Page 37 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

animal would have been consumed by the peo- ple living on the site. In rural areas and a fron- tier setting like St. Mary’s with people general- ly living far apart, this is probably a legitimate assumption. Where it becomes false is within urban settings where one animal can be butch- ered and consumed by dozens of households. On 17th-century Maryland tobacco plantations and even in St. Mary’s City itself, no food market or butcher operated, meaning that much of the meat from an animal was likely consumed by the household. After this research was well-advanced, a new method of estimating the significance of each species to the diet was introduced. It used the weight of the bones and the available meat was derived with a statistical formula. It is supe- rior when dealing with urban settings. However, for most Colonial Chesapeake contexts, where the assumption that most of the animal was eaten by the household applies, the meat based on the
number of individuals method works. A compar- ison by faunal specialist Dr. Joanne Bowen found that in such a situation, the two methods yield similar results.14
The earliest bone samples yielded cattle and pig bones but also significant quantities of deer. Many bones of the Sheepshead fish were present, which is now mostly extinct in the Chesapeake. Other fish included white perch, red drum and black drum. Also consumed were animals ranging from raccoons and box turtles to water-fowl and a few passenger pigeons.
Estimating the meat from these animals showed that even at this early period of settle- ment, beef made up almost half of the total meat available for consumption. Pork accounted for perhaps 18%, but wild meat sources, mostly deer along with small mammals, birds, and fish togeth- er contributed over one third of the total. One reason for the large quantities of deer may be due
figure 22
Morgan Jones pitchers recovered from the excavations at St. Mary’s City.
35