Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 3

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

by Charles E. Cleland

Fort Michilimackinac and the Juntunen Site

Although there are substantial differences in the subsistence patterns of the French and British occupations of Fort Michilimackinac, the kinds and proportions of food sources utilized by these two historic and essentially European societies are basically very similar when compared to the aboriginal subsistence pattern of the Straits of Mackinac area. The subsistence data from the Juntunen site is included in this study as an example of the type of subsistence pattern developed by a well-adapted, non European culture of the Straits region at the time of first European contact. This site illustrates the fact that an economy very different from those of either the French or British was not only possible, but that in all probability such an economy was much better adapted to the available natural resources of the Straits.

The Juntunen site represents a summer phase of a Late Woodland subsistence system which includes both large summer fishing villages and small winter hunting camps (Cleland 1966). This settlement configuration is in large part due to the distribution of the available food supply. It would perhaps be more accurate to say the non-available food supply, since the mixed coniferous-hardwood forests of the area will not carry large herbivorous populations, and since the poor sandy soil and short growing season are not conducive to reliable agriculture. Fish was the only natural food which was both plentiful and reliable enough to support even seasonal population aggregates. Fish, particularly sturgeon and whitefish, were exploited by these Late Woodland peoples in great quantity when they became available during the spring and fall spawning periods. During the winter, when fish were not so plentiful, the villages disbanded and families scattered to the interior to hunt big game. To some extent, the Indians of the Straits of Mackinac were still practicing this type of subsistence pattern as late as the early 1760s when Alexander Henry described his sojourn with a Chippewa family in northern Michigan (Quimby 1962).

Figure 3 shows that while the people who occupied the Juntunen site exploited many more species of both fish and mammals than either the French or British, the European settlers of Fort Michilimackinac exploited a proportionately greater variety of fowl. This phenomenon is easily explained by the introduction of firearms and the use of these in fowling. Evidence for this activity is the high frequency of shot holes in the bird bone from Michilimackinac. The obvious implication of the presence of a wide range of food species in the Juntunen site is that the Indians had a much narrower margin of subsistence assurance than the white settlers. Unfortunately our language lacks a good descriptive term for the act of intensive foraging. If the Indians of the Straits area were forced to forage intensively to add a measure of economic security to their fish-based summer settlements, it seems inconceivable that the French and British could have maintained a larger permanent population which was not based upon fish and which shows no evidence of foraging. Since big game, which the bone refuse leads us to believe was the most important source of meat, was not a reliable food resource in this region, the French and especially the British must have been relying to some extent on imported and storable foods. This fact accounts for the difference in the kinds and frequencies of animal bones found on aboriginal and historic sites.