungulates such as horse, cow, sheep or pig were recorded from the faunal material and this is in keeping with the proposed 1817-18 date for the site. Perhaps the first ungulate introduced to this area was the horse; one was known to have been at Fort Wedderburn in 1820-21, after the fort had been moved back to its original location (Krause 1976: 33), and Innis (1970: 295) notes that the journal of 1823-24 mentions horses in use at Fort Chipewyan.

Few general conclusions can be made about butchering or cooking at this site because of the small size of the sample. Fish, birds and some mammals probably were brought to the site whole, since skeletal elements from various parts of the body were present in many cases. Large mammals could have been brought in as sections or entire animals. Beaver, Arctic fox, red fox and otter are represented by major body bones indicating that some furbearers arrived at the fort as whole animals rather than as skins. Cut marks were found on bones of pike, swan, goose, hare, beaver, moose, caribou and bison and seem to be primarily butchering marks, although some of the cuts on bird bones may have been made during removal of meat after cooking. The only clear example of a skinning cut is a beaver distal tibia fragment showing marks where the pelt was cut away. Not many bones were burned: several pike and walleye bones, a single unidentified bird femur, a beaver tibia, three red fox bones and some fragmentary unidentified mammal bones. Burning does not necessarily indicate cooking; it could result from deliberate disposal of bones in a fire or chance burning of bone refuse.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the site occupation was brief, and this in itself could account for so few animal remains being found. Another reason for the scarcity of bones at Old Fort Point may be the presence there of dogs. Dogs are efficient bone destroyers and can chew up some bones to the point where they leave no archaeological trace. Many of the fish, bird and mammal bones from the site bore tooth marks and other indications of gnawing by large carnivores, probably dogs.

Calculations of usable meat (based on MNI) provided by species which may have served as food are useful at localities where large numbers of individuals have been identified but are of doubtful value at a small site such as Old Fort Point where the presence of one or a few large animals can distort the results. Nevertheless, these calculations have been made and are included in Table 1. A total of 1035.1 kg of edible meat is estimated from the faunal remains, divided among the vertebrate classes as follows: fish, 103.5 kg (10%); birds, 22.1 kg (2%), and mammals, 909.5 kg (88%). The single bison accounts for nearly half of the total usable meat at this site and mammals seem to have provided a much larger proportion of meat than did fish. However, keeping in mind that many fish bones were discarded by the archaeologists because of their poor condition and that perhaps only part of a bison might have been brought back to the fort rather than an entire animal, fish may actually have played a much larger part in the economy than indicated by the bone remains analyzed. In addition, the figures for kilograms of usable meat per individual are averages which do not take into account large individuals, particularly important in the case of fish where the adult size range is extensive. Birds provided only a small amount of meat in comparison with fish and mammals.

Note that no weight and usable meat estimates are given in Table 1 for the two individuals classed as Tetraonidae and Mustelidae or the two Canis individuals. Since these animals cannot be accurately identified, one can only guess at their average weights. However, the bird would have supplied less than .5 kg of meat, the mustelid probably less than 1 kg and each Canis probably somewhere between 25 and 50 kg. Percentages of edible meat provided by the three classes would change only slightly if these figures were added to the totals in Table 1.

(click on image for PDF version.

Table 2 gives bone numbers and weights for the different vertebrate classes and is included to aid comparison of these data with those from other sites in which bone numbers and weights have been stressed as analytic tools. While both these types of information are useful, many adjustments must be made to raw data before they can be compared, in order to reflect natural differences between classes in number of skeletal elements and skeletal weight.

Depositional patterns in the faunal material are unclear. Many bones could have been thrown over the nearby scarp and thus lost to archaeologists. Site erosion caused movement of artifacts downslope toward the northwest. Although an attempt was made to fit together broken bones, only one crossmend could be made, and that between two fragments of a large goose humerus found in the sub-floor pit in the north room and in the northwest pit. This seems to indicate that bones, too, eroded out in a northwesterly direction. In general, bones occur inside the building and outside to the north and west (the direction of the down-slope). The north and central rooms contained moderate amounts of fish, bird and mammal bones, while the southeast and southwest rooms contained lesser amounts of fish bone, no bird bones and only a few mammal bones. Even when the two south rooms are considered together (each is only one-half the size of the other rooms) they contain little bone compared to the north and central rooms.

Twelve pits (Fig. 1, Table 3) are present, five within the building in the north, central and southeast rooms and seven outside to the east, north and west. The three pits east of the building are devoid of animal bones and four of the inside pits (in the central and southeast rooms) have no bones or only a very few. Of all the inside pits, only the sub-floor pit in the north room contained a significant quantity of faunal remains. Eighty-six fragments representing five fish species (whitefish, lake trout, pike, sucker and walleye), swan, medium and large goose, hare, unidentified large bird and mammal and a bone of uncertain class were found there. The southernmost of the southwest pits held three moose vertebrae but no other bones. The north pit outside the building contained 103 bones among which were whitefish, pike, walleye, ptarmigan, Tetraonidae, hare, red fox and unidentified medium to large and large mammal bones. The northwest exterior pit held 119 bones including whitefish, pike, walleye, merganser, Tetraonidae, medium and large goose, Canis sp. (wolf?), otter, Arctic fox and some unidentifiable medium to large and large mammal pieces. The northernmost of the southwest pits contained 435 fragments, mostly fish (whitefish, pike, sucker and walleye), as well as one ptarmigan bone, medium and large bird fragments, a bison vertebral spine and numerous fragments from medium to large mammals. Fish, bird and mammal bones are represented in the pits in approximately the same proportions in which they occur over the whole site, although the sub-floor pit in the north room contains nearly as many bird as mammal bones. While some pits may contain bones secondarily deposited by erosion, the relatively large quantities of bone in four pits may indicate that those pits served some sort of storage or disposal function.

Information on the season during which this site was occupied was important in determining its identity. Historical and archaeological evidence pointed toward the site being Fort Wedderburn II, but was not conclusive. The faunal analysis, while not proving that this is indeed the fort site, is in accord with this identification. The fish at the site could have been caught in most seasons; fish were taken throughout the year at Lake Athabasca outposts although fishing was poor in summer and the major part of the catch was collected in late fall and early winter. Most of the mammals yield no information on seasonality since they could be caught year-round; however, furbearers were more likely to have been taken during winter when their fur was prime. No bones of young birds or mammals were found, thus providing no evidence for summer occupation although not denying it. In contrast, the presence of Arctic fox and willow ptarmigan remains indicates occupation during the cold season. The Arctic fox's range is usually farther north than Lake Athabasca but some animals occasionally wander south during fall and winter. Willow ptarmigan breed on the tundra, migrating south to the forest in October and November and returning north in April. Both these species would have had to be taken during the period October to April, the approximate time during which Fort Wedderburn II existed. Spruce and ruffed grouse are resident in the area all year. Swans, geese and ducks would have been in the region during spring, summer and fall; the large goose bones may represent migrant forms occurring in the area during spring and fall or perhaps late summer and fall only. Possibly the scarcity of bird bones is an indication that the site was not in use during the late spring, summer or early fall when waterfowl would have been abundant and easily obtained.