Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763): the Faunal Remains of Fort Shirley, PA in Context

Home , Fort Duquesne, Fort Loudoun (Tennessee), Fort Shirley

Welker, M, et al. 2018. Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763): The Faunal Remains of Fort Shirley, PA in Context. Open Quaternary, 4: 5, pp. 1–15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.40

RESEARCH PAPER Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763): The Faunal Remains of Fort Shirley, PA in Context Martin Welker*, Shane Billings*, Jonathan Burns† and Sarah McClure*

Early British generals faced serious challenges in delivering and storing sufficient provisions for 18th century British soldiers and colonial militia. This analysis investigates the influence of developed road systems that facilitated delivery of provisions and resulted in distinctive dietary patterning. The comparison of faunal data from forts located on major road systems with frontier garrisons and associated Native American villages like Fort Shirley and Aughwick Old Town, a short-lived (1754–1756) French and Indian War frontier fortification in central Pennsylvania, indicates a significantly reduced reliance on domestic livestock at these more inaccessible locations. These results suggest that road infrastructure heavily influenced military provisioning, encouraged adaptation to frontier living through reliance on wild game, and resulted in varied dietary practices at military installations in eastern North America.

Keywords: Military provisioning; Diet; Distribution; Infrastructure; Frontier

Introduction Many European officers recognized that conditions in The logistics of supply delivery are one of the primary North America would challenge standard military proce- challenges to sustaining any military campaign. Extensive dures (Beattie 1986; Parker 1970). Among these were the documentary and archaeological research has been lack of established sources of the domestic crops and live- devoted to military provisioning practices in the Roman stock which formed the basis of highly-standardized 18th Army, and later 16th–19th Century English, French, Spanish, Century European military diets, and the lack of estab- and American armies in Europe, and both eastern and lished road and river routes to transport these goods in the southwestern North America (Crass and Wallsmith 1992; frontier regions where many campaigns were conducted. Cubbison 2010; King 1984; Parker 1970; Pippen 2010; The many failures of military supply systems in North Poirier 1976; Rogers, Bartholomew & Armstrong 1998). America are documented in daily logs and correspondence These analyses indicate a widespread reliance on domestic (Breitburg 1983; Forbes 1758a; Parker 1970; Wainwright crops and livestock which could be produced or purchased 1965). One of these is documented in the correspondence in large enough quantities to provision armies and garri- between George Croghan, the captain in charge of Fort sons and highlight the use of local sources in provisioning Shirley, and James Hamilton of the Pennsylvania Colonial (Cubbison 2010; King 1984; Parker 1970; Tokar 1999). In Government dated to 1755 which suggests that delivery addition to this literature, many variables are known to of supplies to Fort Shirley and other frontier fortifications influence dietary patterning, including local ecological was irregular and unreliable (Wainwright 1965). conditions (Martin 1991), status of site occupants (Mudar In this paper, we investigate the uniformity of French 1978), site function and access to roads, rivers, or other and Indian War (1754–1763) soldiers’ diets, and assess the forms of infrastructure involved in transporting and deliv- influence of local infrastructure in provisioning frontier ering supplies (Jones and Gabe 2015; Martin 1991; Scott forts. To accomplish this analysis, the animal bone assem- 1985; Scott 2008), urbanization (Albarella 2005; King blage recovered from recent excavations at Fort Shirley, a 1984; Landon 1996), and even relations with indigenous French and Indian War frontier fort on the Aughwick creek populations (Breitburg 1983). The effects of these condi- in central Pennsylvania, is compared to published datasets tions are often difficult to measure from archaeological from ten other French and Indian War fortifications in materials (see Jones and Gabe 2015). Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, Quebec, and Tennessee. Where rivers, roads, and local suppliers were available, standardized provisioning likely resulted * Pennsylvania State University, US in the domesticate-based diets described in historic docu- † Juniata College, US ments. However, frontier fortifications were also erected Corresponding author: Martin Welker ([email protected]) in areas lacking these key components. We hypothesize Art. 5, page 2 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) that comparison of faunal data from frontier fortifications funds deducted from soldier’s pay (Bannerman 2004; like Fort Shirley, which was located far from established Cubbison 2010; Parker 1970). European communities and predated the development of Colonial militia were provisioned by their respective road systems in the area, with those associated with road colonial assemblies, except when mustered into armies systems and urban centers will reveal significant differ- with British regulars at which time rations were provided ences in individual sites’ access to, and reliance on, standard by the British Treasury (Anderson 1984). Supplies pro- military provisions (Sullivan 1997). In doing so we examine vided to colonial regiments by their respective colonial if 1) successful provisioning resulted in similar dietary pat- governments usually resembled those of British regulars terns dominated by domestic cattle and pigs; and 2) poorly (Knox 1769), but at times, may have been more generous developed local infrastructure or a site’s isolation resulted (Anderson 1984). Officers and enlisted men were provided in significant variation from this dietary pattern. with the same quantities and types of rations, though Comparison of dietary data at French and Indian War officers had the monetary means to supplement their diet fortifications in North America provides a powerful case and introduce more variety (Antony 1972). Calculations study for investigating the effects of local infrastructure on based on 18th century military manuals indicate that a sin- soldiers’ subsistence practices for several reasons. First, the gle day’s rations for one man (Table 1) totaled between formalized nature of 18th century soldier’s daily rations pro- 2,400 and 3,100 calories (Cubbison 2010). vides a framework from which testable hypotheses regard- New World military forts were frequently located on ing what should and should not appear in soldier’s diets may frontiers where demand exceeded available supplies and be developed. Second, the abundance of excavated military underdeveloped local infrastructure impeded the deliv- fortifications dating to this period provides the data neces- ery of food and equipment. As a result, provisioning sol- sary to testing these hypotheses through direct comparison diers effectively in North America required alterations of contemporaneous assemblages reflecting relatively short to standard European operating procedures (Cubbison occupations. Finally, because many sites employed in this 2010). Provisions were transported to frontier fortifica- analysis were involved in General Forbes’ 1758 campaign to tions by boat where navigable rivers and lakes were avail- dislodge the French from Fort Duquesne, and relied upon able, wagon where road systems were developed, and a road network constructed for this campaign, they record pack horses where backwoods conditions impeded wagon the ability relative ease with which supplies could be deliv- travel (Forbes 1758b, c, d). Cattle were also herded to forti- ered at different stages of this systems construction. fications, or with marching armies, to reduce the number of wagons and horses needed for transport. Furthermore, Provisioning the British Military the British Army and Colonial Assemblies took a variety of In the 17th and 18th centuries, armies in Europe were provi- actions to achieve a degree of self-sufficiency at frontier sioned through a combination of government victualling, fortifications. Between 1760–1761 General Gage ordered private contracts, contribution quota imposed on local that gardens be planted at frontier forts to provide a more populations, and foraging (Antony 1972; Bannerman 2004). reliable source of greens (Dunbar 1760; Gladwin 1761). Movement towards larger, globally dispersed, and profes- Breweries were established at some forts to produce sional, European armies required to defend colonial empires spruce beer, an important source of vitamin C necessary in the 17th and 18th centuries necessitated alterations in the to stave off scurvy (Kopperman 2007; Cubbison 2010). manner in which provisions were collected and distributed. Attempts were made to keep herds of livestock at fron- In Britain this was especially true after the establishment of tier fortifications (Breitburg 1983; Coe 2006), and hunt- the New Model Army in 1645, though practices continued ing was encouraged when conditions allowed (Antony to evolve throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as Britain 1972). Despite these actions, shortages were frequent, and fielded increasingly large armies in Europe continent and deliveries of spoilt meat and vegetables were common North America (Bannerman 2004; Parker 1970). (Anderson 1984; Beattie 1986; Parker 1970). Provisioning 18th century British armies in Europe followed an established system. Responsibility for provision- The French and Indian War and Fort Shirley ing the navy and armies aboard ships was handled by the The French and Indian, or Seven Years’, War was one Victualling Board, while provisions for the army were of many conflicts between New France and the British handled by the British Treasury. Both of these entities colonies in eastern North America during the 18th Cen- issued contracts for necessary provisions and equipment to private contractors (Bannerman 2004). Contractors were required to ensure that a six-month supply of food Table 1: An 18th century soldier’s daily ration in the British stuffs and other equipment was on hand at permanent Army (Beattie 1986; Knox 1769; Williamson 1782). fortifications at all times (Bannerman 2004). The British government took responsibility for constructing infra- 1lb. beef, or ½–¾lb. pork, or 1lb. salt fish structure including roads and suitable storage facilities or magazines needed for delivering and storing provi- 1 to 1½lb. bread or flour sions (Bannerman 2004). While on the march, provisions ¼ pt. pease (peas) or beans for soldiers were purchased along with wagons or pack- 1 oz. butter or cheese horses for transport from local suppliers or middle men by sutlers, quartermasters, or commissaries, and paid with 1 oz. rice Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 3 of 15 tury. Conflict in North America centered over control of The British army recognized the value of Colonial sol- economically valuable North Atlantic fishing grounds diers familiar with the American wilderness and back- and fur trade opportunities in the Ohio River Valley. woods fighting was recognized early in the war and In the years leading up to the French and Indian War, made use of both colonial “rangers” and Indian traders France suffered a series of losses on both fronts. The as light infantry, scouts, and guides. One of these, George Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the War of Spanish Suc- Croghan, accompanied Washington on his excursion into cession (1701–1714), forced France to cede colonies in the Ohio Territory in 1753 and provisioned Fort Necessity Newfoundland and mainland Nova Scotia to the British, until Washington’s surrender on July 3, 1754 (Wainwright and with them the settlements closest to the Grand 1965). Following Washington’s surrender, Croghan retired Banks cod fisheries (Boscawen 2011). At the same time, to a camp on the Aughwick Creek in Pennsylvania seeking British Indian traders severely limited French access to refuge from his creditors. A party of 200 allied Ohio Mingo fur trade in the Ohio River Valley (Wainwright 1965). lead by the Half King established the village of Aughwick The French constructed a chain of forts from the Great Old Town 100 meters west of Fort Shirley (Spittler 2014; Lakes south to the Allegheny River between 1752 and Wainwright 1965; Volwiler 1926). 1753 to challenge British dominance in the region In 1755 General Braddock requested that two roads be (Wainwright 1965). constructed, one north and west from Fort Cumberland Virginia Governor Dinwiddie dispatched George in what is today Maryland towards the French position Washington, then an adjutant in the Virginia Colonial at Fort Duquesne, the other west from the Susquehanna Militia, to establish British claims to the territory and pre- River in Pennsylvania (Volwiler 1926, Figure 1). Governor vent further strengthening of French sympathy in the area Morris of Pennsylvania charged Croghan with surveying a in 1753 (Wainwright 1965). In February 1754, Washington, route from Shippensburg west to Fort Duquesne (Volwiler now a lieutenant colonel returned to the Ohio territory 1926). Croghan and his party headed west from Carlisle to construct a fort at the confluence of the Ohio and on March 29th 1755 following an old Indian trail along Allegheny rivers. The arrival of a larger French force in the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River before striking April forced Washington to abandon the site and retreat west (Volwiler 1926). Croghan’s team surveyed to within forty miles southeast where he constructed Fort Necessity 18 miles of the Youghiogheny River before a French scout- (Wainwright 1965). On May 28, 1754 Washington ing party forced them to retreat to Fort Cumberland ambushed a small detachment of 35 French soldiers (Volwiler 1926). Croghan and allied Mingo warriors from under the command of French military officer Joseph Aughwick Old Town joined General Braddock’s expedi- Coulon de Jumonville who died in Washington’s custody tion to dislodge the French from Fort Duquesne in the after the skirmish ended (Wainwright 1965). Washington summer, returning to Aughwick after Braddock’s defeat was forced to surrender Fort Necessity on July 4th when by a combined French/Native American army near the a larger French army arrived seeking retribution for the Monongahela River on July 9th (Rouvalis 2013; Wainwright death of Jumonville (Wainwright 1965). Though Britain 1965; Volwiler 1926). and France did not officially declare war until 1756, Over the fall of 1755 Croghan fortified his camp at Washington’s ambush of Jumonville is often considered Aughwick with a palisade and outfitted 40 militiamen the start of the French and Indian War. at his own expense (Campbell 2009; Wainwright 1965;

Figure 1: Map of the road systems and placement of British frontier fortifications during the French and Indian War. Art. 5, page 4 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

Volwiler 1926). On December 9th Croghan was commis- Materials and Methods sioned a captain in the Pennsylvania militia, and tasked Fort Shirley with raising local militia and building three defensive Archaeological excavation revealed Fort Shirley to be a forts in western Pennsylvania to supplement Croghan’s bastioned, roughly 50 × 44 meter, rectangular fortification fortified camp which was rechristened Fort Shirley containing two large hearth features and several struc- (Wainwright 1965; Volwiler 1926). Croghan became tures supported on horizontal log sills (Burns, Drodnock Sir William Johnson’s Deputy Indian Agent in March of & Smith 2010; Rouvalis 2013; Spittler 2014), reflecting a 1756. Command of Fort Shirley passed to Captain Hugh map of the area in 1762 (recreated in Africa 1883). Palisade Mercer (Wainwright 1965). Under Mercer’s command Fort posts were rooted in a construction trench except where Shirley served as the advance staging point for General shallow limestone bedrock deposits in the southwest cor- Armstrong’s successful raid on the Ohio Delaware village ner forced Croghan to excavate a builder’s trench. The of Kittanning in August of 1756. Fort Shirley was decom- faunal assemblages recovered from Fort Shirley (n = 5985) missioned soon after the raid when General Armstrong and Augwick Old Town (n = 87) were collected using 1/4th declared the site indefensible, and retreated to a new line inch screens for general excavation units and 1/16th of fortifications to the east (Volwiler 1926). inch screens for feature fill. Faunal material was identi- Brigadier General John Forbes was assigned the task fied to the lowest possible taxonomic category through of leading the next British campaign to capture Fort direct comparison to comparative specimens and relevant Duquesne in March of 1758. Despite pressure from his atlases (Brown and Gustafson 1979; Hillson 2005; Gilbert colonial allies to employ the same road used by Braddock 2003). Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and Mini- in 1755, Forbes selected a more northern route following mum Number of Individuals (MNI) counts were tabulated existing roads to Carlisle and Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, for Fort Shirley taking into account epiphyseal fusion data proceeding from there to Fort Loudoun (PA), then to Ray’s (Silver 1969). Data from this analysis are openly accessible Town (Bedford, PA) on unfinished roads constructed fol- in the Penn State Scholarsphere Data repository (http:// lowing the route surveyed by Croghan during Braddock’s scholarsphere.psu.edu). The assemblage is curated at the campaign (Cubbison 2010; Volwiler 1926). From Bedford Juniata College Cultural Research Institute. onwards Forbes’ army constructed its own road west to Fort Duquesne (Cubbison 2010). This strategy was slower Comparative Sample than employing existing roads used by Braddock in 1755 Faunal data from additional French and Indian War fortifi- because it required widening existing tracks and improv- cations were assembled from published and unpublished ing the grade of roads, but allowed Forbes to establish reports for comparison (Table 2, Figure 2). Attempts or improve existing frontier fortifications as both supply were made to make this dataset as large as possible; how- depots and defensive works should retreat be necessary. ever, only French and Indian War sites with complete Croghan continued to act as an intermediary between the lists of identified species were included. Where possible, English and Native American allies in Pennsylvania, and additional criteria were used to further refine the dataset is mentioned repeatedly in Forbes’ correspondence over for this analysis. For example, only the material attrib- the course of the campaign (e.g., Forbes 1758d, e, f, g, uted to the permanent occupation of Fort Loudoun (TN) h, i, j). Forbes captured Fort Duquesne on November 26, was used, since this is believed to more accurately rep- 1758 after the French garrison burned and abandoned resent the diet of soldiers dependent upon the state of the site under cover of darkness (Cubbison 2010). The site local infrastructure than those present during the site’s was renamed Fort Pitt and remained in use through the construction who brought provisions and equipment to American Revolutionary War. the site with them (Breitburg 1983). Similarly, though a

Table 2: List of sites with faunal data included in this analysis.

Grouping Site Time Period Reference St. Louis Bastion (QC) 1760–1800 Balkwill and Cumbaa 1987 Urban Fort Loudoun (VA) 1756–1760 Clark 2003 Fort Frederick (ML) 1754–1783 John Milner Associates 1978 Fort Ashby (WV) 1755–1757 Martin and Mallard 2008 Fort Hunter (PA) 1756–1763 Dalton 2011 Accessible Fort Loudoun (PA) 1756–1765 Webster 1983 Fort Ligonier (PA) 1758–1766 Guilday 1970 Fort Stanwix (NY) 1758–1781 Hanson and Hsu 1975 Fort Shirley (PA) 1754–1756 This study Isolated Fort Loudoun (TN) 1757–1760 Breitburg 1983 Fort Michilimackinac (MI) 1761–1781 Shapiro 1978 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 5 of 15

Figure 2: Location of sites with faunal data included in this analysis (numbering follows order in Table 2). series of analyses have been performed at Fort Michili- Fort Ashby was located close Fort Frederick and the mackinac (e.g., Carlson 2012; Cleland 1970; Scott 1985; road Braddock constructed during his failed 1754 cam- Shapiro 1978), only Shapiro’s (1978) analysis is thought paign, a road that remained important for supply and to reflect the diet of British foot soldiers (see Scott 1985). troop movements during Forbes’ campaign. Fort Stanwix Historic maps (Anderson 1959; Brownell 1943; Dollerhide defended an important portage between the Hudson 1997; Lacock 1914; Thomas 1776; Volwiler 1926) were and Mohawk rivers in New York and was connected to used reconstruct provisioning networks and assess an supplies by both the Hudson River and the Oneida Carry, individual site’s accessibility as a factor of roads, navigable a key road system. river systems, and degree of urbanization. We expect these Forts Shirley, Loudoun (TN, Breitburg 1983), and variables to have influenced provisioning reliability. Based Michilimackinac (Shapiro 1978) were isolated by their on these spatial variables, we constructed three analytical frontier locations and underdeveloped infrastructure groups: urban, accessible, and isolated. and are grouped together into the “isolated” group. Fort Urban sites are expected to have enjoyed direct access to Shirley was located in western Pennsylvania at a site occu- local farmland and livestock herds made possible by estab- pied by Croghan as early as 1754. Though located along lished and maintained infrastructure, and well mapped a well-known trade route used by traders like Croghan transportation routes (Jolly 2013). The St. Louis Bastion in (Volwiler 1926), its location in the ridge and valley section Quebec City, Quebec (Balkwill and Cumbaa 1987) and Fort of Pennsylvania was north of any surveyed road and far Loudoun in Winchester (VA, Clark 2003) were located in from any major navigable river would have inhibited the urban settings and are placed in this grouping. delivery of supplies. Fort Loudoun (TN) was constructed Forts Hunter, Loudoun (PA), Frederick, Ligonier, Ashby, in Tennessee to counter the construction of French Fort and Stanwix, and Ligonier were located away from urban Toulouse in Alabama, and was located 100 miles from the centers, but on supply lines that likely increased the nearest garrison from which supplies were sent (Breitburg reliability of provisioning to sites and together form 1983). Fort Michilimackinac, constructed in 1713 at the the “accessible” group. Forts Hunter and Ligonier were northern tip of Michigan as a base for French fur trade constructed on farmland settled prior to the outbreak of enterprises, was occupied by the English in 1761 and held hostilities, and subsequently improved by Forbes as sup- for the remainder of the French and Indian War (Cleland ply depots and frontier defenses (Dalton 2011; Webster 1970). Despite its location on a major waterway, Fort 1982). Fort Ligonier was constructed during Forbes 1758 Michilimackinac suffered from shortages in supply result- campaign to capture Fort Duquesne (Grimm 1970). ing from difficulties in transporting provisions up the Art. 5, page 6 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

French-held Saint Lawrence River, and across the Great Results Lakes (Cleland 1970; Scott 1985). Historic documentation indicates that French and Indian Number of Identified Specimen (NISP) and Minimum War soldiers were provisioned with daily meat rations Number of Individuals (MNI) data were the only measures composed largely of beef and pork (Anderson 1984; widely available in the published sources and therefore Beattie 1986; Knox 1769; Parker 1970). Domestic live- serve as the units of measure in this analysis. ANOVA analy- stock are expected to be more abundant in faunal assem- sis performed in R was used to test for correlations between blages from forts located in developed areas or acces- site accessibility and the abundance of domestic livestock sible by roads and navigable rivers and lakes, than those recorded in faunal assemblages. The relative percentage of which are hard to reach. To test whether the abundance the total assemblage comprised by domestic livestock and of domestic livestock in the diets of soldiers at French key individual species (%NISP; %MNI) were used as meas- is influenced by site accessibility, faunal material from ures of species’ dietary importance. Since NISP values were Fort Shirley was analyzed (Table 3) and integrated into a not available for Fort Stanwix (Hanson and Hsu 1975), it dataset of French and Indian War fortifications (Tables 2 was included only in MNI-based calculations. Finally, the and 4). ANOVA analysis was used to test for statistically Simpson’s Diversity and Evenness was calculated in PAST significant differences in the abundance of domes- to assess species diversity and the abundance of those spe- tic livestock on forts associated with developed infra- cies relative to others at individual sites as a further inves- structure and reliably navigable rivers, and those which tigation of dietary patterning in this dataset. were not.

Table 3: Taxa Identified in the Fort Shirley and Aughwick Old Town Assemblages.

Fort Shirley Aughwick Old Town Species Scientific Name NISP MNI NISP MNI Domestic Cow Bos taurus 102 4 Domestic Cow (cf.) 1 Domestic Pig Sus domesticus 27 2 Domestic Pig (cf.) 1 Domestic Horse Equus caballus 1 1 Domestic Sheep Ovis aries 1 1 Domestic Dog Canis familiaris 59 1 White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 235 13 32 2 Deer (cf.) 1 Elk Cervus canadensis 1 1 Black Bear Ursus americanus 8 1 1 1 Canid Canidae 3 American Beaver Castor canadensis 2 1 Skunk (cf.) Mephitidae 1 Opossum Didelphis virginiana 1 1 Squirrel 1 1 Small Rodent Rodentia 3 Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 2 1 1 1 Turtle Testudines 49 9 Unidentified Bird 23 5 Unidentified Fish 58 1 Unidentified Reptile 6 1 Unidentified Shellfish 46 Large Mammal 1212 15 Medium Mammal 3031 6 Small Mammal 309 3 Unidentified Mammal 634 4 Unknown 167 4 Total 5985 26 87 6 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 7 of 15

Fort Shirley Seneca refuge village constructed west of Croghan’s fort A total of 453 fragments were identifiable to family, (Table 1). White-tailed deer again comprise the largest genus, or species levels (Table 3). White-tailed deer (Odo- single contributor to the assemblage (66.67%, n = 32 ele- coileus virginianus) make up 50.11% of the Fort Shirley ments). Age estimates based on a sample of nine epiphy- assemblage. A total of 28.77% of faunal remains were of seal fusion sites suggest the average age at death was again domestic livestock, of which cattle comprised (77.86%, 2.5 years (Purdue 1983). Black bear, elk, turkey, turtle, and n = 102), followed by pig (20.61%, n = 27). Horse, sheep, squirrel were also identified. No domestic livestock were black bear, beaver, dog, opossum, one turkey, and one identified in the Aughwick Old Town assemblage. member of the skunk family, turtle, and several highly friable pieces of unidentified freshwater mussel are rep- Intersite Comparison resented in the assemblage, but by relatively few ele- Domestic livestock comprise 80% or more of reported ments. Though chickens or other domestic fowl may be faunal assemblages from urban and accessible sites, but present, the assemblage of bird bone from Fort Shirley is noticeably less in those from isolated sites (Figure 3). heavily fragmented and none were identified to species. ANOVA analysis reveals no statistically significant differ- A total of 59 fragments identified as domestic dog were ences between the contribution of domestic livestock recovered from a single feature and likely represents the to urban and accessible fortifications (%NISP: a = 0.05, intentional burial of one individual. Measurements taken F = 1.792, p = 0.238, %MNI: a = 0.05, F = 2.861, p = 0.142). on the distal end and shaft of a radius was used to gener- Though these results suggest fortifications located in ate a minimum shoulder height of 60.09 cm (Harcourt urban settings and along established supply lines main- 1974), approximately the size of a modern large German tained the expected domesticate based diet recorded in shepherd. historical documents, our investigation of assemblage Epiphyseal fusion data indicate deer ranged in age from composition reveals differences in the way this diet was less than 5 months to over 3 years, with the majority achieved. Sites located in urban centers drew heavily from around 2.5 years (Purdue 1983). Similarly, cattle butch- both cattle and pigs, while frontier fortifications acces- ered at Fort Shirley were between 3.5 and 5 years of age sible via established supply lines tended to rely more (Silver 1969). Pigs were likely younger than 3.5 years when heavily on cattle alone (Table 4). Differences in these they were slaughtered (Silver 1969). No age estimates dietary compositions may result from the means by which were calculated for the single horse and sheep specimens. domesticates were delivered to sites. Though cattle were Only 48 fragments could be identified to species from commonly herded along supply lines to be slaughtered at material recovered from Aughwick Old Town, the Mingo frontier fortifications in order to accommodate poor road

100

Key: NISP 80 MNI

40 % Domestic Livestock

NA 0

A) A)

Ashby

Fort Fort Hunter Fort Shirley Fort Ligonier Fort Stanwix Fort Frederick

St. Louis Bastion Fort Loudoun (V Fort Loudoun (P Fort Loudoun (TN) Fort Michilimackinac

Urban Sites Accessible Sites Isolated Sites

Figure 3: Percent of the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP; black) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI; white) composed of domestic livestock on isolated and accessible fortifications included in this analysis. Art. 5, page 8 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

Table 4: The total size of assemblages used in this analysis in identified NISP and MNI, and the dietary contribution of important species calculated as a percent of the assemblage identified to species.

Group Site Time NISP %Domestic %Cow %Pig %Deer Period (MNI)1 Fort Loudoun (VA) 1756–1760 290 (40) 94.14 (77.50) 48.28 (32.50) 36.21 (27.50) 4.48 (12.50) Urban St. Louis Bastion (QC) 1760–1800 338 (21) 97.04 (80.95) 34.61 (23.81) 46.75 (33.33) 0 (0.00) Fort Frederick (ML) 1754–1783 959 (29) 98.85 (82.75) 64.86 (31.03) 32.33 (34.48) 0.31 (3.45) Fort Ashby (WV) 1755–1757 61 (11) 73.77 (63.64) 50.82 (27.27) 18.03 (18.18) 19.67 (18.18) Fort Hunter (PA) 1756–1763 62 (7) 85.48 (71.43) 53.23 (28.57) 9.68 (14.29) 9.68 (14.29) Accessible Fort Loudoun (PA) 1756–1765 782 (33) 84.65 (51.52) 64.71 (27.27) 5.75 (12.12) 0.64 (3.03) Fort Ligonier (PA) 1758–1766 4552 (104) 89.52 (60.58) 59.97 (23.08) 4.44 (5.77) 2.54 (15.38) Fort Stanwix (NY) 1758–1781 — (72) — (65.28) — (33.33) — (18.06) — (18.06) Fort Shirley (PA) 1754–1756 477 (20) 27.88 (40.00) 21.59 (20.00) 5.87 (10.00) 49.48 (40.00) Fort Loudoun (TN) 1757–1760 1109 (13) 56.27 (22.03) 34.90 (6.78) 16.14 (6.78) 19.84 (10.17) Isolated Fort Michilimackinac 1761–1781 354 (77) 27.02 (24.68) 8.94 (5.19) 5.06 (12.99) 0 (0.00) (MI) 1Based on NISP and MNI identified to species, see reports for total NISP and MNI. and frontier conditions, pigs were generally delivered were most heavily relied upon when a local source was barreled and salted. As a result, when supply lines were available, and under these conditions, were used to offset poorly developed and supplies difficult to transport, live reliance on cattle. animals may have been preferred. Simpson’s diversity and evenness indices provide a In contrast, domestic livestock contributes less than means of further investigating the diversity and distribu- 60% of the assemblage at all isolated sites, and less than tion of species in an assemblage. The Simpson’s diversity 30% in two of the three sites in this grouping. ANOVA index measures species richness, or number of species in analysis reveals statistically significant differences when an assemblage relative to the assemblage’s size. Values isolated sites are compared with either urban (%NISP: close to one represent high diversity (more species) while a = 0.05, F = 14.4, p = 0.032, %MNI: a = 0.05, F = 20.15, values close to zero represent low diversity (fewer spe- p = 0.021), or accessible sites (%NISP: a = 0.05, F = 24.97, cies). By comparing diversity indices generated for the p = 0.002, %MNI: a = 0.05, F = 23.18, p = 0.002). Within wild game and domestic livestock components of each isolated sites, domestic livestock contributed almost twice assemblage to the diversity index generated for the total as much to the diet of Fort Loudoun (TN) than other sites assemblage, we can see how important wild or domestic in the isolated grouping. Elevated levels of domesticated species are to total assemblage diversity. livestock in the Fort Loudoun (TN) assemblage are made In isolated sites, the diversity indices for wild game possible by relatively high contributions of both cattle cluster with the diversity indices for the total assemblage and pigs which may have resulted from attempts to estab- (Figure 4). This indicates that the diversity of the total lish a breeding herd of cattle at the site and consumption assemblage is driven largely by the wild game consumed of pigs purchased locally from the Cherokee (Breitburg by soldiers. In the case of the urban sites, wild game diver- 1983). ANOVA comparison of %NISP and %MNI cattle sity is much lower and instead these sites exhibit very reveals no significant differences when compared with similar domestic livestock and total assemblage diversity urban sites (%NISP: a = 0.05, F = 3.226, p = 0.17, %MNI: indices (Figure 4). This difference indicates that relatively a = 0.05, F = 5.78, p = 0.096), but significant differences few wild species were present and that they had minimal when compared to accessible sites (%NISP: a = 0.05, impact on the diversity of urban assemblages. Finally, F = 30.37, p = 0.002, %MNI: a = 0.05, F = 20.81, p = 0.003). accessible sites exhibit elevated wild game diversity than This pattern is reversed for %NISP when comparing pigs seen at urban sites but still show relatively similar domes- to urban (%NISP: a = 0.05, F = 28.76, p = 0.013, %MNI: tic and total assemblage diversity indices. This suggests a = 0.05, F = 50.98, p = 0.006) and accessible sites (%NISP: that assemblage diversity at accessible sites was driven a = 0.05, F = 0.468, p = 0.52, %MNI: a = 0.05, F = 3.145, largely by domestic livestock despite more wild game p = 0.119). As shown in Table 4, these statistical differ- species having been included. ences result from differences in how urban and accessi- Simpson’s evenness index complements patterns exhib- ble fortifications achieved prescribed, domesticate reliant ited by diversity indices by revealing how evenly species diets. Urban sites relied upon cattle and pigs to contribute are represented in an assemblage. Values close to one roughly equal proportions of their diet. In contrast, acces- indicate that equal numbers of all species are present, sible sites relied almost entirely upon cattle to fulfill their while values close to zero indicate that some species are dietary needs. Together these results suggest that pigs more common than others (Figure 5). Separate indices Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 9 of 15

Urban Accessible Isolated 1.0 More Diverse

0.8

0.6 Key: Domestic Total Wild 0.4

0.2

Less Diverse 0

y A) A) TN) inac ederick rt Hunter Ligonier Fort Ashb Fo Fort Shirley oudoun (V oudoun (P Fort oudoun ( Fort Fr L St. Louis Bastion rt L Fo Fort L Fort Fort Michilimack

Figure 4: Simpson’s Diversity Indices for the total assemblage, domestic livestock, and wild game in assemblages used for this analysis.

Urban Accessible Isolated 1.0 More Even

0.8

0.6 Key: Domestic Total Wild 0.4

0.2

Less Even 0

y r A) A) TN) inac ederick rt Hunte rt Shirley Fort Ashb Fo Fo oudoun (V oudoun (P Fort Ligonier oudoun ( Fort Fr L St. Louis Bastion Fort L Fort Fort L Fort Michilimack

Figure 5: Simpson’s Evenness Indices for the total assemblage, domestic livestock, and wild game in assemblages used in this analysis. calculated for NISP domestic livestock, wild game, and provisioning sites located along supply lines but distant total assemblage evenness reveal relatively even wild from any nearby agricultural availability. game evenness in urban sites, but highly uneven species representation in isolated ones (Figure 5). Highly Discussion uneven wild game indices at isolated sites may indicate Domestic livestock contributed significantly to the diet increased selectiveness in hunting efforts as one or sev- of soldiers stationed at many French and Indian War for- eral species were selectively targeted. Results for domestic tifications included in this study, supporting expectations livestock show that domestic species are more equally rep- derived from historic military manuals (Guilday 1970; resented in urban assemblages than at accessible sites (see Webster 1982). However, the ratio of species consumed Table 4) suggesting that cattle were preferentially used in varied depending upon site location and accessibility. Art. 5, page 10 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

The diets of soldiers stationed at French and Indian War forage adult cattle. Though age estimates were not available tifications were influenced by a diversity of factors relating for many sites, existing data indicate that prime age adults to site’s accessibility by roads, rivers, lakes, and the proxim- between 2.5 and 4 years of age comprise well over 65% ity and development of local food producing communities. percent of cattle at Fort Loudoun (PA) (Webster 1982). In The meat soldiers consumed is known to have come from contrast, cattle under 12 months of age make up as much one of three sources: salted or smoked meat transported as 45% of the cattle slaughtered for the garrison of the St. to the site; live animals herded to or raised on site; or wild Louis Bastion in Quebec City (Balkwill and Cumbaa 1987). game hunted locally by soldiers or their Native American King (1984) identified similarly elevated numbers of prime allies (Breitburg 1983; Cubbison 2010; Guilday 1970; Parker age cattle slaughtered at Roman frontier fortifications, 1970). Assessing the importance of these options to the diet and reliance on old and young individuals in urban gar- of soldiers using archaeological data remains challenging. risons. Balkwill and Cumbaa (1987) suggest this pattern At least some of the meat consumed by French and may indicate consumption of unnecessary male calves Indian War soldiers was delivered in the form of salted from local herds. Notably, King (1984) also highlights the and barreled pork (Cubbison 2010). Archaeologists have dominance cattle at Roman frontier fortifications in com- attempted to devise methods of identifying when bar- parison to more equivalent reliance on pigs and cattle in reled meat was used (e.g., Brophy & Crisman 2013). These urban centers –a pattern similar to that identified here methods have been recently formalized by Tourigny (2017) between urban and accessible sites. Taken together, these who relies upon a combination of element presence, data may suggest that roughly equal numbers of cattle and cut-mark placement. Unfortunately, these data were and pigs, and consumption of elevated numbers of young not available for many of the sites used in this analysis. and old cattle may be indicators that herds exist within Furthermore, documentary evidence suggests that almost the vicinity of military garrisons. perpetual maintenance was required to ensure that roads In contrast, large quantities of wild game consumed at remained passable, and wagons were for transporting bar- Forts Shirley, Loudoun (TN) and Michilimackinac indicate reled goods were in short supply (Forbes 1758i, k, l, m, n) a deviation from this general pattern, likely related to suggesting that other means were needed to reliably provi- these sites’ relative isolation. Wild game comprises 76.85% sion frontier garrisons. (n = 435 NISP, 70.37% MNI) of the identified material Forbes adapted to the poor road conditions and short- recovered from Fort Shirley, supporting statements about ages in wagons during his 1758 campaign by using pack the lack of provisions in 1755 correspondence between horses and herding live animals to sites for slaughter Croghan and James Hamilton of the Pennsylvania Colonial (Cubbison 2010; Forbes 1758a; Hoops 1758; Mercer Government (Wainwright 1965). Limited access to sup- 1758). Forbes (1758a) indicates that by July of 1758 his plies and equipment also meant that many of the 40 men troops were being provisioned largely with live cattle. Fort Shirley and other western forts were armed with Forbes (1758g, o) indicates that cattle were kept at his Croghan’s own rifles rather than smoothbore muskets supply forts and herded along with the army where for- issued by the Colonial government (Wainwright 1969). age could be found. Herding live animals to forts had Review of the historical literature reveals substantial docu- many advantages. Large herds of livestock, as many as mentary evidence of insufficient supplies at other French 200 (Hoops 1758), could be guarded by fewer soldiers and Indian War fortifications including Fort Loudoun (TN, than were required for comparable numbers of pack Breitburg 1983). These were isolated by the distance to horses or wagons and did not require packaging in bar- supply depots and the lack of maintained roads or navi- rels (Cubbison 2010). However, herding livestock over gable rivers for supply delivery. Though Cleland (1970) long distances came at the cost of lost body mass, lead- believed that supply lines were far more reliable during ing to frequent complaints about the poor quality of live- the British occupation of Fort Michilimackinac than the stock arriving at fortifications (Breitburg 1983; Guilday earlier French occupation, French and Indian War soldiers 1970). When forage began to fail later in the campaign, stationed at the site would likely have been provisioned Forbes had a smokehouse constructed at Loyalhanna so by boats which had to traverse a series of rivers and the that cattle could be slaughtered and preserved, possibly Great Lakes to deliver supplies. The sheer distance over suggesting salt and barrels were not available (Forbes which provisions had to be transported may have isolated 1758p). Losses in meat following on-site butchery were Fort Michilimackinac (Cleland 1970) and led to shortages not uncommon due to insufficient supplies of salt or bar- in domestic livestock and other supplies. rels for preserving slaughtered animals (Breitburg 1983; Inconsistent support from colonial assemblies at fron- Parker 1970). Complaints regarding shipments of rancid tier locations like Fort Shirley and the unreliability of pickled and salted pork and beef document these short- supply lines recorded in Croghan’s journals and personal ages (Breitburg 1983; Cubbison 2010; Parker 1970). communication (Wainwright 1965) likely encouraged The presence of phalanges, carpals, and tarsals in assem- hunting. Antony (1972) suggests soldiers in 18th century blages has been used as evidence for onsite butchery of armies faced with unreliable supply lines were often cattle and pigs (Guilday 1970; McBride 2013) and may encouraged to hunt; however, relatively little is known of suggest that live animals were slaughtered at Fort Shirley, the methods soldiers employed and such activities could Ligonier (Guilday 1970) and Fort Loudoun (PA) (Webster be risky. Soldiers who strayed too far from the safety of the 1982). Further, commissaries charged with provisioning fort were occasionally captured or killed and the practice frontier fortifications are known to have preferred prime was occasionally banned during periods of open hostility Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 11 of 15

(Guilday 1970; Parker 1970). John Baker, Croghan’s inden- Conclusions tured servant, was captured from a garden close to Statistical comparisons performed in this analysis high- Fort Shirley in 1756, and hostile Delaware warriors are light substantial differences in soldiers’ reliance on domes- known to have frequented the area in hopes of capturing tic livestock that were linked to site accessibility. Similar Croghan (Wainwright 1965). As a result of frequent Native dietary patterns attributed to craft specialization and the American raids many contractors tasked with delivering production of agricultural surpluses have been identified provisions to frontier fortifications refused to deliver sup- between rural and urban populations elsewhere (Albarella plies without protection from the forts. To accomodate 2005; Landon 1996; Reitz 1986). Case studies examining this, frontier garrisons were forced to forgo scouting, military provisioning systems provide valuable avenues offensive actions, and potentially hunting activities, to of research for several reasons. First, military bureau- defend their own supply convoys (Wainwright 1965). cracy resulted in the accumulation of detailed documen- Relations with local Native American groups may have tary records that can be drawn upon when formulating significantly influenced the lives of soldiers, including hypotheses, tracking provisioning routes and methods. through the contribution of wild game to diets. Forbes Second, public interest has driven the identification and noted on July 10th, 1758 (1758q) that his Cherokee allies study of many contemporary sites enabling archaeologi- contributed provisions to the British army’s stores. Native cal evaluation of system efficiency. From these sources, American hunting may have been especially important we know that 18th century British and Colonial soldiers to the garrisons of isolated fortifications facing unreli- were provisioned with comparable quantities of meat, able provisioning by traditional measures. Close associa- flour, vegetables, alcohol, and other provisions (Knox tion between Fort Shirley and Aughwick Old Town likely 1769; Parker 1970). Deviation from these dietary patterns encouraged cooperation between the inhabitants for appears to indicate a breakdown in military provisioning protection and survival, and may have allowed Croghan systems associated with under-developed supply lines. and his soldiers to rely on native hunters for some of their Finally, frontier military action drove the development provisions (Wainwright 1965). Intermarriage between of frontier towns, often located around forts and along Croghan’s militia, and European trade beads, copper tin- road systems constructed to facilitate the delivery of gar- kle cones, and triangles recovered from Fort Shirley and rison provisions (Mayer 2006). Comparison of dietary pat- Aughwick Old Town may be evidence of cooperation terning between military and civilian diets in developing between the occupants of the sites. Though no domes- frontier towns, and between civilian communities on the tic livestock were identified in the Aughwick Old Town frontier and established urban centers further east, may assemblage (Table 3), the Pennsylvania colonial govern- prove enlightening and help characterize the agricultural, ment is known to have provided food for Aughwick Old economic, and environmental shifts in early American Town in the autumn and winter of 1754 (Sipe 1930), and colonial history. may have supplemented expenses incurred by Croghan in providing for the Native Americans through his tenure in Additional File command (Wainwright 1965). Relations with the Mingo- The additional file for this article can be found as follows: Seneca changed after Hugh Mercer took command of Fort Shirley leading to the dissipation of the Mingo-Seneca • Appendix. Species identified in the Fort Shirley and community (Wainwright 1965). If this is the case, declin- Aughwick Old Town faunal assemblages provided in ing Native American aid following Mercer’s arrival may NISP and MNI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.40.s1 have contributed to Fort Shirley’s abandonment as provisioning of the site became increasingly untenable. Acknowledgements Though wild game was significantly less abundant at Thanks are due to Penn State undergraduate students other isolated sites examined in this analysis than at Fort Kristi Bartolome, Grace Bratlee, Paige Lynch, and zoo- Shirley, unconventional sources including Native allies may archaeology lab volunteer Joanne Hughes in addition have been equally important to their provisioning. Relatively to the staff and students of the Penn State Archaeo- high contributions of pig, and possibly deer, at Fort Loudoun logical Field School (2009–2014). We would also like to (TN) likely resulted though meat purchased directly from thank Terrance Martin (Illinois State Museum), Chantal the Cherokee (Breitburg 1983). Deer are conspicuously Dussault (Canadian Museum of Nature), and the many absent at Fort Michilimackinac, a fact Martin (1991) attrib- others who provided copies of unpublished reports utes to the rarity of deer in mixed conifer-deciduous forest employed in this analysis. of northern Michigan. Soldiers at Michilimackinac appear to have integrated fish and other small game species into their Competing Interests diet in place of these larger species (Shapiro 1978). Notably, The authors have no competing interests to declare. however, the apparent absence of fish and other small species from other sites may result from taphonomic processes References or recovery technique (Jones and Gabe 2015; Nagaoka Africa, JS. 1883. History of Huntingdon County, 2005; Shaffer 1992). Unfortunately, few sites in this analysis Pennsylvania . Huntingdon, PA: Huntingdon provided information regarding recovery technique, and it County Historical Society. was not possible to effectively test the effects of screening Albarella, U. 2005. Meat Production and Consump- on assemblage size or diversity. tion in Town and Country. In: Giles, K and Dyer, C Art. 5, page 12 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

(eds.), Town and Country in the Middle Ages: Con- Cleland, CE. 1970. Comparison of the Faunal Remains trasts, Contacts, and Interconnections, 131–148. from French and British Refuse Pits at Fort Michili- Leeds: Maney Publishing. mackinac: A Study in Changing Subsistence Practices, Anderson, F. 1984. A People’s Army: Massachu- 3: 8–23. Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers setts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years’ in Archaeology and History. War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Coe, MD. 2006. The Line of Forts Historical Archaeology Carolina Press. on the Colonial Frontier of Massachusetts. Lebanon, Anderson, N. 1959. The General Chooses a Road. The NH: University Press of New England. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, 42(2): Crass, DC and Wallsmith, DL. 1992. Where’s the Beef? 109–138. Food Supply at an Antebellum Frontier Post. His- Antony, B. 1972. Life in Wellington’s Army. Brighton, torical Archaeology, 26: 2–23. DOI: https://doi. UK: Tom Donovan. org/10.1007/BF03373530 Balkwill, D and Cumbaa, SL. 1987. Salt Pork and Beef Cubbison, D. 2010. The British Defeat of the French Again? The Diet of French and British Soldiers at in Pennsylvania, 1758. Jefferson, NC: McFarland the Casemate, Bastion St. Louis, Quebec. Research and Co. Bulletin 252, Environment Canada, Parks. Report Dalton, EC. 2011. Faunal Analysis at Fort Hunter: A on file at the Canadian Museum of Nature. French and Indian Supply Fort in Pennsylva- Bannerman, G. 2004. Merchants and the Military nia. Unpublished thesis (BA hons), Franklin and in Eighteenth-Century Britain: British Army Marshall College. Contracts and Domestic Supply, 1739–1763. Dollerhide, W. 1997. Map Guide to American Migration Unpublished thesis (PhD), King’s College London. Routes, 1735–1815. Bountiful, UT: Heritage Quest. Beattie, D. 1986. The Adaptation of the British Army Dunbar, W. 1760. Letter to Gen. Thomas Gage, 15 to Wilderness Warfare, 1755–1763. In: Ultee, M March. In: The Thomas Gage Papers. Ann Arbor, MI: (ed.), Adapting to Conditions: War and Society in Clements Library. the Eighteenth Century, 56–83. Tuscaloosa, AL: Forbes, J. 1758a. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, July University of Alabama Press. 14. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of General John Boscawen, H. 2011. The Capture of Louisbourg, 1758. Forbes relating to his service in North America, 1938. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Breitburg, E. 1983. Bone Discardment Patterns and Forbes, J. 1758b. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, May Meat Procurement Strategies at British Fort 29. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of General John Loudoun (Tennessee), 1756–1760. Unpublished Forbes relating to his service in North America, 1938. thesis (MA), Vanderbilt University. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Brophy, JK and Crisman, K. 2013. A Taphonomic Forbes, J. 1758c. Letter to Bouquet, June 27. In: Procter, Evaluation of Three Intact Pork Barrels from the JA (ed.), Writings of General John Forbes relating Steamboat Heroine (1838). Historical Archaeol- to his service in North America, 1938. Menasha, ogy, 47(4): 71–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ WI: The Collegiate Press. BF03377124 Forbes, J. 1758d. Letter to Gen. James Abercrombie, Brown, CL and Gustafson, CE. 1979. A Key to the Postcra- July 9. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of General John nial Skeletal Remains of Cattle/Bison, Elk, and Horse. Forbes relating to his service in North America , Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investiga- 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. tions 57. Pullman: Washington State University. Forbes, J. 1758e. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, Brownell, EE. 1943. Map of Mohawk Country: From 1690 September 2. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of to 1790. Philadelphia, PA. Reproduced by E. E. Brown. General John Forbes relating to his service in North Burns, JA, Drobnock, GJ and Smith, JM. 2010. Croghan America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. at Aughwick: History, Maps, and Archaeology Col- Forbes, J. 1758f. Letter to Gen. James Abercrombie, lide in the Search for Fort Shirley. Pioneer American September 4. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of Society Transactions, 33: 14–31. General John Forbes relating to his service in North Campbell, WJ. 2009. An Adverse Patron: Land, Trade, and America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. George Croghan. Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Forbes, J. 1758g. Letter to William Pitt, September Mid-Atlantic Studies, 76: 117–140. 6. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of General John Carlson, JK. 2012. Culinary Creolization: Subsistence Forbes relating to his service in North America, and Cultural Interaction at Fort Michilimackinac, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. 1730–1761. Archaeological Completion Report Forbes, J. 1758h. Letter to Gen. James Abercrom- Series 18. Mackinac Island, MI: Mackinac Island bie, October 8. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of State Park Commission. General John Forbes relating to his service in North Clark, DT. 2003. An Analysis of Faunal Remains from Fort America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Loudoun (44FK593), a French and Indian War Period Forbes, J. 1758i. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, Site. Report Prepared for the Virginia Department October 25. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of of Historic Resources. Winchester, VA: Regional General John Forbes relating to his service in North Preservation Office. America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 13 of 15

Forbes, J. 1758j. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, The Papers of Henry Bouquet, 1941. Harrisburg: November 22. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of Pennsylvania Historical Commission. General John Forbes relating to his service in North John Milner Associates. 1978. Fort Frederick: An America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Archaeological Investigation of the Southwest Forbes, J. 1758k. Letter to Gen. James Abercrombie, Bastion and Areas Exterior to the North and West September 21. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of Walls. Report prepared for the State of Maryland General John Forbes relating to his service in North Department of Natural Resources. America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Jolly, RL. 2013. Fort Loudoun, Virginia: A French and Forbes, J. 1758l. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, Indian War Period Fortification Built by George September 23. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of Washington. In: Babits, LE and Gandulla, S (eds.), General John Forbes relating to his service in North Archaeology of French and Indian War Frontier America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Forts, 102–122. Gainesville, FL: University Forbes, J. 1758m. Letter to Gen. James Abercrom- Press of Florida. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5744/ bie, October 24. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of florida/9780813049069.003.0007 General John Forbes relating to his service in North Jones, EL and Gabe, C. 2015. The Promise and Peril America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. of Older Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Forbes, J. 1758n. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early His- October 30. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of toric New Mexico. Open Quaternary, 1(6): 1–13. General John Forbes relating to his service in DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.ag North America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Colle- King, AC. 1984. Animal Bones and the Dietary Iden- giate Press. tity of Military and Civilian Groups in Roman Forbes, J. 1758o. Letter to Gen. James Abercrom- Britain, Germany and Gaul. In: Blagg, TFC and bie, November 17. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings King, AC (eds.), Military and Civilian in Roman of General John Forbes relating to his service in Britain, 187–217. Oxford: British Archaeological North America, 1938. Menasha, WI: The Colle- Reports. giate Press. Knox, J. 1769. An Historical Journal of The Campaigns in Forbes, J. 1758p. Letter to Joshua Howell, August 26. North-America, for the Years 1757, 1758, 1759, and In: Forbes Headquarters Papers. University of 1860: Containing The Most Remarkable Occurrences Virginia Library, Charlottesville, Virginia. of that Period; Particularly The Two Sieges of Quebec, Forbes, J. 1758q. Letter to Lt. Col. Henry Bouquet, June &c. &c. The Orders of the Admirals and General Offic- 10. In: Procter, JA (ed.), Writings of General John ers; Descriptions of the Countries where the Author Forbes relating to his service in North America, has served, with their Forts and Garrisons; their 1938. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Climates, Soil, Produce; and A Regular Diary of the Gilbert, BM. 2003. Mammalian Osteology. Columbia, Weather. As Also Several Manifesto’s, a Mandate of MO: Missouri Archaeology Society Inc. the Late Bishop of Canada; The French Orders and Gladwin, H. 1761. Letter to Gen. Thomas Gage, May Disposition for the Defence of the Colony, &c. &c. &c, 24. In: The Thomas Gage Papers. Ann Arbor, MI: 1. London: Johnston and Dodsley. Clements Library. Kopperman, PE. 2007. The British Army in North Grimm, JL. 1970. Archaeological Investigation of Fort America and the West Indies, 1755–83: A Medical Ligonier 1960–1965. Annuls of the Carnegie Perspective. In: Hudson, GL (ed.), British Military Museum 42. and Naval Medicine 1600–1830, 51–86. New York: Guilday, JE. 1970. Animal Remains from Archaeological Editions Rodopi B. V. Excavations at Fort Ligonier. In: Grimm, JL (ed.), Lacock, JK. 1914. Braddock Road. Pennsylvania Magazine Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier of History and Biography, 38(1): 1–38. 1960–1965, 177–186. Annuls of the Carnegie Landon, DB. 1996. Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zooarchaeo- Museum 42. logical Study. Historical Archaeology, 30(1): i–vii, 1–153. Hanson, L and Hsu, DP. 1975. Casements and Martin, TJ. 1991. An Archaeological Perspective on Cannonballs , Archaeological Investigations at Animal Exploitation Patterns at French Colonial Fort Stanwix, Rome, New York. Publications in Sites in the Illinois Country. In: Walthall, JA (ed.), Anthropology 14. Washington, DC: Department French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country of the Interior. and the Western Great Lakes, 189–200. Urbana: Harcourt, RA. 1974. The Dog in Prehistoric and University of Illinois Press. Early Historic Britain. Journal of Archaeo- Martin, TJ and Mallard, AM. 2008. Animal Remains from logical Science, 1: 151–175. DOI: https://doi. the Fort Ashby Site (46MI58), Mineral County West org/10.1016/0305-4403(74)90040-5 Virginia. Technical Report 2008-000-7. Springfield: Hillson, S. 2005. Teeth. Cambridge: Cambridge Illinois State Museum. University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ Mayer, HA. 2006. From Forts to Families: Following the CBO9780511614477 Army into Western Pennsylvania, 1758–1766. The Hoops, A. 1758. Letter to Col. H. Bouquet, June 17. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, In: Stevens, SK, Kent, DH and Roland, LJ (eds.), 130(1): 5–43. Art. 5, page 14 of 15 Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

McBride, WS. 2013. “To Preserve the Forts, and the Fami- 357–374. New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi. lies Gathered into Them”: Archaeology of Edwards’s org/10.1007/978-0-387-71303-8_18 Fort, Capon Bridge, West Virginia. In: Babits, LE Shaffer, BS. 1992. Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding and Gandulla, S (eds.), Archaeology of French and Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains. Indian War Frontier Forts, 139–157. Gainesville, American Antiquity, 57(1): 129–136. DOI: https:// FL: University Press of Florida. DOI: https://doi. doi.org/10.2307/2694839 org/10.5744/florida/9780813049069.003.0009 Shapiro, G. 1978. Early British Subsistence Strat- Mercer, H. 1758. Letter to Col. H. Bouquet, September egy at Michilimackinac: An Analysis of Faunal 14. In: Stevens, SK, Kent, DH and Roland, LJ (eds.), Remains from the 1977 Season. In: Heldman, DP The Papers of Henry Bouquet, 1941. Harrisburg: (ed.), Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1977: Pennsylvania Historical Commission. House 1 of South Southeast Row House, 161–177. Mudar, K. 1978. The Effects of Socio-Cultural Variables Archaeological Completion Report Series 2. on Food Preferences in Early 19th-Century Detroit. Mackinac Island, MI: Mackinac Island State Park Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1977, Commission. 12: 322–391. Silver, IA. 1969. The Aging of Domestic Animals. In: Nagaoka, L. 2005. Differential Recovery of Pacific Island Bothwell, D and Higgs, E (eds.), Science in Archae- Fish Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science ology: A Survey of Progress and Research, 283–302. 32(6): 941–955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. New York: Preager Publishers. jas.2004.12.011 Sipe, CH. 1930. The Principle Indian Towns of Western Parker, KL. 1970. Anglo-American Wilderness Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania History, 13(2): Campaigning, 1954–64: Logistical and Tactical 104–122. Developments. Unpublished dissertation (PhD), Spittler, RS. 2014. A Geophysical Investigation: Locating Columbia University. the Native American Settlement at Fort Shirley. Pippen, DS. 2010. For Want of Provisions: An Unpublished thesis (MA), Indiana University Archaeological and Historical Investigation of of Pennsylvania. the British Soldier at Fort Haldimand (1778–84). Sullivan, T. 1997. From Redcoat to Rebel: The Thomas Unpublished dissertation (PhD), Syracuse University. Sullivan Journal. In: Lee, J (ed.), Berwyn Heights, MD: Poirier, DA. 1976. Camp Reading: Logistics of a Heritage Books. Revolutionary War Winter Encampment. Northeast Thomas, J. 1776. Map of Pennsylvania Exhibiting not Historical Archaeology, 5(12): 40–52. on the Improved Parts of that Province, but also its Purdue, JR. 1983. Epiphyseal Closure in White-Tailed Extensive Frontiers: Laid down from Actual Surveys, Deer. The Journal of Wildlife Manage- and Chiefly from the Late Map of W. Scull Published ment, 47(4): 1207–1213. DOI: https://doi. in 1770; and Humbly Inscribed to the Honorable org/10.2307/3808195 Thomas Penn and Richard Penn Esquires True and Reitz, EJ. 1986. Urban/Rural Contrasts in Vertebrate Absolute Proprietaries & Governors of the Province of Fauna from the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Pennsylvania and the Territories thereunto belonging. Historical Archaeology, 20: 47–58. DOI: https://doi. London: Sayer and Bennett. org/10.1007/BF03374070 Tokar, JR. 1999. Redcoat Resupply! Strategic Logis- Rogers, H, Bartholomew, A and Armstrong, AK. 1998. tics and Operational Indecision in the American Faunal Remains. In: Walker, DN (ed.), Archaeol- Revolutionary War, 1775–1783. Monograph on file, ogy at the Fort Laramie Quartermaster Dump Area, Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military 1994–1996, 213–231. Cultural Resource Selections Studies, United States Army Command and General Intermountain Region, National Park Service 13. Staff College. Denver: National Park Service. Tourigny, ED. 2017. Eating Barrelled Meat in Upper Rouvalis, C. 2013. Commerce and Conflict on the 18th Canada: Cultural and Archaeological Impli- Century Frontier. American Archaeology, 17(3): cations. International Journal of Historical 32–37. Archaeology. Scott, EM. 1985. French Subsistence at Fort Volwiler, AT. 1926. George Croghan and the Westward Michilimackinac, 1715–1781: The Clergy and the Movement, 1741–1782. Cleveland: Arthur H. Traders. Archaeological Completion Report Series Clarke and Co. 9., Mackinac Island, MI: Mackinac Island State Park Wainwright, ND. 1965. George Croghan: Wilderness Commission. Diplomat. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Scott, EM. 2008. Who Ate What? Archaeologi- Carolina Press. cal Food Remains and Cultural Diversity. In: Webster, G. 1982. An Analysis of Faunal Materials from Reitz, E, Scarry, CM and Scudder, SJ (eds.), the Well at Fort Loudoun, Pennsylvania. Report on Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, file at the State Museum of Pennsylvania. Welker et al: Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) Art. 5, page 15 of 15

How to cite this article: Welker, M, Billings, S, Burns, J and McClure, S. 2018. Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763): The Faunal Remains of Fort Shirley, PA in Context. Open Quaternary, 4: 5, pp. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.40

Submitted: 17 November 2017 Accepted: 14 June 2018 Published: 16 July 2018

Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Open Quaternary is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS