Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology Of

Home , Zooarchaeology

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF

HISTORIC SHASTA COUNTY HOSPITAL 1855-1900:

A CASE STUDY

______

A Thesis

Presented

to the Faculty of

California State University, Chico

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Anthropology

______

Spring 2009 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF

HISTORIC SHASTA COUNTY HOSPITAL 1855-1900:

A CASE STUDY

A Thesis

Rhea Maricar Sanchez

Spring 2009

APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES:

______Susan E. Place, Ph.D.

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

______Frank Bayham, Ph.D., Chair

______Georgia Fox, Ph.D.

______Eric Ritter, Ph.D. PUBLICATION RIGHTS

No portion of this thesis may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner unacceptable to the usual copyright restrictions without the written permission of the author.

iii DEDICATION

My thesis is dedicated to three people.

For you, Daddy (Pete Sanchez), for supporting my choice of Anthropology as a major from my undergrad through to grad school. While our friends and relatives found it questionable, you encouraged me to do what I really wanted.

For you, Mommy (Editha Sanchez), for the memories that have accompanied me through every moment and milestone. We all miss you.

Finally, this is also for my elementary school librarian, the kindly old lady who showed me how exciting and adventurous books can be. I made a secret promise that if I ever wrote a book, I’d dedicate it to Alice Wing. I think this counts.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, a tremendous thanks to Dr. Frank Bayham, my committee chairman for being the kind of mentor who allowed me to run into walls before stepping in to redirect me towards my goals, big and small. In retrospect, I can see that during all those weeks in which I walked out of your office wishing you would just tell me what to do, you were allowing me to solve my problems myself. I am so grateful to Dr. Georgia Fox for helping me with the historical archaeology component of my study, providing me an editing job that turned my thesis into this final polished product, and for selflessly coming out of your sabbatical in order to me to finish and graduate this year. I thank Eric

Ritter, Ph.D., for making me feel welcome in his classes. My thesis defense went as well as I could have hoped for because of all the practice I had over the last three years, presenting my progress to your classes at Shasta Community College. Thank you also for treating me to lunch when I visited your office at the Bureau of Land Management headquarters when I conducted my archival research in Redding.

I am honored to have been granted financial endorsement from the Ellen

Deering Foundation for the costs associated with my archival research, from travel expenses to copy fees to resource books. Thank you for choosing me as a recipient of funds from your endowment. Bill Jones and Deb Besnard in the CSUC Meriam Library

Special Collections galvanized me to face what seemed like daunting archival work at times, and I am indebted to them for their suggestions and guidance.

v The staff at the Shasta Historical Society headquarters provided help, encouragement, and a family atmosphere that made my days there highly enjoyable.

These people include Renee, Francis, Lola, Wilma, and Sara. I thank the museum curator,

Linda Cooper, of Shasta State Historic Park generously sent me all their information relating to the historic Shasta County Hospital.

I am particularly grateful to two individuals without whom I would have been lost. The research of Dr. David R. Huelsbeck, of Pacific Lutheran University in

Washington authored the work that was the very foundation of my study. You took every phone call and e-mail with good humor and patience. I truly hope to meet you in person someday, so I can meet and thank my honorary fourth committee member face to face.

Vicki Philben, M.D., thank you for your generosity in providing me with your research and photographs for the hospital site, and for providing housing when for my extended stays in Redding for research. You and your husband, Scott, are excellent hosts and cooks, and I felt like one of your own children in your home.

My fellow students, both graduate and undergraduate, made my years in the

Chico Anthropology department more colorful, and I am thankful for the friendship and mutual experiences shared with Jennifer Justison, Greg Collins, Jennifer Muñoz, Kevin

Dalton, Devin Hamlin, Melanie Beasley, Christa Kerley, Joanne Melon, and Denise

Wills.

Omar Kaci, I began graduate school as your girlfriend, submitted my thesis proposal as your fiancée, and defended and submitted this as your wife. Thank you for your unwavering belief in my ability to see this endeavor through to completion. My

vi family has been incredibly patient and accommodating during this whole process, from my studying for the Graduate Record Examination to typing the very last word of this thesis. Thank you, Shell, for being the best sister ever, for rejoicing with every completed page and sympathizing with every setback. Thank you, Robert, for being an entertaining brother, and for insisting that I bring you to the Jelly Belly store ever so often. In doing so you made sure I took breaks away from the computer and into the rest of the living world.

With utmost love and in a way I just cannot properly put to words, I thank my father, Pete Sanchez. Daddy, you showed me that if a fisherman’s son who grew up in a

Philippine straw hut can grow up to be the Mayor of a Bay Area city, then I can absolutely accomplish this feat. You have always taught by your easy-going, God-loving example. You are literally the wind beneath my wings. I’m so proud to be your daughter, and this is just a continuation of how I always want to make you proud as well. I love you so very much.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Publication Rights ...... iii

Dedication...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... v

List of Tables...... xi

List of Figures...... xii

Abstract...... x

CHAPTER

I. Studying Status and Economic Conditions through Faunal Remains ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1 Shasta County Hospital ...... 3 The Archaeological Site ...... 5

II. Historical Context of Shasta County Hospital...... 7

Beginnings...... 8 Beef’s Place in American Meat History...... 13 From Hoof to Railroad: The Industrialization of Food ...... 14 American Hospitals and Health Care in the Late 1850s to Early 1900s ...... 19 Shasta Pioneers in Health Care...... 23 Summary...... 26

III. Zooarchaeology: Theory and Interpretation of Historic Sites...... 28

Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology...... 28 Application of Zooarchaeological Studies to Historic Sites...... 33 Explanation of Meat Cuts...... 37

viii CHAPTER PAGE

Application of Beef Cuts as Indicators of Status and Economics...... 42 Historical Zooarchaeology Studies...... 42 Value Ranking...... 43 Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Differences ...... 44 Appropriate Units of Analysis...... 45 Problems with Units of Analysis...... 52 Summary...... 54

IV. Sampling Methodology and Faunal Identification...... 55

Introduction ...... 55 Excavation and Sampling Procedure...... 56 Faunal Identification Procedures...... 64 Species-specific Identifications: Problems and Procedures ...... 70 Collecting Faunal Data...... 72 Summary...... 77

V. Assembling the Data: Faunal Bone Counts and Expenditures for Shasta County Hospital ...... 78

Introduction ...... 78 The Historic Shasta...... 79 Description of Taxa Present in Assemblage...... 80 Faunal Bone Frequencies ...... 82 Hospital Beef Expenditures...... 85 Provisions and Amenities in Historic Shasta County Hospital .... 90 Summary...... 92

VI. Presenting Meat Yield Estimates for Beef Consumed in Historic Shasta County Hospital ...... 93

Introduction ...... 93 Quantities of Represented Beef...... 95 Estimating Primary (Wholesale) Meat Pounds ...... 96 Calculating Probable Meat Pounds for Units of Acquisition ...... 96 Problems with Beef bone Counts and Weight Estimates ...... 101 Discussion...... 102 Summary...... 105

ix CHAPTER PAGE

VII. Summary and Conclusions on Consumer Status and Economic Conditions of Shasta County Hospital ...... 107

Limitations of this Study ...... 108 Future Research...... 109 Concluding Statement ...... 110

References Cited...... 111

Appendices

A. CSUC Faunal Recording Form ...... 121 B. Quantities of Represented Beef...... 125 C. MNBC, w/Rank and Percentages...... 134 D. Probable UA and Percentages ...... 139 E. Beef Expenditures Graphs...... 144

x LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Example of Hospital Report to the Board of Supervisors, May 18, 1859...... 25

2. Butchering Units: Primary Cuts, Skeletal Indicators, and Secondary Cuts...... 40

3. Ranks of Primary Beef Cuts Based on Relative Beef Cut Status or Cost Efficiency...... 46

4. Features and Associated Units in SCH Site...... 63

5. Identifiable and Unidentifiable Taxa in the Faunal Remains of Shasta County Hospital...... 69

6. Level Definitions and ft3 Volume for Unit 215N55E ...... 79

7. Frequency and Weights (gm) of Identifiable and Unidentifiable Taxa from Unit 215N55E...... 80

8. All taxa NISP Per Level in Unit 215N 55E...... 85

9. Bos taurus NISP Per Level for Each Anatomical Part in Unit 215N 55E...... 86

10. Expected NISP Per Beef Cut According to Lyman...... 97

11. Economic Rank, NISP and Edible Meat Yield Per Primary Beef Cut...... 98

xi LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Diagram of Shasta County Hospital Site (star) in Shasta County (inset) California...... 9

2. Primal Beef Cuts...... 38

3. Idealized Model for Huelsbeck’s Price-Rank Approach ...... 48

4. Idealized Model for Lyman’s Cost-Efficiency Approach ...... 49

5. Idealized Model for Meat-Yield Approach ...... 51

6. Shasta County Hospital Site (CA-SHA-1234H) Map ...... 57

7. 1895 Historic Shasta County Hospital Grounds Map...... 58

8. 1895 Revised Historic Shasta County Hospital Grounds Map...... 59

9. GPS Data from CA-SHA-1234Hr ...... 61

10. Crew Members at Work on Site at CA-SHA-1234H...... 64

11. Feature 3, Which Produced the Faunal Sample Used in This Study ...... 65

12. CA-SHA-1234H Site Units and Features from Archaeological Site Record ...... 66

13. Examples of Measuring Cut Bones...... 76

14. Hospital Beef Expenditures for the 1860s ...... 88

15. Example of Cross-Multiplication Used to Estimate Lbs for Unit of Acquisition...... 100

16. Summary of Units of Acquisition, by Level, from Shasta County Hospital...... 104

xii ABSTRACT

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF

HISTORIC SHASTA COUNTY HOSPITAL 1855-1900:

A CASE STUDY

Master of Arts in Anthropology

California State University, Chico

Spring 2009

The use of faunal analysis from historic archaeological sites for determining status and economics has successfully contributed to a growing body of anthropological literature concerning socioeconomic factors in the 19th century. This study joins other historic studies in the analysis of faunal remains for indicators of socioeconomic status.

Contemporary hospitals are notorious for serving dreadful food. Given that this was one of the very first public health care institutions in the United States, I hypothesized that inexpensive, low-ranking beef cuts would dominate the assemblage, if beef was present at all. I expected that if there was any change over time, it would be in decreasing of meat quantities represented in each level simultaneously with an increase in lower- ranked cuts.

xiii Shasta Community College, overseen by Dr. Eric Ritter, conducted excavations in the spring semesters of 2005 and 2006, respectively, of historic Shasta County

Hospital site CA-SHA-1234H, which was located in old Shasta. This study focuses on the beef remains from Shasta County Hospital and on historic documentation of beef expenditures from the Board of Supervisors office in Redding to interpret social status and economic conditions for the years of 1855, when the hospital was founded and opened, to 1900, when the hospital closed and relocated to Redding.

The results contradicted the original hypothesis. Rather than serving the lowest quality beef portions, the meats most closely resemble those which are served to paying patrons at saloons. Additionally, the amount of money spent on beef increased over time despite the economic demise of the city of Shasta. It is concluded that Shasta

County Hospital served beef exceeding expectations and that the beef expenditures do not parallel the city’s economic decline because Shasta County prospered as a result of the cumulative health of its constituent cities.

xiv

CHAPTER I

STUDYING STATUS AND ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS THROUGH FAUNAL

REMAINS

Introduction

Those who share a love of history, whether they are hobbyists, academics, laymen, professionals or simply curious dabblers would agree that objects of the past evoke an air of satisfaction, mystery, and even romanticism associated with things of history. My passion for human history, animal skeletons, sleuthwork, and the smell of old tomes led to the production of this thesis. The purpose of my study is the application of zooarchaeological methods to food remains that serve as indicators of social status and economic conditions in conjunction with information produced by archival research. The food remains of the Shasta County Hospital site in Northern California shed light on the economy and lifeways of a local community that experienced the dramatic changes of industrialization and modernization during the late 1800s and into the early 1900s.

This thesis contributes to historical archaeology as an analysis of faunal remains to determine consumer status and the economic conditions of a 19th century hospital, the historic Shasta County Hospital of Shasta County, California. The importance of this study of beef consumption lies in: (1) addressing human behavior in terms of philanthropic care for the indigent sick in historic Shasta County; and (2)

1 2 conducting faunal analysis on an historical assemblage by focusing on the units of acquisition itself, rather than the wholesale, or primal, beef cuts that the retail cuts represent. The historic Shasta County Hospital site provides the material for this faunal study of beef cuts as indicators of status and economic conditions.

In an effort to help expose past cultures and lifestyles, archaeologists study the material objects and features left by human activity, known as the archaeological record.

This record consists of everything from burial goods to barbed wire, stone walls to scrapers, and house pits to hosiery. Animal bones are one of the materials that humans leave behind, and are studied by archaeologists. Zooarchaeology is the study of the faunal component of the archaeological record.

Zooarchaeologists dedicate their study to the interaction of humans and animals, and the consequences of behaviors, cultural perceptions, and technology used to exploit such resources for reasons that include nutrition, technology, belief systems, or social affiliation (Reitz and Wing 2001:7-8). Identification and interpretation of foods, or more specifically, animal remains, from archaeological sites is done by quantifying units of acquisition, studying taphonomic processes, and investigating the selective utilization of animals and subsistence strategies for the purposes of gaining insight into the nature of those faunal materials in the archaeological record (Reitz and Wing 2001:11).

Archaeological studies shift from prehistoric to historic with the inclusion of written documentation, thus making the discipline a “text-aided archaeology…carried out with the aid of historical documentation that throws light on human life at the time”

(Orser and Fagan 1995:4). As a study of the relatively recent past, historical archaeology

3 focuses on combining the archaeological record with the documentary record of the early modern era from 1500 onward.

Status and economic conditions have been successfully studied in several historic contexts, including townsites (Bayham et. al 1985), armories (Burk 1994), mining camps (Schulz 1979, 1984; Schulz and Gust 1983), and opera houses (Simons

1984). The methods developed in these studies are well-suited to this study.

Several forces occurring simultaneously in the latter half of the 19th century influenced the nature of the Shasta County Hospital site today. Processes of urbanization related to the mining boom spurred change in social status and economic conditions of people and urban development in the West, on a scale of growth and change the likes of which the Western world had never seen. These historical circumstances of economic development are the context in which the advent of public health care occurred. My study contributes to industrialization period literature by synthesizing information gained from zooarchaeology, faunal remains, consumer status, economic conditions, and spending patterns of a hospital to indicate the changes in social status of consumers.

Shasta County Hospital

Shasta County Hospital served the historic city of Shasta, which in its heyday was renowned as the “lusty ‘Queen City’” of Northern California’s mining district

(California State Parks 2007). The 1848 discovery of gold in California led to what is now commonly referred to as the Gold Rush (Marks 1994:27). A massive influx of hopeful miners from the Midwest and eastern United States as well as immigrants from all over the world, particularly China, resulted in the establishment and rapid

4 development of mining towns throughout the North State (Marks 1994:53, 54, 280).

Oregonian prospectors established the community of Shasta in 1849 as a mining camp on their way to Sacramento, and immediately the attractive area obtained its first permanent residents from the Mississippi Valley (Kutras 1956:12).

The fledgling town grew into and became the seat of what would eventually be the County of Shasta. Shasta County contained all the amenities of settled life: among its cities, the county boasted schools, law offices, and scores of businesses including blacksmiths, wagoners, bakeries, pharmacies, hotels, grocers, newspapers, stage lines and ferries (Frank and Chappell 1881:178-180). As the town grew, and California became incorporated into the Union, Shasta County flourished into an impressive region of commerce, a meeting place for several industries in the North State, including agriculture, lumber, railroad transport, and, of course, mining. Surprisingly, Shasta

Country also contributed to the development of public health care as it is known today.

With the flourishing success of its businesses and inhabitants, citizens did not forget those in need. County officials in power showed great compassion and goodwill for the less fortunate citizens of Shasta County. In 1855, 80 acres of land were purchased to establish of a hospital that served the community of Shasta, until smoke and fumes from a nearby smelter forced the hospital to relocate to Redding in 1900. The Shasta

County Hospital archaeological site consists of 80 acres of land that once contained numerous buildings (cook house, pest house, shed, patient building, and storehouse) in any number of combinations for the duration of time over which the site was active.

Although the appearance of the original 1855 buildings is unknown, the original minutes recorded by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors indicate that there were separate

5 women’s quarters, and at least one cow and calf once resided on the grounds (Minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ meetings, housed at Supervisor’s Office, Redding, California).

County taxes supported this charitable institution intended for the indigent sick. Later the

County Hospital in Shasta would close and relocate to new facilities in the nearby city of

Redding. This shall be further discussed in a later chapter.

The Archaeological Site

Dr. Eric Ritter conducted excavations over two field seasons in 2005 and

2006, during his Introduction to Field Archaeology class from Shasta Community

College. In the Spring of 2006, the first box of faunal material was given to CSU Chico for learning purposes in the Introduction to Zooarchaeology class. During that semester, from the first bag opened, which included beef cuts ranging in a variety of price and quality, I decided that the site contained great promise for understanding and interpreting consumer status and the economical purchasing patterns of the hospital.

For my study, I chose the determination of status and economic purchasing based on bone cuts as indicators of meat quality on a value index. The expectation is that character quality of food (meats) offered to historic Shasta County Hospital patients will reflect: (1) the expectation that public health care institutions provide poor, undesirable patient food provisions; and (2) the city of Shasta’s economic boom in prosperity and subsequent decline. Written documentation on the historic town of Shasta further supplements the hospital’s archaeological remains with a greater detailed social and historical context.

This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapters II and III provide the theoretical foundation of the thesis as a zooarchaeological study from a historical site.

Chapter II is a historic review of Shasta County in its formative years, its economy, and industries; the industrialization of food, as well as the beginnings of public health care, and pioneer health care in the United States. The third chapter contains a literature review of zooarchaeology, a review of meat cuts, and a discussion of units of analysis. Earlier historic investigations exemplify the kinds of information that may be recovered through faunal analysis. The studies focusing on food refuse from mammalian and avian remains are the most pertinent to this research. These chapters provide the foundation for the Data and Analysis chapters that follow.

Chapter IV discusses the sampling methodology for how the faunal analysis was conducted, and a description of the site excavation, and sampling procedures.

Tabulation results and secondary data from the faunal analysis and archival research are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI presents the Analysis and Discussion of the study, followed by a brief summary of the study in Chapter VII.

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SHASTA

COUNTY HOSPITAL

The site for historic Shasta County Hospital serves as a reference point for the multitude of historical affairs taking place in the last half of the 19th century. The Gold

Rush, development of modern health care, the effects of the Industrial Revolution on class and economy, and the romantic era of the cattle industry can all be studied through the hospital and the county it served. This chapter provides contextual information on the economic history of Shasta, an orientation to the American meat and cattle industry as relevant to the provision of beef to mining communities, and a review of the history and development of health care in Shasta County. The Shasta County Hospital faunal assemblage is a focal point for studying status and economical spending in the context of the development of health care as we know it today.

Shasta County experienced the environmental and cultural effects of the sweeping changes in the second half of the 19th century, particularly the Industrial

Revolution and Civil War. These changes are expected to have corresponding indicators of change as status and economical spending are determined via faunal remains from historic Shasta County Hospital.

As stated in the previous chapter, beef cuts from the faunal assemblage shall be analyzed as indicators of patient status, i.e., how they were prioritized and treated by

7 8 the county, as indicated by the County Board of Supervisors approval of budget, and the economic character of the historic town of Shasta. Documentary evidence in the Shasta

County Supervisors office and Shasta Historical Society headquarters indicate that the hospital was established as a tax- and charity-supported establishment to care for the poor, destitute, and essentially terminally ill individuals.

The expectation is that economically low-ranking cuts will dominate the faunal assemblage. Even today, hospital food is notorious for being largely repulsive and unpalatable. It is also expected that, as the town of Shasta experienced decline, even inexpensive beef cuts would gradually disappear from the diet. It is evident that the

Shasta County Hospital site is a portal into the economy and lifeways of a local community that experienced the dramatic changes of industrialization and modernization.

Figure 1 shows the site location, indicated by the star, within modern day Shasta County,

California.

Beginnings

The California Gold Rush began with a series of discoveries, each adding its popularity to the momentum that eventually swept the world over with gold fever. James

Marshall launched the Gold Rush with his discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill on the

American River near Sacramento 1848, and later in the year Major Pearson B. Reading found gold near his land grant farther north (Kutras 1956:12; Harrow 1968:37; Smith

1999:193). Reading’s discovery of gold about the same time in the Trinity Mountains of

Northern California added significantly to the phenomenal momentum that Marshall’s discovery began.

Figure 1. Diagram of Shasta County Hospital site (star) in Shasta County (inset) California.

Reading’s later 1849 camp became known as Reading’s Springs, the larval form of what would eventually become the city of Shasta, which would become a central place for outfitting and supplying mule trains heading for the mines (Florin 1971:257). At a time when few could even pronounce the word “California,” it became a magic word for the possibilities of adventure and fortune not only for those in the rest of the Union, but the world (Chidsey 1968:44). As the mining industry proliferated, small communities developed throughout Shasta County in order to meet the growing population’s demands.

Situated with the Trinity Mountains to the west, Cascade Range to the east, and with Mount Shasta to the north, Shasta County became the gateway between the rich mines, back country, and the Sacramento Valley (California Historical Landmarks

1996:263). Eventually, what began in 1849 as a “busy village of tents” at Reading’s

Springs developed into the most important political and economic hub in all of Northern

California (Chapman 1988:18). California, originally Mexican land, became incorporated into the Union in 1850 (Atherton 1914:282). Shasta County was one of the original 27 counties established that year by the new California State Legislature, and Shasta became the seat for the county which adopted its same name (McKim 1985:7).

Shasta city (referred to as “Shasta”; the county as “Shasta County”) became a significant metropolis not only for the gold mining industry, but as the portal to its northern gold-rich neighboring Trinity County and to the Oregon frontier (Varney

2001:92). Shasta practically burst at the seams, bustling with businesses and expeditions being outfitted with mule trains to Oregon and the surrounding trails. In winter of 1854 to

1855, 1,876 mules were estimated to have been supplied in and dispatched from Shasta

(Varney 2001:92).

Prior to 1856, pre wagon roads existed north of Shasta, and thousands of pack mules came from the nearby Trinity and Siskiyou Mountains as well as all of Southern

Oregon (Southern 1942:37). One mule team owner outfitted $3,000.00 worth of goods in one morning (Florin 1971:258). In 1851, Shasta contained most of the county’s population within a few miles’ radius; as of 1852 Shasta boasted seven hotels—St.

Charles, Trinity House, New El Dorado, Globe, Shasta, Old Dominion, Kossuth House— and three banking houses—Sacramento City Branch Bank of Rhodes, Purdy and

McNulty, and Shasta City Bank (Southern 1942:35). The economic strength of Shasta is evident in its immediate and optimistic rebuilding after two fires decimated the downtown business district: one on December 1st 1852, and another devastating total loss

11 of the business district on June 14th 1853, in which one-half million dollars’ worth of loss disappeared within 33 minutes (The Shasta Courier June 18, 1853). Before and after the

1852 fire, the business district of Shasta had been made of wood. The prosperity of the town made rebuilding the wooden structures easy; however, after the 1853 fire, brick buildings were erected. Where, in 1852 and 1853, many of the Shasta’s business ran the same advertisements week after week, by 1854, most of the same advertisements in the

Shasta Courier boasted of their new, fireproof establishments (The Shasta Courier,

March 12, 1852 through September 2, 1854).

The years from 1852 to 1857 were Shasta’s most prosperous, exemplified by one mining company, Adams & Co., which in 1853 averaged over $100,000.00 per week in gold dust, or $5 million that year (Southern 1942:36). By 1857, the first wagon roads finally led north to Trinity Mountain, Red Bluff to the south, and up the Sacramento

River Canyon(Southern 1942:37).

Where Shasta’s gold mining industry began the development of Shasta

County, eventually multiple towns within Shasta County’s borders arose through an interdependent, expanding economy of mining, agriculture, lumbering, transportation, and service activities (Harrow 1968:41). Shasta County’s agricultural economy was in full swing by 1853, with crops including wheat, barley, and vegetables; cash crops of tobacco and wine grapes; orchards of apples, peaches, pears and almonds; production of prunes and olives (Harrow 1968:43). Cattle, horses, then sheep were major animal products, followed by swine (Harrow 1968:46). Anderson and Cottonwood became

Shasta County’s main agricultural locales, with Fall River Valley as the main flour producer (Harrow 1968:46-48).

Animal husbandry and meat packing centers provided local products (Harrow

1968:48). Mining began with the standard pan-pick-shovel extraction, followed by stamp mills to separate ore from the rock, water-requiring placer mining, sluice box and rocker, and hydraulic mining by water cannon from man-made ditches for gold (Harrow

1968:51-54).

The city of Cottonwood gained importance as a shipping point for cattle, grain, wool, lumber, and shakes according to the Shasta County Directory of 1900

(Petersen 1974:14). Flumes and ferries transported lumber to meet the high demands of the mining communities all over the North State, with sawmills having no problem offsetting the transportation costs to distant markets with the seemingly limitless timberlands of the north (Harrow 1968:61). Transportation in Shasta County encompassed overland mule and pack trails, the development of wagon roads, ferry and river steamer transportation along the Sacramento River up to Red Bluff, and stagecoach lines, all transporting consumer goods and consumers themselves. First supplementing the freight teams, the railroad eventually supplanted it as the primary artery of commercial traffic in Shasta County by the 1870s and 1880s (Harrow 1968:65).

For Shasta, the founding city, what supplemented trade ultimately became the cause for its demise: when the new railroad shifted the trade centers to Redding, a mere six miles away, many Shasta businesses relocated after selling their property at any price, if they could find buyers at all (Southern 1942:37). Shasta’s “death knell” sounded once its status as County Seat moved to Redding in 1888, at which point Shasta diminished to a shadow of its former magnificence (Southern 1942:37). The industries described above

13 provide testimony to the prolific economic expansion Shasta County enjoyed between

1850 and 1900, as the county’s namesake within flourished and diminished.

Beef’s Place in American Meat History

The most common faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites are what Burk refers to as the “domestic triad,” comprised of cattle (Bos taurus), domestic pig (Sus scrofa), and sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus). Also common are domestic avian remains, likely chicken (Gallus domesticus), because households often raised their own chickens on site. The inclusion of the domestic triad and avian remains may imply production and/or consumption of eggs and/or meat, or market purchases of eggs and/or meat (Burk 1994:7.9).

Since the 18th century, steak has remained the pinnacle of America’s symbolic food universe (Horowitz 2006:18), despite that fact, it was not until the 20th century that beef became the dominant meat in America. Urban growth and home refrigeration allowed beef to become more accessible to families, displacing pork.

Pork was once the leading meat in the 19th century due to the animal’s manageable size, self-sustaining foraging, and easy processing (Horowitz 2006:18, 42).

Rural families simply allowed their hogs to root for themselves during the summer before corralling them to fatten off of table scraps during the weeks before slaughter, after which were produced a number of products on which to live the whole winter that included ham, bacon, lard, salt pork (cured in a brine mixture of salt, molasses and other ingredients in a barrel), and sausage (Horowitz 2006:43-46).

From Hoof to Railroad: The Industrialization of Food

Beef, next to baseball and Elvis, is ubiquitous in American culture. The idiom

“Where’s the beef?” and “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner” rely on the understanding that beef represents substance and significance. In human history, the domestication or at least deep affinity for large mammals in particular, goes at least back to Paleolithic times, if the painted murals of cattle in the caves of Lascaux and Altamira are any indication

(Carlson 2001:15). The domestication of cattle had to have taken thousands of years, but the industrialization of cattle took place almost entirely within the latter half of the 19th century. Although pork meat was the “preeminent” meat in the early 19th century, steak eventually became the pinnacle of American meat by the beginning of the 20th century

(Horowitz 2006:11-18). Beef as a status symbol of purchasing power, barometer for material wealth, sign of economic prosperity, mark of dining luxury, and indicator of significance is highly evident between 1850 and 1900 as the country experienced the effects of the Industrial Revolution and the development of social classes, transportation, and technology. With the development of the American railroad, technological developments allowed for more economic distribution and sales to a wider radius of customers, especially those within Gold Rush communities.

The cattle industry is said to have been born in post-Civil War Texas, where millions of cattle head only needed to be driven northward for sales of substantial profit, and entrepreneurs recognized, organized, and executed the industry to fill the economic vacuum resulting in the birth of the cattle industry (Skaggs 1973:1).

Successful animal husbandry in the form of ranching operation consisted of cattle barons owning or leasing pastures for grazing, stocking range with cattle, hiring cowboys for menial and fundamental raising of the cattle, and a trail boss with drovers to move the herd to sale (Skaggs 1973:1-2). One did not necessarily even have to own vast tracts of land on which to groom the rewards of the cattle industry: acquisition and transportation alone brought many business-minded folks to millionaire status (Skaggs

1973:13).

The process of getting beef to market during the 19th century generally followed this pattern: cattle were put to pasture and driven to seasonal locales for breeding, calving, and herd development, brought to stockyards for fattening and preparation for delivery, and led to their slaughter destinations for primary wholesale butchering and subsequent secondary retail cuts (Skaggs 1973; Carlson 2001).

Stockyards industrialized beef by taking animals as natural materials, processing them into a myriad of products, and speeding those products off to market

(Carlson 2001:118). Prior to the railroads, the only practical way to bring meat to slaughter was on foot to the butcher shop where the animal would be slaughtered, butchered, and sold; the problem was the exhaustion animals faced in their potentially long treks and the logistics of driving cattle through town. In the 1800s “[i]t was a frequent sight in any town to see small herds of animals moving through the streets

(Carlson 2001:116).

Shasta County had cattle driven through at least one of its towns. Eleanor

Templeman, who was born in 1906 and moved out of Redding in 1928, recalled childhood memories of the cattle drives that came through town. With cowboys shouting

16 as they herded cattle into local corrals in their treks back and forth from the summer ranges to the mountains, or to the railroad tracks for shipment, “Never to be forgotten is the rumble of hooves and the musical lowing of cattle” through her hometown in Shasta

County (Templeman 1986:86).

Several enterprises together comprised the extended meat industry, resulting in a significant economic exchange of interconnected businesses. As towns grew, driving more animals through town became a problem of noise, smell, waste, congestion, and stress. Cattle-prodders earned their name by keeping cattle awake and moving; animals that became exhausted or sickened before getting to market were a financial loss. The railroad solved those problems by centralizing buyers and sellers: railroads and stockyards worked together to create a new industry of production and sales. In Chicago alone, meatpacking companies built over a million dollars’ worth of irrigation systems, drain pipes, watering and feed troughs, and pens to correspond to railroad lines in what is recognized as a pinnacle of economic achievement and an iconic gesture of 19th century progress (Carlson 2001:118).

As individual businessmen made ranching their business, family-run range cattle transportation agencies sprang up in response to the demand for meat distribution

(Skaggs 1973:41). Beef from cattlemen were processed in packinghouses at points such as Kansas City and Chicago, where the meatpacking industries were substantial factors in economic and urban growth (Skaggs 1973:89). While packinghouses developed, seasonal slaughter changed as well. Where slaughterhouses once sat idly in the summer—when meat spoiled more easily than in winter—climate became obsolete once the use of ice revolutionized meat shipment (Carlson 2001:19). By 1878, ice-cooled railroad cars

17 allowed suppliers to ship already butchered cattle rather than live cattle that required feeding and watering cattle that would otherwise lose weight during transport (Horowitz

2006:29).

The elaborate and highly involved process behind selling and purchasing beef exemplifies how much 19th-century Americans coveted fresh beef. Rural families found beef to be inconvenient because it could not be consumed before rotting as quickly as pork, and cured beef was relatively unpalatable due to longer muscles, connective tissue and lean composition (Horowitz 2006:19). Before the arrival of refrigeration in the 20th century, Americans’ desire for fresh beef warred with the challenges of delivering it to consumers.

Although growth and prosperity in the cattle industry was evident in metropolitan developments, the most dramatic effects took place locally: otherwise unstable frontier communities survived as supply points along cattle trails (Skaggs

1973:89). According to Skaggs (1973:129), cattle-trailing was not nearly as romantic as reminiscing drovers, naïve novelists, or stereotypic movies would have everyone believe; rather, the reality is that the industry developed in response to supply and demand, sustained by railroad competition, and complemented by drovers’ ambitions.

Mining communities benefited from railroad distribution of meat products. If meat (beef) was difficult to obtain locally, it was easily imported and made accessible through railroad transportation. The cattle trailing era, with its unique and extremely profitable business involving bankers, cattle drivers, railroads, stockyards, packing houses and ice dealers, ended by 1897, after at least a decade of attrition due to a combination of cross-state quarantines established in response to cow fevers, barbed wire

18 partitioning the open ranges, development of farmlands, and competition from more reasonably priced rail transportation (Skaggs 1973:121-125). Ultimately, the end of cattle trailing due to the railroad illustrates the convenience and accessibility of beef, among the myriad of other meats and products, for consumers.

In the 19th century, industrialism changed the workings of the household: self- sufficiency began to be replaced by dependency on monetary exchange; commercial production and sales labor replaced home production and barter, and wage-paying jobs providing for services that the family unit previously satisfied (Shackel 1996:111). These products included food as retail commodities. The location for food production began to change from that of the household to “specialized production” centers; this expanding market grew due to the simultaneously developing transportation systems (Burk

1994:7.1). Increasing use of consumer goods became the norm.

Shackel’s (1996) faunal study linked the increase in wage labor, decrease in consumer choices, and the development of the modern lifestyle as known today (Shackel

1996:124). Shackel (1996) studied 19th century Harpers’ Ferry, West Virginia, one of the earliest industrial communities in the United States, and the site of an early American experiment at having a national armory. Here, people lived and worked during the change from crafting firearms as tradesmen to manufacturing larger quantities in an assemblyline style. The families’ and townspeoples’ lifeways are an important aspect of his research.

Newspapers contain accounts of straying cattle from domestic lots, attributed to home production of dairy products and beef. Harpers Ferry residents also kept hogs, which had free-roam in the streets (Shackel 1996:123-124).

American Hospitals and Health Care in the Late 1850s to Early 1900s

While Shasta developed from its mining beginnings to the county seat and central commercial center for all activity north of Sacramento in the Central Valley, dramatic change simultaneously took place in the field of American health care. As the

Industrial Revolution characterized modern transportation with its railways and steamships, the rise of urban landscapes, and commercialism, so, too, did the medical field experience its own revolution in America. The concept of the hospital was not always as ubiquitous in life as we know it today; prior to the mid- to late 19th century, hospitals as we know them today did not exist. Doctors were generally considered charlatans, or what many refer to today as “quacks.” Each has his own so-called doctor’s book and array of remedies, and few were educated; in fact, professional standards were low if they existed at all (Fite 1971:2).

The beginnings of public health care, charity hospitals for the destitute, and social stigmas against hospitals are all significant factors contributing to the importance and uniqueness of the Shasta County Hospital. Public health care was a new concept, as most health care came in the form of home remedies. Charity hospitals were places for the destitute, poverty-stricken, and terminally people who could not care for themselves.

The social stigma against these institutions can be likened today’s societal aversions towards AIDS clinics or free health care clinics.

When the Shasta County Hospital was established, other standards in medicine were also developing such as the training of doctors and medical personnel, the architectural design of hospitals as destination points for health care, the advent of

20 modern medicine, and the concept of medical schools. The revolution of the medical industry began in Western Europe and soon developed in the United States. The Johns

Hopkins School of Medicine was established in 1889, standardizing the training of doctors and the methods they would use to diagnose and treat illness (Dwight Simons, historical archaeologist, personal communication September 8, 2008).

The medical profession was not highly regarded, and often doctors were called only when the ill were nearly dead, at which point nothing could be done at all.

“Patent medicines” and cure-alls were heavily advertised for remedying anything from headache to sour stomach (The Shasta Courier 1855-1900). One newspaper ad read,

“Water Cure,” a system (suspiciously lacking description) for curing anything from venereal disease to fevers in a mild, harmless speedier method that is superior to “any other remedy now known, and has never failed to remove hurtful and poisonous medicines from the system of the patient” according to H.O. Okerstrom, water-cure physician and wasser-cour doctor (The Shasta Courier, Saturday December 3, 1853).

Another advertisement from a D. Babcock, wholesale druggist, read, “Dr.

Pareiras’ Great Italian Remedy! It has never failed—It cannot fail to cure” with its

“magical virtues” such that “All who use it, it will cure, with a safety, speed, and certainty no other medicine has ever possessed” and that has “never known to fail” (The

Shasta Courier, Saturday September 2, 1854). Ironically, the ad finishes with “RESORT

TO NO QUACK NOSTRUMS” just before the $3.00 per bottle price tag.

In addition to the Gold Fever in 1848, with its effects of “homesickness, heartache, wanderlust, and occasional lead poisoning, hopeful prospectors also brought with them far more deadly contagions as they flooded into the state by land and sea (Baur

1949:97). Cholera broke out among two shiploads of liberty-seeking Germans immigrants before they reached port in New York and New Orleans in 1848; by 1849 the disease traveled throughout Mississippi and through to Crescent City, Louisiana (Baur

1949:97). The disease spread on through St. Louis, Missouri and the Great Plains, and by

January 1850, reached San Francisco cholera (Baur 1949:97). With its isothermal characteristics (being inclined toward regions with equal or consistent temperatures), cholera brought the death rate in warmer, inland Sacramento to an estimated 15 percent,

San Jose 10 percent, and 5 percent of San Franciscans (Baur 1949:97).

At the peak of the epidemic, Sacramento lost 20 people daily to cholera until winter broke and ended it (Baur 1949:97). Other sicknesses that spread epidemically throughout California during the Gold Rush period of 1849 through 1860 include malaria, dysentery, typhoid fever, rheumatic fever, meningitis (called brain fever at the time), diarrhea (which proved fatal, as a symptom of cholera, dysentery, and typhoid fever), pneumonia, catarrh (swelling of mucus membranes), bronchitis, consumption, and neuralgia, and ophthalmia (inflammation of eyelid; Baur 1949:98-101). Small pox and diphtheria arrived in 1860, contributing to California’s growing resume of epidemic diseases (Baur 1949:101).

Rapid changes associated with the Industrial Revolution, like the rise of factories and poor working conditions, the cross-continental railroad, the rise in urban populations, the development of social classes, and the new global economy of interdependent communities and nations, also extended to the field of medicine. In the medical field, “the organization of physicians, hospitals, and public health activities arose out of the nineteenth century itself” (Lyons and Petrucelli 1987:497).

A sense of social consciousness arose as the well-to-do recognized the needs of the poor and/or working class. Although some physicians were indeed charlatans, others were well-educated, especially in western European institutions, which dominated medical education between 1800 to the 1880s. Dr. Dill, M.D., advertised his San

Francisco practice in The Shasta Courier, offering aid for diseases of the eye and rheumatism, with help in the English, German, French, or Spanish languages, and “The poor attended gratis” (The Shasta Courier, February 18, 1854).

Rosner (1982) conducted a study on hospitals and healthcare in New York during the time period when a national wave of small, idiosyncratic hospitals were established in immediate response to specific needs in the community. Between the late

1800s and early 1900s, these start-ups changed, becoming more standardized acute-care facilities similar to the hospitals of today. Changes in the nature of hospitals affect lives of patients and staff, even potentially producing changes in the urban environment

(Rosner 1982:5). As hospitals grow and transform so do the cities in which they reside.

This citywide expansion is reflected in the tensions, problems, and conflicts of the community, as they are illustrated in the composition and operation of the hospital

(Rosner 1982:6).

The Shasta County Hospital site is expected to reflect this growth and transformation, and it is proposed that it will serve as a portal into the economy and ways of life of a local community experiencing the dramatic changes of industrialization and modernization from its mining era beginnings.

Shasta Pioneers in Health Care

As Shasta became more established, the first Board of Supervisors in Shasta

County recognized a need for care of the poor and indigent sick. In August of 1855, they purchased the Vosburg Ranch, which was northwest of Shasta in the Rock Creek Valley for $1,500.00 for use as a County Hospital (McKim 1985:37). This became the location of Shasta County Hospital, which was located on an 80-acre tract of land as of February

4, 1868 (Minutes recorded at the Board of Supervisors).

The first physician assigned to overseeing the hospital was James E. Pelham,

M.D., paying $50 per month initially, and later $100 per month (McKim 1985:37). The structure was expanded in 1859 for women’s quarters (McKim 1985:37). On February 2,

1869, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors “ordered that Dr. Benjamin Shurtleff

County Physician have a Suitable Building Erected on the Hospital Grounds for a Pest

House,” a place for patients with communicable diseases (such as tuberculosis) may be quarantined (Minutes Recorded at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors Office in

Redding). Dr. Shurtleff later served as Shasta Hospital’s County physician. Shurtleff received his medical degree from Harvard University August 23, 1848 and, lulled from

Massachusetts, arrived by ship July 6, 1849 to San Francisco after being attracted to

California by the Gold Rush (Eaton 1944:39). He settled in what was Reading’s Springs at the time, and became Shasta’s first and only alcade (Mexican local government official) and first physician. At 1868, Benjamin Shurtleff, M.D. was the County

Physician and remained so for ten years.

In 1888, J.M. Briceland, M.D., became County Physician and made more additions to the hospital under the direction of local businessmen E. R. Jones and Frank

Litsch, resulting in a long, low wooden structure (purpose unknown) with a porch, fronting the Shasta-Weaverville Road, near the beginning of the Camden Toll Road about one mile northwest of Shasta (McKim 1985:37).

In addition to caring for patients, or inmates as they were called at this time, the duties of the County Physician included providing the quarterly report to the County

Board of Supervisors. The Board met to discuss ferry licenses, establish tax rates for public works such as schools, approve toll collections for pay roads, and approve budgets for prison and hospital expenditures. These reports are included in the “minutes” recorded and housed at the Shasta County Supervisors’ Office in Redding, California, and are the basis for the beef expenditure amounts presented later in Chapter V. One example of warrants presented to the Board of Supervisors in the County Hospital Report by J.E. Pelham, M.D. for the quarter ending May 18th, 1859 was recorded in the minutes as shown in Table 1.

County expenditures were issued on credit to vendors and service providers, and money was paid in warrants to be collected from the appropriate fund, such as the

Hospital Fund for the purchases listed in Table 1, or others including the General Fund, and School Fund, which had their own itemized lists of expenses. The Board kept costs to a minimum by announcing due dates for sealed bids from suppliers; the bidders bid for the following quarters. Unfortunately, it seems that not all bidding events were recorded in the Board records; for instance, beef bids were only mentioned once, in 1883, yet it is obvious that they were purchasing beef long before then. These Hospital Reports are discussed further in Chapter V.

Table 1. Example of Hospital Report to the Board of Supervisors, May 18, 1859

Recipient Item Purchased for County Hospital Price B. Shurtleff Drugs $ 54.37 Gilbert, Westcott & Barlett Groceries $ 94.05 N. S. Arnold Groceries $ 212.30 H. Getteson & Bros. Clothing $ 16.30 C. Roethe Drugs $ 39.00 J.R. Smith Steward, 3 mos. $ 300.00 H. Jarvis Cook, 3 mos. $ 33.33 Shuffleton & Crinkland Milk $ 44.30 J.E. Pelham Physician, 3 mos. $ 300.00 Jasper Smith Venison $ 4.00 McCauslin & Hall Beef $ 82.03 J__* McAndrews Cook $ 66.67 * Handwriting for the first name of McAndrews was illegible as noted

Source: Adapted from Shasta County Board of Supervisors. N.d., Minutes recorded (1855-1900). Shasta County Supervisor’s office. Redding, California.

Several factors led to the closure of the Shasta location of the Shasta County

Hospital in favor of the new location in Redding in 1900. Combined with the economic decline of the city of Shasta, smelter fumes within close proximity of the hospital further convinced the Board of Supervisors of the necessity for relocation. Throughout the county, smelters polluted air, water, and land. In Keswick, the Mountain Copper

Company made little effort to control fumes despite demands from the editor of The

Shasta Courier for change, and the vegetation in the hills surrounding Keswick died. In

1896, the company installed two blast furnaces involving open air heap roasting that worked to rid 250 tons of silver sulfide ore of sulfur at once, giving off massive amounts of sulfur dioxide gas throughout Shasta County (Ballou 1963:7).

Eventually five furnaces worked simultaneously (Ballou 1963:7). The toxicity caused “great loss to the people of Shasta, Redding and Anderson” on the health of the

26 residents, air quality, plant and animal life (Ballou 1963:10). The smelter’s sulfuric acid fumes colored the air blue, causing coughs and watery eyes (Chapman 1988:12). Part of

Shasta’s loss was the county hospital. By the time the smelter closed in 1907, Shasta

County’s regional natural resources (streams, rivers, plant and animal life) were severely destroyed and the Superior Court issued a restraining order on the company (Ballou

1963:10). As of 1967, the effects of smelter pollution in Kennett had been so destructive, the area continued to have difficulty supporting vegetation, dubbing the town of Kennet the nickname “bald hills” of Shasta County (Unknown Author in The Covered Wagon

1967:14).

Summary

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Shasta County Hospital serves as a focal point for studying the multitude of historical developments that occurred in the last half of the 19th century. The Gold Rush, Industrial Revolution, heyday of the cattle industry, social changes and development of public health care all contributed to the hospital and the county it served. Beginning with a reassertion of my basic expectations, this chapter provides contextual information on the economic history of Shasta, an orientation to the American meat and cattle industry as relevant to the provision of beef to mining communities, and a review of the history and development of the hospital that served Shasta County.

The Shasta County Hospital faunal assemblage is a focal point for studying the development of health care as we know it today, and for investigating the environmental and cultural effects of the Industrial Revolution in a way that is applicable

27 in other historic contexts: the faunal remains will be the material used in determining consumer status, and in the assessment economical spending by the hospital. It is evident that the historic community of Shasta is a microcosm of the American economy during this time period.

CHAPTER III

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY: THEORY AND

INTERPRETATION OF HISTORIC

SITES

Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology

Every living organism must consume in order to exist, whether the object consumed is sunlight or prey in any form from insects to rabbits to plankton. While consumption is ubiquitous throughout nearly every facet of life, to humans food is not only essential for existence, but historically and culturally important. Food is arguably as much a social phenomenon as it is a necessity for sustaining and supporting life itself.

This study is an exercise in techniques used by those who study social aspects through food remains dating to earlier time periods.

The study of faunal remains is highly beneficial for its contributions to and enhancement of prehistoric and historic studies. Beginning with a general overview of zooarchaeology and its applicability to archaeology, this chapter review contains summaries of some fundamental studies in zooarchaeological theory. The methods outlined in those studies will be applied in this research of meat cuts as indicators of social status and economic decision making. Information collected from the historic

Shasta County Hospital faunal assemblage is hypothesized to provide insight into the

28 29 patients’ status and patient health care. This chapter will serve as the foundation for the methodology used in this thesis.

Anthropology is the study of people through “human biology, language, prehistory, religion, social structure, economics, evolution—anything that applies to humans” (Sutton and Arkush 2002:1; Thomas 1999). Archaeology is the study of the material remains from past human behaviors, from living structures to weapons, hearths to hunting blinds, and burial goods to burials themselves.

One field of archaeological specialization is zooarchaeology, the identification and interpretation of animal remains recovered from archaeological contexts for the purpose of understanding the relationship between people and their environment. Animal remains have the potential to provide information about what people hunted, traded, or consumed (Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002; Landon 2005), indicate the environment in which the animal was recovered or transported to (Brewer 1992), suggest seasonality of capture (Monks 1981), gauge climatic conditions or environmental stress (Reitz and

Wing 2001), and provide clues about choices people may have made about acquiring, using, or butchering particular animals for purposes such as nutritional, material, or cultural benefits (Bartram Jr. 1993).

Historical archaeology is concerned with the human past for which written documentation and archives are available as part of the archaeological record (Barber

1994:1). Given a more recent historical time frame, the presence and prevalence of written records provides a greater potential for archaeological inquiry on a more specific scale with greater direct relevance to the area and people currently associated with the site location. This study will contribute to our understanding of urbanization, the

30 industrial revolution, changing concepts of social responsibility for the poor and indigent sick, and the rise of the American beef industry, all simultaneously occurring within a town that was born and abandoned due to the California Gold Rush boom and bust.

Historical archaeology differs from prehistoric archaeology in that it does not have to define past cultures solely on the basis of stratigraphical and material objects grouped together spatially and temporally. Historical archaeologists construct past events by studying the material archaeological record in conjunction with documentary sources

(Barber 1994:5). Some historical events do not need to be established through excavation alone, but are confirmed through records. Even before excavation had begun, it was known that Shasta’s historic County hospital was established in 1855 and closed in 1900.

Presumably the midden deposit associated with the site was deposited within that 45 year timespan. The archaeological record will be held against documented history, and the artifacts are expected to substantiate the hypothesis that meat utility over time will reflect economical change in the mining town.

Historical zooarchaeology arose from zooarchaeology and historical archaeology; essentially, “historical zooarchaeology typically got done where people with strong interests in zooarchaeology worked with people digging historical sites” (Landon

2005:3). Since the 1980s, historical zooarchaeology has matured and coalesced as researchers refined extended faunal studies for emphasis on social environment and market variables so that bones are seen “as part of a comprehensive system of food production, preparation, distribution, consumption, and disposal” (Landon 2005:11).

Historic faunal studies attempt to do more than simply reiterate what is already known

31 about a site; they try to connect faunal assemblages and independent historic documentation to the behaviors that they may represent (Thomas 1998:311).

Orser and Fagan define the goals of historical archaeology as (1) the provision of information useful to historic preservation and site interpretation, (2) the documentation of past lifeways, and (3) the study of the “complex process of modernization” (1995:56). Shasta County Hospital will contribute to what is known about mining town life in the mid-1800s to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The hospital midden producing the faunal material exists because, as best stated by Orser and

Fagan (1995:60), “[L]ong before the creation of the public landfill, many historic peoples threw their trash into their yards, tossed things under their houses, or swept their refuse against the back fence” as well as down into privies. Documentation may reveal that certain people lived or worked at a particular site, such as Mexican missionaries,

European-descended homestead families, African slaves, or patients in an institution such as Shasta County Hospital. The challenge with archaeology and available historic records is not who deposited the remains where the remains are found, but how the material culture corresponds to and indicates their identity, social status, and management of resources.

Archival sources consulted for this study came from the collections held in

Shasta State Historic Park in downtown Shasta, California, the Meriam Library of

California State University (CSU), Chico, the Shasta Historical Society Headquarters in

Redding, California, and the office of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in

Redding, California. The Shasta State Historic Park (SHP) complex is located in the historic downtown area for the Old Shasta and includes the courthouse museum, which is

32 closed to outside researchers. However, the Shasta SHP museum curator, Linda Cooper, conducts comprehensive searches as needed, and upon request provided me with a compilation of documents relating to historic Shasta County Hospital. These documents included copies of a letter from one of the hospital physicians, Dr. Pellham, to the Board of Supervisors regarding hospital management, the plat for the County Hospital Grounds of Shasta County, an index of deaths at the County Hospital for the years of 1852 to

1880, and an excerpt from Dottie Smith’s (1999) Dictionary of Early Shasta County

History, respectively.

The Shasta Courier on microfilm at the Meriam Library in CSU was surveyed for news and advertisements relating to Shasta County Hospital. Although it is known from the minutes recorded at the Board of Supervisors Office that the hospital report was presented at each board meeting, which occurred quarterly or bimonthly, the newspaper did not always publish summaries of the hospital report. The minutes recorded at the office of the Board of Supervisors proved to be the most reliable and consistent source for tabulating beef expenditures and total expenses drawn from the Hospital Fund as presented at each Board meeting. The newspaper survey did produce the information about the advertisements on physicians and medical cure-alls as described earlier in

Chapter II. Bill Jones and Deb Besnard in the Special Collections department provided valuable advice as I exhausted avenues for historical documentation. Unfortunately, attempts on my part and those of Eric Ritter, Ph.D., Vicki Philben, CSU Chico M.A. candidate and former Shasta County Hospital site crew member, to trace photos or reliable sketches of the hospital proved unfruitful.

Finally, issues of The Covered Wagon, published by housed at the headquarters of the Shasta Historical Society, were reviewed for testimonies and articles about life in early Shasta County. The literature review of historic documents provides information that the archaeological record cannot directly provide, such as specific names of employees at Shasta County Hospital, or the precise amounts of money spent on beef among several other items such as coffins, clothing, or employee salaries. Such documented information is equally important in studying whether or not consumers were of low status or if the hospital frugally spent money on beef based on the remains excavated and the documents surveyed.

Application of Zooarchaeological Studies to Historic Sites

Zooarchaeology has been applied successfully in historical archaeology with studies on population (Walker and Davidson 1989), ethnicity (Schulz 1979, 1984;

Simons 1984), and status (Schulz 1979). Jolley (1983:64-79) reviewed 55 historic faunal site analyses and demonstrated the importance of faunal analyses in the determination of dietary practice, animal husbandry, butchering techniques, site interpretation, and assessment of cultural aspects such as religious dietary restrictions, food taboos, and socio-economic distinction. Landon’s (2005:1-36) recent review addresses four decades on the progress and prospects of zooarchaeology and historical archaeology of research.

The following studies help illustrate the applications of faunal analysis in historic sites.

The Santa Inés Mission is a historic, Hispanic-era California site in which cattle remains were more abundant than all other faunal remains and varied in relative abundance to each other over time (Walker and Davidson 1989:162). Mission records of

34 the relative abundances of cattle and sheep were compared with the ratios of midden deposits of bones from those respective animals. While mission populations fluctuated over time, the number of animals in the herds and bones in the deposits remained relatively stable, and the researches inferred that the populations of mission inhabitants and animals were mutually exclusive. Rather, the amount of burned bone in the deposits positively correlated with the human populations: as populations increased, waste increased, and inhabitants dealt with waste management by burning the midden during times when the population was very high in number. When the population decreased, so did the amount of burned bone indicating the burning of waste (Walker and Davidson

1989:175). Their study demonstrates how, although the amount of faunal material remained stable, human population fluctuations were reflected in the amount of modified bone in the archaeological record.

In Woodland, California, a city within the greater Sacramento region, an excavation of an old opera house revealed trash or privy accumulations of primarily

Chinese origin that were deposited before the opera house was built in 1884 (Schulz

1984:158). The small collection of fish remains included at least 15 species of fish, among which certain species were known to have been raised in fisheries in parts of the

Sacramento River. Traditional Chinese attitudes were mixed regarding some species, such as sturgeon (Acipinser sp.), which in some circles was regarded as dragon-like and never to be killed, or as a delicacy shipped to fellow countrymen working in mines by others (Schulz 1984:159). Thicktail chub (Gila crassicanda) and hitch (Lavinia exilicauda) were thought unpalatable by Euro-American settlers, but they remained a steady market among the Chinese. The most ubiquitous fish in the collection, though, was

Sacramento Perch (Archoplites interruptus), which was once highly abundant in the

Sacramento Valley and considered “one of the finest food fishes available in California,” but have now disappeared from the market and are rare in the native range due to the introduction of exotic fish species that out-competed with the Sacramento Perch (Schulz

1984:160).

Through fish remains, Schulz was able to place the opera house site within the historic context of California fisheries and exotic fish introductions in the late 1870s, and link consumption of specific varieties of fish with ethnic preferences. The presence of certain fish species reflected cultural selectivity within the diet. Euro-American settlers either disregarded some species for their boniness, poor meat, or threw them back into the water altogether. Meanwhile, those same species had comparable counterpart species in southeastern China, where they were readily consumed. As a result, Schulz was able to exemplify cultural Chinese consumption of those species (Schulz 1984:162). Shultz established the significance in studying the historical context and cultural preference of fish species.

Another historic study by Schulz (1979) examined an abandoned California boomtown, which closely reflects the rise and decline of Shasta , to demonstrate how faunal analysis can indicate status and ethnic composition of a population. Panamint City was a 19th Inyo County century mining camp that contained, at the height of its prosperity, hundreds of tents and cabins, 12 saloons, several mercantile houses, a newspaper, butcher shop, house of prostitution, brewery, numerous mines, and a mill for processing silver (Schulz 1979:55). Once ore production declined, so did the population.

Panamint was eventually abandoned even by visiting miners searching for missed

36 deposits (Schulz 1979:55). Faunal analysis revealed an absence of local wild game, predominance of cattle bones butchered in Euro-American fashion, and an affluent quality of bone cuts. Similar to the Shasta County Hospital, Panamint City consumption was dominated by beef based on the abundance of cattle remains. Shasta’s preponderance of beef in its fauna follows a trend among other contemporaneous cities in California and nearby Nevada: Panamint, Ventura, Virginia City, and Sacramento, all of which belong to “a pattern which was apparently unique to the far west” (Schulz 1979:57).

As introduced in the previous chapter, Shackel (1996) conducted a faunal study on 19th century Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, one of the earliest industrial communities in the United States, and the site of an early American experiment at having a national armory. Here, people lived and worked during the change from crafting firearms as tradesmen to manufacturing larger quantities in an assembly-line style. The families and townspeoples’ lifeways are an important aspect of his research. Newspapers contain accounts of straying cattle from domestic lots, which were attributed to home production of dairy products and beef. Harpers Ferry residents also kept hogs, which had free-roam in the streets (Shackel 1996:123-124). Faunal analysis linked the increase in wage labor, decrease in consumer choices, and the development of the modern lifestyle as known today (Shackel 1996:124). Shackel concluded that social, economic, and political changes at the national and local level influenced the diet of early industrial workers and their families.

Explanation of Meat Cuts

Before beef arrives in its form for the pot, pan, broiler, or plate, several general steps are taken to get it from carcass form to food portion. The cattle are taken to slaughter, the hooves and head are removed and the carcasses are quartered for manageability into the upper and lower front quarters and hind quarters, respectively

(Rixson 1962). As a general rule of thumb, the front quarters are relatively less expensive than the hind quarters, and the lower quarters are always cheaper than the upper quarters.

This is because the lower quarters, or front and rear shanks, are w

These quarters are processed on the block, a cutting surface, and carved down to the primary, also called primal, rough or wholesale, cuts. The primary cuts indicate where on the animal the meat comes from (Bayham et al. 1982:16). For example,

“ground chuck,” “ground round,” and “ground loin” are much more specific than simply

“ground beef,” and prices for each will reflect the fat content, leanness, or flavorful attributes accordingly. The number of primary cuts varies, depending on the source and how the basic cuts are defined, but the segments universally include the following eight: chuck, ribs, shoulder or arm, fore or hind shank or just shank, brisket, rump, round, and loin; neck, flank and subunits of loin such as top, middle, or bottom, are sometimes listed depending on the study. The eight core beef cuts have remained consistent over time in the United States, and their relative ranks are resilient as well (Bayham et al. 1982:20;

Horowitz 2006:40; Huelsbeck 1991:67; Lyman 1979:541; North American Meat

Processors Association 2007:1; Schulz and Gust 1983:13; Spooler 1917:18-43).

Figure 2 illustrates the general locations for the primary beef cuts as listed by

Lyman (1987). The arm is a subprimal cut that basically is the lower portion of the chuck.

Figure 2. Primal beef cuts. Illustrated by Rhea Sanchez, 2009.

Studies for which the arm is not specified likely consider arm cuts as synonymous with chuck cuts. Short ribs are a derivative of the primal cut of the ribs. Other rib cuts, such as back ribs, or baby back ribs, also derive from the rib. The cuts illustrated are not comprehensive, as other studies may include plus or minus one more cut. Those depicted below are the ones listed in Lyman’s study of (1987) beef cuts which are used for this study.

Primary cuts produce multiple meat products. For example, the chuck will produce numerous goods including ground chuck, 7-blade or center chuck steak (from the cross-section of the blade and spine of the scapula), boneless chuck eye roast, and arm, shoulder and pot roasts, whereas the round includes round steaks (steaks

39 recognizable from the “O” created by a cross section of the femur), boneless rump, and eye of round. Table 2 indicates skeletal elements that are associated with particular primary cuts.

Among Western Europeans and Euro-Americans, the highest value meats come from the middle of the back, where the short loin and sirloin meats are recovered, the hind ribs, and the upper hips where the round cut is sliced (Schulz 1979:59). High- quality loin cuts would be skeletally signified by the lumbar vertebrae (Lyman 1979).

The difference in value for the retail segments of meat is due to the tenderness and palatability of the meats associated with each butchered quarter (resulting from primal cuts of the original carcass) and the subsequent final cuts from which the retail segments originate. The most important palatability attribute and the primary determinant for quality of meat is tenderness. Fat content adds to palatability, particularly with marbling, or even distribution of fat throughout the meat. Intramuscular tenderness also contributes to meat palatability. Searls, Maddock and Wulf site tenderness as the most important determinant of meat palatability and quality (2005:2835). In their study, the traditionally low-priced beef chuck is shown to contain numerous muscles and various quantities of fat, resulting in chuck muscles of varying size, shape and composition (Searls, Maddock and Wulf 2005:2835).

Beef cut ranks are rigorous in their relative status values to each other over time. Through the 19th to the 21st centuries the relative ranks for beef cuts and meats have remained consistent for western societies and cultures (Bayham et al. 1982; Schulz and

Gust 1983). This may be a function of the nature of beef quarters and musculature: the lower quarters contain weight bearing and working muscles that are tougher and require

Table 2. Butchering Units: Primary Cuts, Skeletal Indicators, and Secondary Cuts. Triple Dashes Indicate Blanks.

Primary Cuts Bone element indicators Secondary Cuts Short Loin Lumbar vertebrae Loin, tenderloin, top sirloin, sirloin steak, “fillet of beef” Rib Radius, ulna, distal humerus, Rib-eye steak dorsal ribs 6-13, thoracic vertebrae 6-13 Sirloin Ilium, sacrum Sirloin steak Round Buttock Femur shaft, distal femur and Round, second cut of round, diaphysis round steak Rump Proximal femur, ischium, Rump roast pubis, acetabulum Chuck Dorsal rib 1-5, thoracic vertebrae Chuck roast, 7-blade steak, 1-5, humerus shaft, scapula blade T-bone steak, ground chuck Arm Proximal humerus and diaphysis Bone-in steak Cross/Short Rib Ventral rib 1-13 Ribs Brisket Dorsal ribs 5012, thoracic vert- Point of the Brisket ebrae 6-12, sternabrae, costal cartilage 1-5 Short Plate Costal vertebrae 6-13 Beef plate skirt steak Neck Axis, cervical vertebrae 3-7, Soup bone proximal humerus, distal scapula Foreshank Radius-ulna, distal humerus Shank for soup Hindshank Tibia, astragalus, calcaneum, Shank for soup distal femur, distal fibula, naviculo cuboid Feet and Head Metapodials, phalanges, cranium --- Flank Ventral Rib Flank steak Shoulder Proximal humerus, proximal Soup bone scapula

Source: Data compiled from Bayham, Frank E., Pamela C. Hatch, and Janet Balsom, 1982, Interpretation of Faunal Remains from the Original Phoenix Townsite, Blocks 1 and 2. Tempe, Arizona: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, p. 18; Huelsbeck, David R., 1991, Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 67; Lyman, Lee R., 1979, Available Meat From Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44(3): 541; North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP), 2007, The Meat Buyer’s Guide: Beef, Lamb, Veal, Pork, and Poultry. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1-4; Schulz, Peter D., and Sherri M. Gust, 1983, Relative Beef Cut Prices in the Late Nineteenth Century: A Note for Historic Sites Faunal Analysts. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(1): 13; Spooler, C. A., 1915, Education in Economy: How to Save by Knowledge of Domestic Economy: How to Buy and What to Buy in Meats, Poultry, Fish, Game and Provisions: How to Cook, Serve, and Conserve. Pomona, California: Published by the author.

41 wet cooking, or boiling. The working muscles in the neck and chuck of the forequarter are constantly at work, supporting the head while the animal grazes, and the meats from the rib and loin are structurally supportive, making them tender and suitable for dry- cooking, such as grilling, barbecuing, and broiling. Meats from the hind quarter are also suitable for dry-cooking such as rump roasts or round steaks, but are relatively tougher than those of the ribs and loins.

The chuck consistently rates as the lowest-ranked butchering cut (Bayham et al. 1982; Lyman 1979; Schulz and Gust 1983). The wholesale final cut of the chuck includes the cervical vertebrae of the neck, shoulder blade or scapula, and upper humerus

(Hinman and Harris 1942:256). Chuck bones are often used for boiling in soup bases, although other final cuts contain boiling meat as well. Beef chuck is traditionally merchandised as low-priced soup bones, economical roasts and steaks consisting of different sizes, shapes, and compositions of muscles that vary greatly within the chuck

(Searls, Maddock and Wolf 2005:2835).

As stated above, once an animal is slaughtered, the hide, head and feet are removed, followed by the splitting of the carcass using what are called primal/wholesale cuts of the four quarters: upper and lower forequarters, and upper and lower hindquarters

(also referred to as forequarter and foreshank, and hindquarter and hindshank).

Distinguishing between right and left halves of the quarters are not necessary, as descriptions of carcass quarters appear to universally agree on the four terms for the two upper and two lower quadrants.

Application of Beef Cuts as Indicators of Status and Economics

The applicability of zooarchaeology is evidenced in the cases described earlier in this chapter. Faunal assemblages can be studied for evidence from ethnicity, to religion, to population studies, and of, course, status and economic conditions. Several zooarchaeological studies have been conducted for status and/or economy in historical contexts (Bayham and Hatch 1982, 1985; Huelsbeck 1991; Lyman 1979; Schulz and

Gust:1983). Zooarchaeologists generally use similar approaches when analyzing faunal remains. Huelsbeck classified faunal analysis as falling into three general techniques often used for analyzing the faunal record for status and economics: (1) determining the frequencies of preferred species or cuts; (2) comparing beef cut frequencies to a price- ranking scheme as determined by Schulz and Gust; or (3) price-scaling, the correlation of cut price to another variable such as the associated ceramic type or the wages of the consumer. Other significant factors that contribute to meat purchase and consumption include ethnicity and religion (Huelsbeck 1991; Simons 1984).

Historical Zooarchaeology Studies

Many historical studies reference Lyman’s work (1977, 1979, 1987) on meat consumption and bone elements’ correlation to status. First, Schulz and Gust (1983) offer another system for value ranking. Second, Bayham et al. (1982) conducted work on ethnicity and socioeconomic differences in a Phoenix townsite. Third, Huelsbeck’s

(1991) comparative study of two 19th century households exemplifies the importance of determining the appropriate unit of analysis when practicing historic Zooarchaeology.

Availability depends on presence/absence of meat, which may vary due to the local economic situation, and meat price based on the kind of (Huelsbeck 1991:64).

Assuming that preferred, or high-ranking, foods are more expensive, and that wealthy, high-status people can afford to and will consume the preferred foods, the faunal assemblage of high-status consumers should display high frequencies of more expensive and high-ranking foods (Huelsbeck 1991; Schulz and Gust 1983).

The following studies are considered in-depth to show that faunal studies are more than simply species lists and bone inventories, or reiterations of what is already known about a site, but rather they are “part of a comprehensive system of food production, preparation, distribution, consumption and disposal,” particularly in studies that aim towards the socioeconomic aspects of archaeological sites.

Value Ranking

Schulz and Gust (1983) studied 19th century archaeological sites containing cattle remains in order to measure status. They worked on the general assumption that expensive cuts are preferred over inexpensive cuts, and that higher status people can afford to and are expected to purchase choicer cuts of meat. Meat cuts are ranked according to purchase price; both 19th century and contemporary prices are comparable.

Using four contemporaneous locations in Old Sacramento, they provide what they believed to be an accurate tool for historical archaeologists to use in the analysis of beef cuts. Beef cuts were ranked in ordinal values one through ten, according to relative values for the years ranging from 1850s to 1910 (Schulz and Gust 1983:14). Significantly, the rib is ranked equivalent or higher than sirloin, contrary to contemporary meat standards.

The sirloin, which contains no bones and therefore does not appear in the archaeological record, historically was priced equivalently to the brisket, but is now one of the most expensive beef cuts (Schulz and Gust 1983:15).

Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Differences

Given the problematic nature of using Number of Identifiable Specimens

(NISP) or Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) in historic studies where complete individuals are not represented, but butchered meat cuts are deposited, Bayham et al.

(1982) developed an approach allowing for a quantitative database that lent itself to interpretation and manipulation. Using MNI to quantify faunal remains in historic assemblages can lead to misrepresentation of taxa because complete individuals are not represented, and the calculation of MNI is originally designed for prehistoric sites in which whole animals were butchered (Baybam et al. 1982:15). Their database was created specifically for determining economic value of meat, and is based on the assumption that desirable (expensive) meats have always been desirable and prices between meats would always have reflected such ranking. It parallels Binford’s 1978

Meat Utility Index and butchering units described and defined by Lyman in 1979

(Bayham et al. 1982:15).

In their study, the unit of analysis is the wholesale aka primary, primal or rough cut. For their purposes, the primary cuts were used to tell where the meat came from on the animal, as these are in turn butchered into the retail or secondary cuts

(Bayham et al. 1982:16-17). Retail cuts can be classified skeletally into primary butchering units, based on skeletally defined primal cut rankings. They avoided the

45 problem of a long, cumbersome list of small, retail cuts of meat by grouping all retail cuts at the wholesale level of butchering unit in order to provide “the most meaningful and useful data” (Bayham, et al. 1982:23).

Bayham et al. (1982) based relative meat values on price per pound, resulting in an economic profile for each wholesale butchering unit. Assuming that meat purchases will reflect the economic situation of a family at the Phoenix townsite, they created their relative value index using mean values for all the retail meat prices found within each wholesale cut. They used contemporary prices as a proxy for historic prices, presuming that relative prices have remained stable through time. The process proved highly difficult due to the overlapping of elements within wholesale units. Their study experienced difficulty in implementing relative values by creating mathematical formulas and conversions into rank.

Appropriate Units of Analysis

Huelsbeck’s (1991) consumer behavior framework is one way of studying meat as an indicator of status and economics, or purchasing power. His consumer research framework focuses on factors that affect meat availability, factors that affect consumer decisions, and the classification of faunal remains (1991:63). Using his framework, Huelsbeck asserted that analysis can be skewed by the type of unit studied: butchering units (wholesale cuts) that are large, versus units of acquisition (retail cuts) that represent the final product as intended for individual or group dishes. Table 3 lists

Huelsbeck’s relative status and cost-efficiency rankings of primary meat cuts. The cuts are first ranked relative to each other to show their status in terms of how consumers

Table 3. Ranks of Primary Beef Cuts Based on Relative Beef Cut Status or Cost Efficiency

Butchering Unit Relative Status Ranking Rel. Cost-Efficiency Ranking Short Loin 1 10 Rib, Sirloin 2 1 Round 3 2 Rump 4 3 Chuck 5 5 Arm, Cross/Short Rib 6 4 Brisket, Short Plate 7 6 Neck 8 8 Foreshank, Hindshank 9 7 Feet, Head 10 9

Source: Data for table from Huelsbeck, David R., 1991, Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 62-76.

value each cut, based on Western cultural assumptions on the value and prestige associated with certain portions of the animal. Second, they are ranked on relative cost efficiency. For example, it is common for cuts from the short loin, such as the tenderloin or top sirloin, to be expensive and highly demanded in establishments such as restaurants or during special occasions. In contrast, ground beef from the chuck serves as economical hamburger meat, and the feet and head are considered food for the poor.

Huelsbeck (1991) compared the faunal assemblage from the Wilmington and

Murdick households, dated to the 19th century in Delaware, on the East Coast of the

United States. Wilmington was a wealthy family, whereas the Murdick household was owned by a stable owner and later a painter; however the Murdick household included boarders who paid for meals and lodging. The Wilmington and Murdick assemblages were recovered from “artifact-bearing fecal deposits,” or privies, associated with each household (LeeDecker et al. 1987:244). Huelsbeck’s article outlines idealized models of

47 expectation for interpreting faunal assemblages based on a consumer behavior research framework.

The first model, an idealized price-rank approach as defined by Schulz and

Gust (1983) stipulates that with high-status purchasing power, there will be a high frequency of higher-ranked meats. Applying the price-rank approach to the assemblages,

Huelbeck expected the wealthy Wilmington assemblage to produce higher frequencies of meat compared to the Murdick household. Instead, both collections reflected high status; this was explained by the suggestion that the income produced by the boarders allowed the Murdicks’ purchasing power to increase. Huelsbeck (1991) notes that while today’s regional differences in meat production are reduced to “virtual insignificance” because of the modern transportation and preservation technology, regional variations for archaeological deposits dated before the mid 19th century must be taken into account as possible factors in more recent deposits.

Figure 3 demonstrates Huelsbeck’s (1991) correlation of the expected frequency of ranked meat cuts in a Price-Rank Approach where 1 indicates the highest ranked meats, and 10 indicates the lowest ranked meats. Here, Huelsbeck (1991) reflects the idealized, expected relationship between meat rank and the frequency at which those ranks are expected in an assemblage from a household or other location that enjoyed great purchasing power. The higher the meat rank, the greater the frequency of higher- ranked meats are expected to be present in the faunal assemblage, and the lower the meat rank, the less they are expected. This is based on the assumption that a high-status household with great purchasing power will opt to purchase finer meat cuts.

Figure 3. Idealized model for Huelsbeck’s price-rank approach.

Source: Huelsbeck, David R., 1991,Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 67. Reprinted with permission.

Second, Huelsbeck introduces an idealized cost-efficiency approach as defined by Lyman. Under Lyman’s (1987) model, ranking is based on cuts that give the most meat for the smallest possible amount of money required of a person with limited purchasing power. Neither the Wilmington nor Murdick households were cost-efficient, however Huelsbeck cites modern studies which show that cost-efficient purchases are not often feasible when purchasing power is limited (1991:68). Under a cost-efficiency approach, to obtain the most meat for the least amount of money, lower-ranked cuts will appear with a higher frequency. For example, it is not cost-efficient to purchase sirloin at

X amount of money when any of another cut such as brisket, short plate, neck, or shank

49 at X price will provide more product. Figure 4 shows the idealized increase the frequency of low status cuts, or increase in efficient cuts. Under this model, the expected consumer behavior is the opposite of that expected under the Price-Rank approach above. Instead, where purchasing power is limited, consumers are predicted to purchase the cuts that yield as much meat for as little money possible.

Figure 4. Idealized model for Lyman’s cost-efficiency approach.

Source: Huelsbeck, David R., 1991,Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 68. Reprinted with permission.

The Cost-Efficiency approach depicts the predicted, idealized model for an assemblage coming from a household or location where purchasing power is limited.

Here, higher-ranking cuts are not expected to recur frequently, and the lower the rank of the meat, the more it is expected to be present in the assemblage. This is due to the cost-

50 efficiency of the cuts, as higher-ranked cuts are least efficient and lower ranked cuts are more efficient.

The socioeconomic ranks and the cost-efficiency of each cut are not inverse proportions, but they generally follow opposite trends, as noted in Figure 4, where the ordering of cuts based on rank and cost efficiency on the X axis can be seen. For example, X dollars buys Y lbs of meat from the chuck, but X dollars buys Z lbs. of meat from the round. Simultaneously, when purchasing power is limited, the expectation is an increasing amount of bone from low to high status, or an increasing amount of bone as cost-efficiency increases. Certain cuts are granted different ranks based on status versus cost-efficiency. For example, short loin is considered high-ranking, but is not cost- efficient as it is high in cost per pound. Huelsbeck ultimately discards this approach based on Rathje’s study on modern garbage which demonstrated that without financial means, people do not purchase cost-efficiently (Huelsbeck 1991:68).

Third and finally, the Wilmington and Murdock households were studied under an idealized meat-yield approach using Lyman’s 1979 meat yield to bone element correspondence. Figure 5 depicts the expected decrease in the numbers of cuts going from high to low status based if the assumption is that consumers will purchase the cuts with the most meat yield. as well as in the order of cuts bearing high meat yield to low meat yield. Under this approach, meat yield per cut is calculated to more precisely measure the amount of edible food that the butchered bones represent. For example, using the minimum number of individuals possibly represented by an element, one left femur indicates one animal. This approach is ultimately deemed entirely misleading,

51 however, due to the fact that the Meat-Yield Approach is based on net meat yields for

MNI, but faunal remains in historic assemblages represent less than entire animals.

Figure 5. Idealized model for meat-yield approach.

Source: Huelsbeck, David R., 1991,Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 69. Reprinted with Permission.

Assuming the meat yield for an entire individual animal as represented by an element does not make sense in market economies where a single unit of acquisition can represent a single serving, such as a round steak (Huelsbeck 1991:69). Under the meat- yield approach, if the elements were seen as representing butchering units (wholesale cuts) then the household meat consumption patterns were very similar. Again, Huelsbeck finds this approach meritless unless the data collected are more rigorous to the level of the unit of acquisition, rather than the MNI represented in by the assemblage.

The same faunal assemblages interpreted in terms of the probable unit of acquisition (or the retail cuts such as steak, roast, or chop, interpreted as the bone with its

52 corresponding amount of associated meat) changed the types of cuts represented in each assemblage so that the two no longer paralleled each other (Huelsbeck 1991:71). The

Wilmington assemblage corresponded to the high-status purchasing model, with a higher percentage consisting of higher-ranked retail cuts and decreasing trend of amounts of lower-ranked retail cuts. Curiously, Huelsbeck does not comment on the change in the

Murdick assemblage.

Problems with Units of Analysis

Zooarchaeological studies on prehistoric faunal assemblages can use MNI, based on the most frequently repeated element for a given species in an assemblage

(Bayham et al. 1985:192). This method would not apply as well in an historic assemblage, where presumably the elements are isolated, commercial, and prescribed retail cuts. The total count of specimens per taxon, NISP, as well as modification frequencies (such as burning) will provide the data necessary for studying the frequency and utility values for the beef consumption at Shasta County Hospital. Other directions of study leading to further behavioral interpretations include problematic identifications, taphonomy, butchering techniques, methods of disposal, worked bone, and species specific evaluation of economic value (Bayham and Hatch 1985:192).

While some studies may benefit from indicating the correlation between the amount of bone and the amount of meat those cuts can provide, in this study the absolute meat poundage that may be calculated from the bone will not be calculated. As evidenced in Huelsbeck’s study described earlier, meat yield calculations may produce varying results depending on the unit analyzed: meat can be acquired in various forms—whole

53 animal, wholesale cuts, or retail cuts—and quantifying the same assemblage in terms of all three may result in three different explanations for the same assemblage. Crabtree states that:

…the calculation of meat yields can both over- and underestimate the true amount of meat available at a particular site. Given these uncertainties, it is probably best not to place a great deal of faith in absolute meat poundage figures calculated from archaeological assemblages. They should be used instead to obtain some idea of the relative importance of different meats in the diet. For example, estimates of 4,000 pounds of beef and only 100 pounds of mutton at a given site would clearly indicate that beef was a more important dietary item than was mutton. [Crabtree 1985:78; emphases in original]

Butcher cuts in the Shasta County Hospital assemblage will be ranked for the relative values, rather than absolute values of meat associated with bones produced by retail portions. The studies by Lyman, Schulz and Gust, and Bayham et al. use prices of primary cuts of beef to establish ranking; Huelsbeck discussed the differences that can arise from using either primary or secondary cuts as the unit of analysis on the same assemblage and found secondary/retail cuts better served in a comparison of two household sites. Landon categorizes historical zooarchaeology reports as falling into four general categories based on organization and goals (2005:10).

The first category, bemoaned by Lyman as “only prose species lists”

(1979:67), are merely site reports that are comprised of assemblage descriptions (Landon

2005:10). A faunal study falls into the second category with the addition of interpretive or integrated analysis of the site with greater interpretation that draws on historical and environmental documentation with the archaeological data. The third category of study uses comparative analysis across multiple assemblages, and the fourth entails overviews for the purpose of assessing method and theory in zooarchaeology.

This study, with its emphasis on status and economics in conjunction with meat expenditure patterns indicated by archival documentation, falls in the second of

Landon’s four categories. As an exercise in historical zooarchaeology, this thesis exercises the use of the faunal assemblage in conjunction with documentary records of quarterly meat expenditures. Full explanations of methods data acquisition and analysis will be found within the following chapter.

Summary

Starting with an overview of zooarchaeology and its applicability to archaeology, this chapter reviewed studies on which this work is founded. These studies exemplify methodological approaches in the ranking of meat cuts as indicators of social status and economic decision-making. Of particular importance is Huelsbeck’s (1991) study demonstrating the importance of relative ranking of secondary cuts within primary meat cuts. Information collected from the historic Shasta County Hospital faunal assemblage is expected to provide insight into the patients’ status and patient health care.

Documentation collected from the collections at the Shasta Historical Society,

Shasta State Historic Park, CSU Chico Library, and Shasta County Board of Supervisors provide information as vital as that recovered from the archaeological record of historic

Shasta County Hospital. The records housed in the Board of Supervisors office provide the data for beef expenditures from the County Hospital Fund, as well as total quarterly or bimonthly expenditures, based on how frequently the Board of Supervisors held their meetings. Utilizing the written record is an inseparable part of the methodology of conducting historic archaeology.

CHAPTER IV

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND

FAUNAL IDENTIFICATION

Introduction

The Shasta County Hospital site is a portal into the economy and lifeways of a local historic community that experienced dramatic changes of industrialization and modernization from its mining era beginnings to the turn of the century. The faunal assemblage from historic Shasta County Hospital will be analyzed explicitly for status and economical spending, as indicated by beef skeletal portions, chiefly represented by butchered bone. Analysis in this study was modeled after commonly accepted zooarchaeological techniques (Reitz and Wing 2001; Thomas 1998; Bayham et al. 1982).

Data collection and sampling strategy for this study are explained, and species specific problems are discussed.

It has been acknowledged that there are no guarantees in archaeology such that analytical techniques will precisely produce the answers to hypotheses regarding assemblages (Bayham, Hatch and Balsom 1982:29). Faunal analysis, like that of any other, can produce definitive or ambiguous results (Bayham, Hatch and Balsom 1983:31;

Huelsbeck 1991). Nonetheless, as stated in the previous chapter, zooarchaeology has greatly contributed to the field of archaeology. Faunal analysis generally follows three parts: identification, analysis, and then interpretation (Reitz and Wing 2001:142). At the

55 56 identification stage, primary data are collected with the determination of bone element representation and classifying as close to species as possible; these data can be generally replicated by other investigators. Information derived from the primary data is relatively more descriptive and objective, while the derived secondary data is more subjective

(Reitz and Wing 2001:170, 237). In the simplest explanation of faunal analysis, the skeletal part and the taxon are identified in conjunction with a comparative collection and published references (Landon 2005:7). This chapter outlines the step-by-step methods for data collection and sampling procedures conducted for this study and describes the approach taken for gaining secondary information from the primary data.

Excavation and Sampling Procedure

This study utilizes the assemblage from a historic hospital site located in the historic area of the city of Shasta, which lies near the city of Redding in Northern

California. The site (Figure 6) was excavated over two field seasons by the Introduction to Field Archaeology class of Shasta Community College, overseen by Dr. Eric Ritter during two semesters in spring 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Located in western Shasta County (T32N R6W, W ½ of NW ½ of Section

25), the site of historic Shasta County Hospital (CA-SHA-4321H) originally occupied 80 acres of land. According to an 1895 map (Figures 7 and 8), the site included an orchard, gardens, two cemeteries and a complex of buildings that was concentrated in an area bound by the Hospital Gulch (or Creek) to the east, and a seasonal branch of Rock Creek to the west, and Camden Road to the south. Highway 299 was constructed, after World

Figure 6. Shasta County hospital site (CA-SHA-1234H) map.

Source: Eric Ritter, Ph.D., Shasta Community College and State of California—The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 7. 1895 Historic Shasta County Hospital grounds map.

Source: State of California—The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Cascade District. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 8. 1895 Revised Historic Shasta County Hospital grounds map.

Source: Charles Hornbeck. Reprinted with permission.

War II, slightly south of Camden Road, resulting in the destruction of the building sites in the northwestern portion of the site.

Excavation took place during the springs of 2005 and 2006, respectively, after visual and metal detection surveys were conducted north of Highway 299. Equipment used for site survey included metal detectors for subsurface material, chainsaws for clearing brush, and personal effects for pedestrian survey such as compass, Geographical

Positioning System (GPS), and maps. Students first located possible features based on a historic map of the hospital site, which included a potential well, ditches, trash dump, two cemeteries and landscape features. These features were given GPS location readings

(Figure 9). Students noted evidence of roads cut into the site for access by the property owners.

The site datum was placed by GPS at UTM 27 Conus Zone 10, E542074

N4494703. From there an East-West and North-South grid was established, with stakes places at every 20 feet. Two more East-West baselines were placed 100 and 190 feet

North from the datum as needed. Excavation units measured five feet by five feet, with the southeast corner serving as the unit datum and naming the unit by the number of feet from the site datum. Arbitrary, six-inch levels were dug and sifted through ¼-inch screens. Crew size averaged ten students total, excluding Dr. Ritter, special guests and visitors. Each unit received two workers for excavation and screening. In some cases, three students were assigned to a unit, and up to 5 units were open simultaneously in the course of a field day, according to excavation notes.

Figure 9. GPS Data from CA-SHA-1234H.

Source: Eric Ritter, Ph.D., Shasta Community College. Reprinted with permission.

Excavation summary reports, level records, personal correspondence with Dr.

Eric Ritter and students who worked on site, indicate that the deepest test unit, 215N 55E associated with the hospital refuse deposit, or Feature 3, was excavated as follows. Unit

215N55E was excavated in its entirety for Level 1, 0-6 inches, or 12.5 cubic feet (ft3), excavated in the southern half only for Level 2, 6-12 inches, or 6.25 cubic feet, and the southeast quadrant of the unit for the remaining Levels 3 through 8, to depth 48 inches, at

3.125 cubic feet per level. No further material was evident beyond 48 inches. The volume of soil excavated diminished in the interest of maximizing progress given the limited time and labor in conjunction with the amount of rocks contained in the soil matrix. These rocks severely prevented excavation from proceeding efficiently.

The five features and three structures, with the 20 associated units and excavation depths, are summarized in Table 4. These locations were based on surface artifact distribution as seen in pedestrian surveys, spatial association with features known from the 1895 map and on concentrations of “hits” from surveys with the metal detectors.

Please note that no location map is provided in this study because the site rests on private property. the site report in the Northeast Information Center likewise does not contain a location map at the request of the property owner in the interest of discouraging visitors, trespassers, sightseers, or looters. The photos in Figure 10 and 11 show crew members at work and open units in Feature 3 on the historic Shasta County Hospital site, respectively. Table 4 lists the features, structures, and their associated units, and Figure

12 contains the map of the features and units in the site.

Table 4. Features and Associated Units in SCH Site

Feature/Structure Units excavated Levels F1: possible graves N65W60 0-10” N70W60 0-6”

F2: possible well, possible N180E110 0-12”, probed outbuilding behind possible to 30” boarding house

F3: trash pit (midden) N215E55 0-12” entire unit south half to12”, southeast quadrant to 48” N210E60 0-6” entire unit south half to 24” N215E50 0-12” north half 0-18” northeastern quadrant

F4: rock possibly supporting N225E95 No digging conducted floor boards or porch

F5: hole in ground behind lodge (UTM) Z10 0-3” confirmed as not a privy E542070 5’ x 3’ test excavation N4494749

S1: possible boarding N225E95 0-6” house

S2: possible barn N22E95 0-6” N230E125 0-6”; center augered to 12”

S3: Lodge (D&E from map) N165E95 0-6” N165E40 0-6” entire unit; East half 0-17” (bedrock) N170E25 0-6” N170E30 0-6” N185E30 0-6”

Possible Morgue location N120W70 0-6” N100W70 0-6” N120W65 0-6”

Figure 10. Crew members at work on site at CA-SHA-1234H.

Source: Photo courtesy of Vicki Philben. Reprinted with permission.

Faunal Identification Procedures

The entire faunal assemblage recovered from historic Shasta County Hospital was obtained in 15 banker’s boxes, 10 of which contained faunal remains from Unit

215N 55E. The remaining boxes contained the faunal remains from the rest of the site.

After excavation had concluded, I acquired roughly 10 percent of the faunal assemblage in spring of 2006 and used it in a test study from which the thesis proposal for this study developed. The remaining bulk of the assemblage was acquired in December 2006. All material from Unit 215N 55E, which was associated with the midden, was analyzed.

Faunal analysis took place intermittently between the months of January and November of 2007.

Figure 11. Feature 3, which produced the faunal sample used in this study.

Source: Photo courtesy of Vicki Philben. Reprinted with permission.

The collection was taken to the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at California State

University, Chico, for housing, analysis, and access to the comparative collection for cross-referencing. Hand-filled sheets of data were transferred to electronic format using

Microsoft Excel. Data entry took place intermittently between May and August of 2008.

An estimated 80 percent of the entire faunal assemblage came from the unit associated with the hospital midden, or refuse area, designated as Feature 3. Feature 3 was designated as the hospital midden by Dr. Ritter and the excavation class based on reference to a structure labeled as “Lodge” in an 1895 Plat Map as well as the artifacts found within the feature. These artifacts include faunal remains, square cut nails, broken stoneware and glassware, scrap metals, buttons, personal items such as cosmetic jars, and clay tobacco pipes.

Figure 12. CA-SHA-1234H Site Units and Features from Archaeological Site Record.

Source: Eric Ritter, Ph.D., Shasta Community College and State of California—The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Cascade District. Reprinted with permission.

Given (1) the focus of this study on dietary evidence of status and the economy of spending on beef, (2) the fact that the midden is the most likely location where dining refuse would have been cast out, and (3) the lack of depth in other units that can provide material enough with which to attempt studying temporal change, the sample for this study is comprised of the total material from the deepest unit, 215N55E. The total number of bone was 5,758, including whole and fragments of both identifiable and unidentifiable bone, respectively. Faunal remains provide one avenue for studying the provisioning process (Crabtree 1990:158). Historic Shasta County Hospital provided a plethora of services and goods in the administering of health care, including food, shelter, clothing, medicines, and even tobacco. This study focuses on cattle remains as indicators of consumer status, and on the hospital beef expenditures that the Shasta County Board of

Supervisors allowed to be drawn from the tax- and charity-based Hospital Fund.

Dining refuse is most likely to be discarded in the midden area of the premises as a matter of waste management: keep all trash together, from food scraps to broken dishes to nails, cans and metals. In comparison to the overwhelming amount recovered from Feature 3, all other test units throughout the site extremely few faunal remains. The other units also lacked the depth displayed in Feature 3; refer to Table 4 and note that nearly half of the test units excavated terminated at 6 inches, with only one unit reaching

24 inches depth, and less than 5 total at 12 inches or less.

Each specimen was studied for numerous factors ranging from element

(humerus, rib, etc.) and type of animal (cattle, pig, etc) to degree of fragmentation and surface modification. These factors are all stipulated in the Faunal Recording Form

68 developed by the CSU Chico Department of Anthropology for use in teaching and practicing faunal analysis in zooarchaeology.

The Zooarchaeology Laboratory in CSU Chico contains materials for the identification and interpretation of faunal assemblages. These include the comparative collection specimens, recording form and artifact tag templates, weighing scales, calipers, and a 10x by 30x binocular microscope with electric lighting. The comparative collection comprises the skeletal remains of various mammals, reptiles, and fish. Forms provide the template for interpretation and organization of data collection.

Identification also took place in the Zooarchaeology Laboratory. First, the original bag of bones was emptied onto a large sheet of butcher paper. Bones were then sorted by animal size (large, medium, small), then separated into groups according to element, and analyzed for variables as defined by the Faunal Recording Form. Once pieces of like characteristics had been sorted and grouped to the most specific attributes possible, they were then placed into appropriately-sized common household zip-lock bags with tags containing provenience, dates, and identification information. Those zip- lock bags were placed into quart- or gallon-size bags, depending on the amount of bone for each taxon, that were labeled for provenience and taxon. Forms were filled out in correspondence to the contents of each bag, clearly labeled so that specimens may be located and retrieved when necessary, as was the case when all large mammal bone was re-evaluated and confirmed as that of Bos taurus. As each bone was identified and the information was entered in pencil into each form, faunal remains were counted, weighed, tagged, bagged in household zip-lock bags, and placed in a labeled cardboard banker’s box.

Bone fragments were compared with bones in the comparative collection and recorded onto the Faunal Recording Form. Specimens were identified to the most specific taxonomic level possible, as permitted by the comparative collection and the experience level of the faunal analyst. Faunal remains were considered “identifiable” when they could be identified beyond the level of class. If, for example, a bone could not be identified beyond the level “aves” (bird), then the specimen was considered unidentifiable.

Unidentifiable bones falling under the category of “mammal” were marked, when possible, as medium (deer, pig) or small (rabbit) size. As explained in greater detail below, the large mammal bone that was initially labeled “cf. Bos taurus” was re- evaluated in December 2008 and confirmed as that of Bos taurus. Table 5 shows the

Table 5. Identifiable and Unidentifiable Taxa in the Faunal Remains of Shasta County Hospital

Identifiable Unidentifiable Gallus domesticus Class Actinopterygii (bony fish) Lepus californicus Class Aves cf. L. californicus Class Mammal—Medium Odocoileus hemionus Class Mammal—Small cf. O. hemionus Unidentifiable/Class unknown cf. deer/lamb Bos taurus cf. B.taurus Sus scrofa cf. S.scrofa Ovis aries cf. O. aries Note: Please see Table 7 for specific counts by taxon.

70 complete list of taxa recovered from Shasta County Hospital. To the left are taxa that were identifiable at least to Class level; on the right are the taxa unidentifiable beyond that of mammal and likely size, as well as those that are unidentifiable even to Class level.

Bone fragments immediately recognizable were recorded and processed first.

Next, relatively positive identifications were confirmed using appropriate elements from specimens in the comparative collections. For example, a cervical vertebrae (CV) fragment of medium mammal size would be compared to several medium-sized specimens in the comparative collection that contain vertebrae of comparable size. If a positive identification can be found, the CV fragment will be labeled as such

(“Odocoileaus hemionus” for mule deer). If the specimen compares favorably and is likely one of two taxa that closely share skeletal attributes, it is labeled accordingly (“cf. deer/lamb”).

Species-specific Identifications: Problems and Procedures

During data collection in 2006 and 2007, initially there was a category for

“large mammal.” Large mammal bones were most likely that of Bos taurus, or domestic cattle. However, these were not specifically labeled so unless the direct corresponding bone or bone portion was confirmed with a specimen in the comparative collection.

Although the collection contains more than one cattle specimen, none of them are complete skeletons. If a particular element was absent from the comparative collection, the faunal artifact could not be confirmed. For example, not all Bos taurus ribs are present in the comparative collection, and a proximal rib fragment may not match a

71 certain rib along the spinal column. The result was that a large mammal proximal rib was labeled “large mammal, c.f. Bos taurus.”

Once faunal identification and electronic conversion of data concluded, an issue with large mammal bone arose. It had been originally intended for large mammal bones that compared favorably with Bos taurus to be provisionally treated as Bos taurus.

In December 2008, as data tabulation came under way it became apparent that as the specimens’ origins went deeper, the occurrence of “large mammal, c.f. Bos taurus” decreased. Such labeling also decreased based on the date the specimens were identified.

Identifications made in 2006, during the Introduction to Zooarchaeology class and those made during the last weeks of faunal analysis differed in the frequency of tentative categorization of large mammal and Bos taurus. Therefore, it seemed prudent to return to the lab for re-evaluation all “large mammal” specimens.

In December 2008, large mammal specimens were re-evaluated and were indeed Bos taurus. It is believed that over time, as familiarity, experience, and confidence increased then large mammal bones were more readily identifiable and I was ready to definitively “make the call.” Large mammal bones with anatomical portion (humerus, rib) already labeled were combined with existing counts of cattle bone for each level; large mammal bones previously deemed indeterminate were given correct identifications.

For example, in one case, what was in spring of 2006 an indeterminate large mammal vertebrae was corrected as a Bos taurus cervical vertebrae fragment in 2008.

Collecting Faunal Data

The data collected from historic Shasta County Hospital’s faunal assemblage was largely dictated by the variables established in the California State University, Chico

(CSUC) faunal recording form. These variables were followed by using the options provided in the form, with the exception of slight modifications as suited the needs of this study. See Appendix A for the CSUC Faunal Recording form and the accompanying list.

The top half of the form contains fields for identification and location information, in Fields A through J. For the purpose of this study, Locality (Field A) refers to the feature in the site from which the faunal material came. The next field (B) for

ACC-LOT-CAT- NO refers to the accession/lot/catalogue number used for the bag of bone being recorded. This identification number links the sheet to the bone bag. Fields C through J are self-explanatory in their titles: Unit, Level, No. Specimens, Lot Weight,

Volume, Identifiability, Class, and Taxon, respectively. For this study, the lot weight refers to the total weight of bone contained in a particular Ziploc bag, prior to sorting and identifying the contents.

The remaining Fields K through W in the bottom half of the form are defined by the accompanying list of possible entries for each field. Anatomical Parts are indicated in Field K, followed by Portion. Portion is important to this study because specific details such as proximal or distal humerus or femoral shaft are diagnostic to primary beef cuts versus fragments of bone, such as unidentifiable vertebrae, which are less diagnostic and unusable for the estimation formulas that will be explained in Chapter VI of this thesis.

Animal Size (Field M) refers to the size of an animal relative to the class named in Field I. For example, a sheep is considered a medium-sized animal, and field M

73 indicates whether the individual is small, medium, or large for a sheep. Field N, indicates

(1) right or left side if the element is appendicular, (2) axial, (3) fused right and left, and unknown. Fusion, presence of epiphyseal lines, or unknown status of bone help to indicate age of an animal, recorded in Field O. The percentage of the anatomical part in

Field P is subjective and based on the observer’s estimate of how much of the bone element is present. This information is important because it comes into play when calculating meat weights of units of acquisition using specimens for which no measurements are available.

Surface modification, indicated in Field Q, is determined by the outward physical appearance of the bone in relation to natural exposure rather than human modification. Where surfaces were not removed by butchering or taphonomy (or a combination of the two), and little sign other than fine, dry cracks were present, bones were considered to be in good or fair condition. Root etching is ubiquitous throughout the assemblage. Bone in fair condition only exhibited superficial weathering, and appeared very similar to processed bones in the comparative collection. There is a wide range of surface weathering, as the collection displays everything from heavy to no surface modification, and fair to poor to root-etched surfaces. Some bone had no original surface remaining, resulting in chunks of indeterminate cancellous bone.

Rodent gnawing, if present, is categorized as either “light” or “heavy.” If a bone showed signs of rodent gnawing, it was considered lightly gnawed, and if the surface or silhouette of a bone were altered then it was considered heavily rodent gnawed and recorded so in Field R. The same stipulations held for carnivore chewing in Field S, if present, and if markings were ambiguous the bone was considered “possibly” carnivore

74 chewed. Butchered bones in the comparative collection displaying signs of carnivore chewing served as models for carnivore chewed bones. The carnivore chewing is likely canine, domestic dogs or wild coyotes.

Cultural modification, if present, falls under worked bone, cut/butchered bone, green/spiral fractured bone, dry/horizontal fractured bone, indeterminately modified bone, and non-modified bone in Field T. Worked bone typically refers to reshaping for tool use, as in the case of bone awls. The Shasta County Hospital assemblage includes cut marks from utensil use, butchering marks from saw cuts, green/spiral fracturing as a result of breaking of fresh bone, dry/horizontal fracturing due to post-depositional breakage and taphonomy. If bone displayed more than one type of cultural modification then it was recorded accordingly. Bones exhibiting straight cutting planes resulting from preparation of limb or body elements for commercial packaging and sale are particularly important because they provide the measurements used in calculating weights for units of acquisition.

Butchered bone displays fine striations along a flat plane as a result of sawing; cut bone is defined by scratches caused by knife use. For example, a six-inch section of beef rib, in this context, may display evidence of butchering by the flat cutting planes on both ends, and longitudinal marks possibly from knife or other utensil use. Other evidence of butchering includes V-shaped grooves from hacking with an axe or cleaver.

Bones bearing these marks had saw-cut planes next to the V-shaped grooves. The reasoning for the presence of axe or cleaver marks in conjunctions with the saw-cut planes is beyond the scope of this study; however it is interesting that both cultural modifications are present in some of the specimens.

If burned, bone was labeled as charred, calcined, or discolored in Field U.

Charred (blackened) bone and calcined (whitened to chalk-like appearance and texture) bone result from dry, open flame heat, versus wet heat from boiling. Discoloration may or may not be the direct result of burning, and where bone coloration did not match charring or calcining, bones were labeled as discolored. The frequency of specimens is placed in Field V, and weight to the tenth of a gram (.1 minimum) in Field W.

Roughly 10 percent of the sample assemblage had not yet been washed by the

Shasta Communinty College archaeology class. When necessary, bones were cleaned of soil by using a clean toothbrush or two-inch wide paintbrush. Barbecue skewers helped empty longbones or clear transverse foramen of dirt. Specimens were weighed to the nearest whole gram with the exception of bones less than one gram. Where bone weights were less than one-tenth of one gram, they recorded as .1 gram in order for them to be represented among the total weight of the collection, indicated in Field W.

Although not originally on the faunal recording form, butchered bone that exhibited measurable lengths received attention and recording (Figure 13). This information was placed in the margin of the faunal recording form or added to notes at the bottom of the page. In the Excel version of the data, the field for measurement was named as column (Field) Y, after Field X, which contained the common name of the fauna being analyzed.

To achieve butchered bone lengths, sliding-ruler calipers measured the widest points of longbone sections. For example, a cross section of femur from a round cut may not necessarily have perfectly parallel cutting planes. Nonetheless, if one plane is perpendicular to the bone while the other plane cuts at an angle, it is reasonable to

Figure 13. Examples of measuring cut bones. Illustrated by Rhea Sanchez 2009.

assume that the steak would have been, at most, as thick as the thickest portion of the cut bone cross section. Ribs were treated in the same manner, with maximum lengths acquired by the distance from the flat cutting plane to the rib head or corresponding cut plane.

Summary

The methods for sampling, faunal identification, and data collection are described above in detail to explain the source of the data presented in the next chapter.

Before arriving at the estimates of meat from primary beef cuts and secondary units of acquisition, it is important for the reader to understand how these counts and weights were acquired. This chapter contained descriptions of the faunal assemblage used as the sample: all material from the only unit exhibiting depth for time value, and faunal remains from the site midden. No other unit excavated provides materials required for faunal analysis of the historic Shasta County Hospital meat consumption. Data collection was driven by the Faunal Recording Form, with the addition of length/width measurements to the sixteenths of an inch, when such measurements were possible. The results of the data collected as described above are found in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V

ASSEMBLING THE DATA: FAUNAL BONE

COUNTS AND EXPENDITURES FOR

SHASTA COUNTY HOSPITAL

Introduction

Historic Shasta County Hospital patients consumed a substantial amount of beef compared to all other vertebrate mammal and marine remains found in the archaeological faunal assemblage recovered from the site that was once the location of the historic Shasta County Hospital. This chapter introduces the faunal assemblage recovered from the historic Shasta County Hospital site (CA-SHA-1234H) to indicate status, economical spending by the hospital, and economic conditions in this historical context.

Once beef cuts are given relative status ranking based on osteological correlates, inferences can be made on a faunal assemblage regarding the decisions related to food purchasing. Beginning with a description of the faunal assemblage, this chapter proceeds to present the assemblage found in the historic Shasta County Hospital’s refuse deposit in terms of wholesale beef cuts and in retail units of acquisition (UA). The taxa represented in the assemblages are briefly discussed. Beef remains are then presented in terms of anatomical part corresponding to meat cuts as ranked by previous studies

(Bayham et al. 1982, Huelsbeck 1991, Lyman 1979, Schulz and Gust 1983, Spooler

78 79

1917). These data provide the basis for analyzing Shasta County Hospital’s ranked meats and for the conclusions regarding consumer status and the local economic conditions of the county, as indicated by the beef expenditures.

The Historic Shasta

County Hospital Assemblage

Analysis for the historic Shasta County Hospital site (CA-SHA-1234H) is based on 3,262 pieces of cattle bone from one unit (215N55E) placed in the site refuse deposit. This unit is the only one excavated to produce both significant depth and substantial faunal material with which to base this study. All other units lack the locale, faunal material and depth required for zooarchaeological analysis of the site.

The total number of bone, including all identifiable taxa and unidentifiable fragments is 5,758. Of 3,573 identifiable bone, 3,262 are from cattle. Although this study focuses only on cattle remains, the number of identifiable specimens (NISP) for all taxa are included below in order to provide contextual numbers of cattle bone relative to the whole faunal assemblage. Table 6 displays the cubic foot (ft3) volume of soil excavated, and Table 7 shows the taxonomic list of all species identified, and is followed by brief description of the classes represented in the assemblage.

Table 6. Level Definitions and ft3 Volume for Unit 215N55E

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 0-6" 6-12" 12-18" 18-24" 24-30" 30-36" 36-42" 42-48" 12.5 ft3 6.25 ft3 3.125 ft3 3.125 ft3 3.125 ft3 3.125 ft3 3.125 ft3 3.125 ft3

Table 7. Frequency and Weights (gm) of Identifiable and Unidentifiable Taxa from Unit 215N55E

Identifiable Common Name Weight (g) Frequency Gallus domesticus Domestic chicken 18.9 28 Lepus californicus California jackrabbit 0.8 1 cf. Lepus californicus like California jackrabbit 0.3 1 cf. Sylvilagus sp. like Cottontail rabbit 0.7 1 Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer 219.6 19 cf. O. hemionus like mule deer 4.1 2 cf. deer/lamb like mule deer or lamb 435.8 165 Bos taurus Domestic cow 25956.2 3262 Sus scofa Domestic pig 139.9 6 cf. Sus scrofa like dom. Pig 65.3 9 Ovis aries Domestic sheep/lamb 286.8 29 cf. Ovis aries like sheep/lamb 23.8 7 subtotals 27152.2 3530 Unidentifiable Actinopterygii Fish 1 4 Aves Bird 10.4 10 Medium Mammal Md. Mammal 415.7 245 Small Mammal Sm. Mammal 0.4 1 Mammal mammal, size unknown 1991.1 1950 Unidentifiable Class unknown 24.2 18 subtotals 2442.8 2228 Totals 29595 5758

Description of Taxa Present in Assemblage

Shell

Shell remains are limited to two pieces of common pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, surface-collected in the vicinity of Feature 3 (the hospital refuse). These consist of a nearly complete valve (one of the two halves completing one oyster), 3 7/8” length, and one 1 7/8” valve fragment with no margins. Both are weathered, with individual layers exposed at the margins due to wearing down.

Fish

Four vertebrae less than half an inch in diameter comprise the fish remains.

These contained no distinguishable features and were unidentifiable even against the comparative collection specimens. Given the presence of oyster shell in the assemblage, it is possible that these are marine fish confounding efforts to identify these remains.

Interestingly, in spite of accessibility to local salmon fisheries there are no salmon remains present in this assemblage. If fish were consumed, the remains may have been discarded elsewhere, such as in the creek, to minimize stench. Alternately, the effects of mining may have caused the decline of local fish populations due to sedimentation and toxic contamination.

Bird

The only fowl present is domestic chicken, Gallus domesticus. Anatomical portions are represented by 28 pieces, including the carpometacarpus, humerus, scapula, ulna, metapodial, femur, and cervical vertebrae. These indicated the wing, back, foot, thigh, and neck, respectively.

Lagomorph

The lagomorph collection totals three pieces: one specimen, roughly 50 percent of a sacrum from a California black-tailed jackrabbit, Lepus californicus, one fragment of a humerus that compares favorably (cf.), but not definitively, with L. californicus, and lastly a proximal femur cf. cottontail rabbit, Sylvilagus sp.

Artiodactyla

Species for both wild and domestic ungulates consist of mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus), sheep/lamb (Ovis aries), pig (Sus scofa), and cattle (Bos taurus).

The Artiodactyla remains account for all but 31 (consisting of lagomorph, bird, fish, shell) of the 3,530 identifiable specimens out of the total 5,758 analyzed specimens.

Faunal Bone Frequencies

“Rivers of ink have been spilled” regarding the methods for quantifying faunal remains, especially for the advantages and drawbacks of using the number of identifiable specimens (NISP) or minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) (Crabtree

1990:159). There is no ultimate technique that will perfectly capture the relative proportions of species represented in a site, for accounting for bones that originate from the same animal, or for individual fragments that may have come from the same bone element. The problems associated with NISP and MNI will be taken into account and alleviated mathematically using an established formula designed for historic faunal analysis.

The NISP is the number of identifiable specimens in a faunal assemblage, while MNI is the minimum number of individuals that can account for all the bones in an assemblage. Although NISP provides the total number of specimens present, it also has the potential to give an inaccurate estimate of species population. As a “tally” of bone pieces it can inflate the number of individuals that may account for the bones present.

The problem of MNI versus NISP is one of the most debated topics among zooarchaeologists (Grayson 1984; Lyman 1979, 1987). It can be a questionable gauge for the number of individuals present in an assemblage due to its tendency to inflate how many animals are really represented.

Absolute frequencies (NISP) cannot alone estimate relative abundance among taxa due to variables unrelated to human behavior. These include: (1) the animal’s size, as one animal may have more bone mass than another; (2) physical condition of the bones, affected by varying taphonomic factors; and (3) method of excavation, which may or may not have involved fine-mesh screens, if soil was screened at all (Bayham and

Hatch 1985:192). These concerns are certainly considered in this study. However, historic assemblages differ from prehistoric assemblages which may contain any number of kill/butchering events from any number of individuals. Bones present in a historic assemblage represent retail purchases of beef portions or other animals as units of acquisition, rather than individual animals as units of acquisition.

Relative frequencies of minimum number of individuals (MNI) can either inflate or underestimate how many individuals are present because of sampling technique: is the area of study one whole complex or region, several sites, or one unit?

Applying MNI, like NISP, can be affected by identification bias, because some taxa are just more easily identifiable than others (Grayson 1984:21). Also, differential processing of animals can affect how many individuals appear to be present in an assemblage: if certain bones are fragmented enough, they may decompose and not appear in an assemblage altogether. Simons’ study of the Golden Eagle Hotel demonstrates how a

French press can essentially eliminate the synsacrum of the duck altogether, leading to the assumption that breasts were not consumed (Simons 1984).

With historic assemblages, MNI is problematic because elements do not represent complete individuals but meat cuts. As stated by Bayham and Hatch (1982:15),

“MNI calculations were designed for use in aboriginal sites where entire animals were

84 butchered.” In historic assemblages, butchered faunal bone is the unit of acquisition, assumed to be the remains of the meat products actually sold and purchased, not the result of hunting and on-location butchering. It is potentially disastrous to assume the presence of say, 20 butchered left femoral heads from a kitchen refuse deposit mean that literally 20 whole cattle’s worth of food were consumed in a specific historic site!

Schulz and Gust’s (1983) study on faunal remains and social status based on

19th century beef cuts is commonly cited (Lyman 1979, 1987; Huelsbeck 1989, 1991;

Bayham and Hatch 1985; Landon 2005) for their use of beef bone NISP as the basis of analyses on consumer social status. Lyman (1979, 1987) uses minimum numbers of beef cuts for historic assemblages, and Huelsbeck (1991) employed minimum numbers of both beef cuts and units of acquisition in order to demonstrate the skewing effects of choosing beef cuts or units of acquisition as the basis of analysis for meat consumed.

Zooarchaeologists commonly provide both MNI and NISP rather than choose one over the other (Crabtree 1990:160).

All taxa were analyzed and recorded for the assemblage from Unit 215N 55E.

These can be seen in Table 8, which shows the NISP for all taxa, by level. Totals for each taxa are listed in the rightmost column, with subtotals for identifiable and unidentifiable bones listed by level. Note that the out of 5,758 total specimens, 3,530 were identifiable, and of these, 3,262 are cattle remains. The counts for these cattle remains are seen in

Table 9, in which this total is refined to the anatomical part for each level.

Table 8. All Taxa NISP Per Level in Unit 215N 55E

Level Identifiable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Gallus domesticus 2 8 17 1 28 Lepus californicus 1 1 cf. Lepus californicus 1 1 cf. Sylvilagus sp. 1 1 Odocoileus hemionus 5 4 9 1 19 cf. O. hemionus 2 2 cf. deer/lamb 2 8 28 85 33 9 165 Bos taurus 337 973 867 598 263 68 151 5 3,262 Sus scofa 4 1 1 6 cf. Sus scrofa 8 1 9 Ovis aries 2 9 10 8 29 cf. Ovis aries 7 7 subtotals 345 1010 924 711 306 68 161 5 3,530 Unidentifiable Actinopterygii 1 3 4 Medium Mammal 18 119 90 18 245 Small Mammal 1 1 Mammal 202 652 596 377 110 13 1,950 Aves 2 4 4 10 Unidentifiable 3 14 1 18 subtotals 223 789 690 403 110 0 0 13 2,228 Totals 568 1799 1614 1114 416 68 161 18 5,758

Hospital Beef Expenditures

Archival research at the office of the Board of Supervisors for Shasta County, located in Redding, produced total amounts of beef expenditures for each meeting of the

Board of Supervisors that was recorded. During each meeting, the hospital physician produced warrants for hospital “indebtedness” towards purchases listed as beef, venison

(on two occasions), medicine, milk, sundries, hardware, hay, clothing, supplies, lumber and coffins as needed, groceries, and salaries for the hospital steward, physician, and cook. Only the years 1850 through the end of 1899 were researched, as these are the

Table 9. Bos taurus NISP Per Level For Each Anatomical Part in Unit 215N 55E

Anatomical Part Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Identifiable mand v-ind 36 224 181 71 24 1 2 1 540 axis 2 2 1 5 cv 13 17 58 4 6 2 8 1 109 tv 1 1 lv 4 2 6 sac rib 140 372 342 297 114 14 53 1332 st sc 51 88 98 39 25 16 13 1 331 in/pel 1 1 il isch 1 1 syn lbn 52 150 71 140 47 24 484 hum 6 15 27 27 36 25 11 1 148 rad uln mc 1 1 rad+uln fem 3 8 4 15 6 10 2 1 49 tib 1 1 mt ast mp pod/ses pha canc 6 20 24 50 flt ind 12 12 4 28 Non- identifiable nid 16 66 51 4 38 175 Total 337 973 867 598 263 68 151 5 3262

years during which the historic Shasta County Hospital in Shasta was in effect before closing and relocating to a new facility in Redding in 1900.

The Board met quarterly in the months of February, May, August, and

November during the years from 1855 through 1887. In 1888 the dates indicate bimonthly meetings in the months of January, March, May, July, September, and

November. Upon hearing the warrants, the Board granted approval for funds to be taken from the Hospital Fund to pay for the goods and services rendered in the management and operation of the hospital. Only one warrant was disapproved for $6.50 for salmon on

August 7, 1883. Two instances of venison purchases occurred: the first for May 18, 1859 for $4.00 and the second on July 6, 1886 for $15.00.

The beef expenditures for each decade for the years 1855 through 1899 have been calculated and are presented in graphs that can be found in Appendix F. The graphs indicate the date by decade on the X axis and the total money spent on beef for the quarter on the Y axis. Fluctuations in beef expenditures can be seen in the “peaks” and

“valleys.” Gaps or blanks that interrupt are due to meetings in which the clerk recording the minutes at the Board of Supervisors meeting did not itemize the warrants drawn from the Hospital Fund. Rather, the clerk only recorded the individuals to which the warrants were drafted. In most cases, I could recognize the butcher’s name or cross-reference the name against the business directory for Shasta (Frank and Chappell:1881).

Figure 14 shows the beef expenditures for the 1860s. Fluctuations from meeting to meeting are relatively minor, with plus or minus $25.00 from one meeting to the next. However, notice the downward trend culminating at the year 1863, which is followed by a slight increase before dropping and slowly rising again towards the end of the 1860s.

Although each decade contains fluctuations at the annual level, decade after decade it is apparent that the beef expenditures increased. Beef expenditures account for anything between 2 and 25 percent of the total budget taken from the Hospital Fund, with the lowest amount at $15.50 and the highest at $323.21 spent on beef. From 1855 to 1859

1860-1869

$350.00

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00

80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 8 8 8 8 89 89 89 89

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

9 0 6 7 5 5 7 6 5 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 0 8 0 5 7 0 7 4 6 5 6 3 4 8 5 1 5 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

5 8 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Figure 14. Hospital beef expenditures for the 1860s. 88

89 the average beef expenditure was $83.85. For the next decades of the 1860s, 1870s,

1880s, and 1890s the averages were $90.01, $118.38, $153.57 and $195.42, respectively.

This average increase can be recognized graphically as the lines position occupies higher and higher locations on the chart towards the $350 line at the top of the graph. Although the overall trend is that of increasing beef expenditures, these graphs also indicate the health of the national economy. Two significant low points in the beef expenditures are noticeable in the 1860s and in the early 1870s, and these likely reflect the historical Civil

War and the Panic of 1873.

The United States Civil War (1861-1865) resulted from a combination of the desire of the Southern states to secede from the Union based on the desire to continue the practice of slavery while abolitionists in the Northern States favored terminate its practice

(Turner 1929:476). The effects of the Civil War are infamous, from the loss of American lives to the disruption in production of transport of goods, particularly cotton from the south. The decrease in beef expenditures in Shasta County parallels the slump in the national economy during this time period, as the national population felt the monetary losses and interruption of market production and distribution.

The United States enjoyed a period of prosperity between the years of 1868 and 1873 of increasing production of trade goods, continuing agricultural reconstruction in the South, near doubling of the expanse of the railroad system, steadily incoming immigration, but increasing interest rates (Wells 1937:238). At the end of 1873, this period of economic prosperity abruptly halted when the United States’ banking community realized that the railroad system was overbuilt and that they could not continue payments on the railroad expansion (Wells 1937:1873). This resulted in a

90 nationwide panic in which credit was difficult, if not impossible to obtain. The United

States was not the only country experiencing an economic depression, as most of Europe dealt with its own financial troubles. While the Shasta County Hospital beef expenditures increase over time, the lower starting point in the early 1870s is likely a reflection of the

Panic of 1873.

Provisions and Amenities in Historic Shasta County Hospital

The County Hospital reports presented to the Board of Supervisors indicate more than just itemized lists of expenditures. Each page in every volume between the first indications of the hospital from 1855 through to the year 1900 was scrutinized for information pertaining to food provisioning for the patients at the hospital. The February

1857 records show the following statement (punctuation and grammar as originally presented in the Minutes, Office of the Board of Supervisors, Redding):

The county physician’s report was read and accepted the board being well satisfied with the manner in which that officer has conducted the affairs of the hospital. The board have visited the hospital and grounds connected therewith and find it necessary for the comfort and convenience of the sick that water should be brought to the building for bathing and other purposes also that the ground should be enclosed with a fence. The Board have authorized the Physician to purchase a stated number of hogs and poultry, believing that it would subserve to the economy of this institution, in order to accomplish these improvements it will be necessary to increase the property tax for the hospital purposes an additional ¼ of one per cent as allowed by Statutes of 1856. [Shasta County Board of Supervisors 1855-1900]

On November 8, 1879, the Board accepted bids for “fresh meat of good quality of such kind and in such quantities as the Steward may require to be delivered at the County Hospital” (Minutes Recorded at the Redding Board of Supervisor’s Office).

The hospital also received approval for using Hospital Fund money to purchase a cow

91 and calf for $78.75 on May 7, 1884 (Shasta County Board of Supervisors 1855-1900). As stated in Chapter II, the Board periodically announced acceptance dates for bids to provide services to be paid for from the County’s various funds. For example, the Board accepted a bid for milk at 33 1/3 cents per gallon of milk on May 5, 1875 (Shasta County

Board of Supervisors 1855-1900).

The most important bid, for the purposes of this study, is the one for beef.

Only three mentions of bidding for beef were found in my survey of the Hospital Reports presented to the Board of Supervisors, the first being C.L. Paige’s bid on August 3, 1880, to supply meat to the hospital, “not exceeding $433.33 1/3 for each month, or $5,200 in the aggregate for the ensuing year” (Shasta County Board of Supervisors 1855-1900).

The second was for Peter Hoff to furnish Shasta County Hospital for $0.12 per pound for six months beginning February 11, 1881. Finally, E. R. Jones bid for providing beef at

$.15/lb for the following six months after February 12, 1883.

Shasta County, through the administration of the Board of Supervisors, provided comprehensive service for the health and well-being of the people being cared for by the County Hospital. Although the physician, steward, and Board determined the nature and scope of caring for those housed at the hospital, the patients exercised their own influence as well. The Board made amenities to the Hospital Rules and Regulations to the voiced needs of the patients. On Thursday, November 8, 1877, the Board noted:

Complaints—having been made as to the management of the County Hospital, the Board after examining witnesses and hearing testimony in regard to the same, Ordered that Rule IX, be so changed that Patients shall be allowed ¾ of a pound of beef instead of ½ pound per day, that tea be furnished the patients at the last meal of each day in addition to coffee for breakfast, and that sugar be placed upon the table, and that green or dried fruit be served once each day. [Shasta County Board of Supervisors 1855-1900]

During this same meeting the Board also amended Rule X such that from

March 1 through November 1, patients were provided with three meals daily, and from

November 1 to March 1, two meals were offered per diem.

Summary

As evident by the sheer numbers and by how beef bones overwhelm the assemblage, the meat component in the food served at historic Shasta County Hospital is quite substantial. This chapter presented assemblage bone counts and counts of beef bone elements, graphic representations of the fluctuations in hospital beef expenditures, and information on food provision at historic Shasta County Hospital. The NISP presented in

Chapter IV were applied to formulas for the estimation of meat pounds according to beef cuts represented by the beef remains, and by the pounds that the remains themselves represent, as units of acquisition. Concerns regarding NISP and MNI are certainly recognized, and these will be addressed in Chapter Six. Archival research at the Shasta

County Board of Supervisors produced the beef expenditures that were drawn from the

Hospital Fund at each board meeting. These bills, in conjunction with the cattle remains, provide the basis for the conclusive statements regarding Shasta County Hospital beef consumer status and the economic climate of the county. These include the Civil War and the Panic of 1873.

CHAPTER VI

PRESENTING MEAT YIELD ESTIMATES

FOR BEEF CONSUMED IN HISTORIC

SHASTA COUNTY HOSPITAL

Introduction

Historic Shasta County Hospital patients consumed a substantial amount of beef compared to all other vertebrate mammals found in the archaeological faunal assemblage recovered from the site. This chapter presents estimates of wholesale beef cuts and retail units of acquisition (UA) found in the historic Shasta County Hospital’s midden deposit as part of the effort to analyze the faunal assemblage recovered from historic Shasta County Hospital site (CA-SHA-1234H) for indications of status and economics in this historical context. The issue of addressing realistic meat estimates based on the traditional method of using primary beef cuts and of using the actual units of acquisition is discussed, and using one approach versus the other results in significant differences. The beef meat yield estimates for beef consumed in historic Shasta County

Hospital are then presented.

Historic faunal studies will be most meaningful if interpretations consider the complexity and plurality of the past. Documenting patterns and interpreting them into roles and functions of foods as indicators of social boundaries, while highly informative, can be expounded and strengthened when done in conjunction with other studies. These

93 94 other studies include the process of commoditization (moving production of goods outside the home), cooking and food preparation, butchery patterns, and

DNA/biomolecule/stable isotope analysis (Landon 2005:25-27). For this study, trends in the patterns in the beef cuts and units of acquisition, compared to the spending patterns of

Shasta County Hospital over time serve to show how beef remained a staple in patient diet in spite of the national depression in 1873 and local economic downturns within

Shasta County itself.

Game animals (such as deer) are hunted and killed, while domestic animals

(sheep, goat, cattle) are raised and then slaughtered. The semantics are not as important as the context and content of the faunal assemblage: differential frequencies of meat- bearing bones (torso and upper limbs) to lower limb and crania are common indicators of butchering events. The lower limb bones and crania are expected to be present at the site of butchering, as meat-bearing bones will be transported to the site of consumption. In this sense, urban households and domestic locations such as restaurants and prisons are not as likely to contain crania, hooves, or phalanges.

In addition to the generous amounts of beef served, historic Shasta County

Hospital greatly accommodated its patients: an additional building was approved to meet the increased demands of the hospital (September 8, 1888 Minutes recorded at the Office of the Board of Supervisors in Redding). The minutes recorded at the Board of

Supervisors evidence that the hospital purchased “supplies” including China rice and presumably the hospital often purchased so-called China rice every month (May 12, 1882

Minutes recorded at the Office of the Board of Supervisors in Redding). Dr. Shurtleff wrote a letter stating that the Chinese, as taxpayers contributing to the Hospital fund

95 through the hospital tax, had every right to the services of the hospital as any other resident of Shasta County (The Shasta Courier, Saturday, February 6, 1869), and the hospital by 1875 had “inmates” (patients) from no less than 31 countries (Woodrum

1972:19).

Quantities of Represented Beef

When estimating quantities of represented beef for analysis, as well as comparing an assemblage with other assemblages, the kind of units used for quantification is influential in producing results. As demonstrated by Huelsbeck (1991), historic faunal assemblages may be analyzed in terms of wholesale beef cuts or by units of acquisition. Huelsbeck (1991:70-71) argues that “[w]hen interpreting estimates of the meat represented by faunal remains, the appropriate method is the unit of acquisition” in order to obtain more accurate results about past consumer behavior. If meat was acquired in retail portions, then retail portions should be used when quantifying the amount of represented meat.

The Shasta County Hospital assemblage was analyzed in terms of both the common method of wholesale cuts, which contain greater percentages of bone elements, and by unit of acquisition, indicated by the butchered bones as recovered in excavation.

Skeletal element portion is important to this study because specific details such as proximal or distal humerus or femoral shaft are diagnostic to primary beef cuts versus fragments of bone, such as unidentifiable vertebrae, which are less diagnostic and unusable for the estimation formulas explained in this chapter.

Estimating Primary (Wholesale) Meat Pounds

This study employed NISP frequencies in the calculation of minimum numbers of primary (wholesale) meat estimates and estimate secondary cuts, or units of acquisition (retail cuts). The problem with NISP in historic assemblages is that different beef cuts contain different numbers of bone. Another problem is the interdependence of counted bone specimens, as fragments potentially may represent a single unit, although they are counted separately. Lyman (1987) offers one way of mathematically addressing

NISP problems by calculating the minimum number of beef cuts (MNBC).

The use of MNBC mathematically corrects for the problem of different primary (wholesale) beef cuts containing different numbers of bones by dividing NISP by the expected NISP per single beef cut to obtain MNBC. To estimate edible meat yield in pounds for an assemblage, the MNBC is multiplied by the edible meat yield per beef cut.

See Table 10 for skeletal descriptions and expected NISP per beef cut, and Table 11 for economic rank, expected NISP, and edible meat yield per primary cut (Lyman 1987).

Calculating Probable Meat Pounds for Units of Acquisition

The cattle bones serve as representation of the units of acquisition, or beef in the state as delivered to the cook and prepared for consumption by hospital patrons.

While the method for estimating minimum numbers of beef cuts and edible meat pounds was based on Lyman’s (1987) skeletal definitions and expected NISP (Table 10), I applied my own approach to estimating counts and pounds of units of acquisition. This is in part due to the fact that historic faunal assemblages are not analyzed by retail portion as the unit of acquisition, but rather in terms of the primary wholesale beef cuts. Using

Table 10. Expected NISP Per Beef Cut According to Lyman

Economic Beef Cut Rank NISP Skeletal definition short loin 1 7 lumbar vertebrae rib 2 16 dorsal ribs 6-13; thoracic vertebrae 6-13 sirloin 2 2 ilium, sacrum round 3 1 distal femur and diaphysis rump 4 4 acetabulum, pubis, ischium, proximal femur chuck 5 11 thoracic vertebrae 1-5, dorsal rib 1-5, scapula arm 6 1 proximal humerus and diaphysis cross/short rib 6 13 ventral rib 1-13 brisket 7 12 sternabrae, costal cartilage 1-5 short plate 7 8 costal cartilage 6-13 neck 8 6 axis, cervical vertebrae 3-7 foreshank 9 3 distal humerus, radius-ulna tibia, astragalus, calcaneum, distal fibula, hindshank 9 5 naviculo cuboid

Source: Data for table from Lyman, Lee R., 1987, On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost-Efficient Meat Purchases. Historical Archaeology 21(1): 58-66.

basic arithmetic, meat pounds for retail units of acquisition are estimated by using modern retail cuts as models for the cuts represented in the historic faunal assemblage.

Meat yields per unit of acquisition for this study are based on grocery store observations as the model for gauging historic weights of the beef by unit of acquisition.

Unit weights of meat of the historic Shasta County Hospital beef cuts assemblage were estimated by cross-multiplication using known variables to solve for the unknown weight.

I visited three different grocery stores that had meat departments to observe packaged beef products in the meat aisle. These stores were Suisun Seafood City,

Raley’s, and FoodMaxx. Several visits for bone reference were made, but on February

Table 11. Economic Rank, NISP and Edible Meat Yield Per Primary Beef Cut

Beef Cut Economic Rank NISP Edible Meat Yield (lbs) short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 16 20 sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 1 25 rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 11 28 arm 6 1 15 cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 6 1 foreshank 9 3 7 hindshank 9 5 8

Source: Data for table from Lyman, Lee R., 1987, On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost-Efficient Meat Purchases. Historical Archaeology 21(1): 58-66.

23, 2009 I conducted interviews with the butchers from Suisun Seafood City and Raley’s.

I also had the opportunity to go behind the meat counter to look at the retail cuts more closely. The butchers interviewed were Rose Canlas and Mike Umali of the multi-service

Suisun Seafood City, and Donald Taylor of the chain grocery store, Raley’s (Personal communication, February 23, 2009). The butchers at Suisun Seafood City provided weights for and allowed me to measure bones in several examples of retail beef cuts containing bone as seen in the historic Shasta County Hospital assemblage. I showed sketched diagrams of bones to both all three butchers. Measurements and weights given by the contemporary grocery stores serve as proxies in estimating the weights of the hospital units of acquisition.

The known variables are: (1) the thickness, taken in sixteenths of an inch; (2) the weight of retail cuts as provided by butchers at Suisun Seafood City; and (3) the

99 thickness of cuts in the historic Shasta County Hospital assemblage. The variable needed is an approximation of the weight of the retail cut as raw beef, including bone, for Shasta

County Hospital’s units of acquisition. Lengths originally recorded to the sixteenths-inch were converted to decimal lengths of an inch, so that a beef shank bone with humerus measuring 1 12/16 of an inch became 1.75 inches, a rib measuring 1 3/16 of an inch became 1.19 inches, and so forth. Using cross-multiplication for known variables, the unknown variable, x lbs. of meat, can be obtained.

Figure 15 illustrates an example of the math computed in the case of a cross section of humerus. The model for the unit of acquisition, standing rump roast

(“standing” refers to bone-in rump roast, as opposed to boneless rump roasts), produces a femur cross section of femur found in the primary beef cut called the round. The cut from the grocery store Raley’s is a 1 ¼ inch cross section weighing 3 pounds, bone included. All measurements, taken to 1/16 during data collection, were converted to decimal numbers, rounded to the nearest .01 inch. Therefore, if a 1.25-inch cross section of femur contained within three pounds of a standing rump roast from Raley’s equals X inches of a historic Shasta County Hospital femur cross section, weight Y can be calculated by inserting the measured length X as obtained from the faunal collection.

To maintain consistency throughout all calculations for each specimen, the same one modern model was used to plug into the formula for all pieces. It is not the assertion of the author that this cross-multiplication method will perfectly and unambiguously produce meat weights for all units of acquisition. It is a way of mathematically estimating total pounds for units of acquisition.

100

To estimate bone-in weights for units of acquisition given known variables from 2009 grocery store retail cuts and measurements from archaeological assemblage: 1) If assemblage bone length is known:

Using the model for arm roast: 1.31” humerus cross section at .72 lbs, bone-in meat, from SSC grocery store and a Shasta County Hospital humerus cross- section if length y, solve for weight x:

1.31” SCC HUM = y” SCH HUM 0.72 lb x lb

(1.31 lb) (x) = (0.72)(y)

x = (0.72)(y) (1.31)

Then solve for weight x by substituting the assemblage measurement. For example, if y=1.75”, then the weight x for that specimen is

x = (0.72)(1.75) (1.31)

x = 0.96 lbs, rounded to the nearest 0.01 lb

2) If assemblage bone percentage estimate is known:

Using the model 30% of one cervical vertebrae, known from the SSC grocery store, and a Shasta County Hospital cervical vertebrae of percentage y:

0.30 SCC CV = y % SCH CV 0.52 lb x lb

(0.30) (x) = (0.52)(y)

x = (0.52)(y) (0.30) Then solve for x by substituting the artifact estimate, if known, for y.

Figure 15. Example of cross-multiplication used to estimate lbs for unit of acquisition.

101

The beef cuts are measured by pounds of edible meat, while the units of acquisition are estimated to include bone with the weight. This is due to the unlikelihood that the hospital acquired wholesale beef cuts, which would need to be stored and further butchered in the hospital kitchen. Rather, it is known from archival sources that butchers delivered meat to the hospital. It is assumed that when the butchers charged per lb of beef, they included the bone in the weight of the unit of acquisition.

Problems with Beef bone Counts and Weight Estimates

Calculating numbers and weights of units of acquisition proved problematic because only bone fragments for which measurements and estimated percentages were known. The remaining fragments are unusable for the purposes of the cross- multiplication equation. For instance, 1,254 fragments of rib are not diagnostic enough for calculating beyond the beef cut level; whether they are short ribs or rib roasts from the rank two rib is unknown. The calculations for meat yield estimates based on Lyman’s

(1987) MNBC formula as well as my meat yield estimates for units of acquisition are presented in the tables within Appendix B. Using the source data in Appendix B, the information is graphically represented in Appendix C and D, respectively.

Additionally, the units of acquisition only represent bone-bearing meats. Any ground beef or boneless steaks cannot be taken into account, and those pounds of beef of course will not be represented in the archaeological record. As a result, if butchers supplied the hospital with beef at $ 0.11 to $ 0.15 per pound, then dividing the total amount of beef expenditures by an average of $ 0.13 per pound should represent the number of pounds purchased by the hospital over time. From 1855 to 1900, the hospital

102 purchased 173,466 lbs of beef, based on that average price per pound. According to beef cut estimates, there are 6,234 total pounds of bone-in beef. Gauging by unit of acquisition, there are 662.83 pounds of beef represented. These counts are diminished by the fact that not all bones that comprise the assemblage total NISP. Not all bones ideally fit the model, as unidentifiable bone certainly originated from some unknown unit of acquisition. Even a percentage of identifiable bone could not be made to fit the mathematical model. For example, fragments of longbone or scapula simply cannot fit the model, either.

Finally, it is important to note that there may be a difference between current cattle body composition and that of cattle in the 19th century. Historically, cattle may have been leaner because they were put to pasture and fed on grass and hay while today’s cattle are commonly altered with hormones and fattened in feed lots. Therefore, it is important to note that my meat estimates for units of acquisition are not direct translations of 19th century beef. These estimates do, however, provide numeric values by which to gauge the meat yield estimates from level to level within this assemblage.

Discussion

Huelsbeck (1991) demonstrated that faunal analysis results can be skewed by inappropriate units of analysis, and asserts that the actual unit of acquisition is the most appropriate analytical class because it yields less skewed results and facilitates comparative studies. In this study, I address the implications of the status of the consumer as represented by ranked beef as established and demonstrated by Schultz and

Gust (1983), Lyman (1987) and Huelsbeck (1991). Relative rankings or of beef cuts have

103 a robust resilience over time. Historically, beef has always ranked high in public demand and esteem against pork, fowl, and fish, in Western societies. The ranked values beef cuts against each other has also remained rather stable, as loin and shank occupy opposite ends of the relative value spectrum, with the other meats consistently falling into the spectrum in between. This rigidity of beef ranking made it possible for this and other studies (Bayham et al. 1982; Huelsbeck 1991; Lyman 1979, 1987; Schultz and Gust

1983) to interpret historic faunal assemblage for socioeconomic status based on contemporary observations of butchered beef cuts.

This study began with the expectation that inexpensive, low-ranking beef cuts would dominate the assemblage. The expectation was that if there was any change over time, it would be reflected in decreasing numbers of bones in each level. This decrease in overall NISP over time was also predicted to occur simultaneously with a decrease in higher ranked cuts, if any were present, and an increase in lower-ranked cuts. Units of acquisition in the assemblage consist of T-bone steak (from lumbar vertebrae), back ribs

(from long segments of dorsal ribs), standing rump roast (bone-in rump roast), chuck roast, arm roast, short rib (rib diaphysis segments) soup bones, and shank. A summary of the percentages of that each Unit of Acquisition found in the Shasta County Hospital assemblage is graphically depicted in Figure 16, which shows the levels on the X axis and the percentage of the types of beef remains on the Y axis.

Going from the deepest and oldest level (Level 8) to the shallowest and most recent (Level 1), the composition of the represented units of acquisition changes very drastically. Meanwhile, historical records show that beef expenditures increased over time in spite of the economic decline of the city of Shasta.

104

100% 90% 80% t-bone steak 70% back ribs standing rump roast 60% chuck roast 50% arm roast 40%

Percentage short rib 30% soup bones 20% shank 10% 0% 12345678

Level

Figure 16. Summary of units of acquisition, by level, from Shasta County Hospital.

In the oldest and earliest level, the only unit of acquisition represented from the five total specimens was a soup bone, represented by a cervical vertebrae fragment.

Over time, the character of units of acquisition represented is that of increasing trends in the percentage of higher-ranked meats. Contrary to predictions given the economic climate of the city of Shasta, as the town declined, the County of Shasta appears to have provided its hospital with more than adequate funding for a diverse array of boned meats.

Over time, the presence of soup bones, back ribs, and soup bones remains relatively low.

Shank and chuck roasts dominate the assemblage for each level, and arm roasts remain low in frequency, with levels three and seven experiencing increases.

Considering that Shasta County Hospital was a tax-funded charity institution for the destitute, the meats represented are of generous quality. Rather than being dominated by shank and soup bones, the assemblage contains the greatest amounts of

105 shank (which is typically wet-cooked in soups) and chuck roasts (which is usually dry- cooked rather than boiled), implying that people consumed beef-based soups and received their daily ration of beef in the form of roasts. This is unexpected, as the assemblages in Schultz and Gust’s (1983) study depict more lowest-ranked beef in the city jail, roasts in the saloons, and most high-ranked cuts in the form of short loin and short rib at the upscale Golden Eagle Hotel. In fact, the assemblage of the non-profit

Shasta County Hospital most resembles that of a saloon serving a large number of paying patrons: as in the case of the saloons in Shultz and Gust’s (1983) study, the operational economics of roasts are ideal in the case of the hospital because they require minimal preparation time and cooking attention as they can simply be placed in the oven, and they serve more meat to more people (as stipulated by the Board of Supervisor’s decree that each patient receive ¾ pound of beef per day). The soup bones also require minimal attention as they can be placed in water and left to boil until needed. Where the Golden

Eagle sample contained the highest proportion of expensive cuts, and the City Jail contained the lowest, Shasta County Hospital joins the two saloons with cuts in the intermediate range. The hospital beef expenditures reflect the overall success of the county and not of the local economic conditions of old Shasta.

Summary

This chapter presented results for the counts MNBC and units of acquisition along with the respective weights and percentages within each level. Expenditures for beef purchases over time are also provided. Based on the patterns of money spent on beef as indicated by the records held at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors office, it is

106 apparent that local economic conditions were influenced by nation-wide economic conditions. Meanwhile, although the city of Shasta experienced local economic decline, particularly as a result of the railroad bypassing the town in favor of Redding six miles away, the county did not decrease the amount spent on furnishing the hospital with beef.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON

CONSUMER STATUS AND

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

OF SHASTA COUNTY

HOSPITAL

The preeminent and most commonly cited studies on 19th century faunal assemblages consist of Schulz and Gust’s (1983) and Lyman’s (1987) work on socioeconomic beef cuts and the estimation of consumed meat pounds. These studies analyze assemblages with the assumption that frequencies of ranked cuts are indicative of socioeconomic status of the consumer. This study extends the literature available by applying socioeconomic measures of status an assemblage from a historic hospital.

Existing literature includes assemblages from a jail, restaurant, and saloon. Although studies of historic hospitals are available, none were found to focus on the faunal component of the site. This study contributes to the literature by presenting the unexpectedly mid-ranked assemblage of a charity hospital.

Methodologically, this study puts into practice Huelsbeck’s (1991) assertion that the unit of acquisition should be used when quantifying amount representations of meat. The units of acquisition comprising the faunal assemblage of historic Shasta

County Hospital consists of retail beef portions, and rather than interpreting the meats in

107 108 terms of wholesale beef cuts, this study follows with Huelsbeck’s (1991) suggestion for future research. Historic Shasta County Hospital was established in 1855 as one of the first institutions for public health care in the United States. It came about because of the recognition that action had to be taken in order to serve the poor, indigent sick of Shasta

County. By the end of 1900, the hospital had closed and relocated 6 miles away to

Redding, which by then had taken Shasta’s position as county seat. With the prediction that the assemblage would contain the lowest ranking cuts of beef, if beef was present at all, this study assessed status and social conditions by analyzing the faunal assemblage from the hospital site and the beef expenditures as recoded at the office of the Board of

Supervisors.

Limitations of this Study

The result of this study is affected by several variables, from the nature of the assemblage deposition to taphonomic contributing to the fragmentation that excluded so much of the total NISP from being used in MNBC and UA estimates. Differential rates of deposition over time will affect the interpretation of faunal remains over time. The presence of carnivore chewing possibly from foraging and digging by coyotes or domestic dogs may also disturb the assemblage. This study is also based on an assemblage that was recovered from diminishing volumes of cubic inches of soil as excavation progressed.

Fragmentation also certainly influences whether or not bone fragments are identifiable. The numbers of identifiable specimens, the minimum numbers of beef cuts, and the numbers of units of acquisition will be affected by taphonomy.

109

Although I determined that there was an increase in the amount of higher quality meat cuts, the amount of beef served, and the money spent on beef over time, my data do not have the resolution to correlate information to each other. Correlating specific levels of soil excavated to specific years would have enhanced the relationship between the archaeological record and the archival record associated with this site. Further investigation into the political climate of Shasta County may also have influenced the great amounts of beef purchased and served at the county hospital. Board members may have had a political agenda behind mandating rations of beef for each patient every day, particularly if any of them were cattle ranchers, had friends or family in ranching, or received campaign contributions from ranchers. If possible, it would also have been worth knowing exactly who was eating the different cuts at the hospital. The beef in this study is simply beef served at the hospital, but whether there was a hierarchy of consumers ranging from hospital staff to hospital patients is not known.

Future Research

The most readily apparent suggestion for researchers beginning work on historical faunal assemblages is to follow Huelsbeck’s (1991) recommendation of quantifying amounts of represented meat by the unit of acquisition. Meat quantities should most closely reflect the actual bones in the assemblage, not the wholesale cuts from which the bones originate.

Given the boomtown nature of historic Shasta County, there is great potential for studying ethnicity in food. Shasta County Hospital included “china rice” in their grocery purchases, and it is known that the hospital patients included people of Chinese

110 descent, but the hospital does not display any deviation from standard Euro-American beef, pork, deer or lamb cuts. Faunal assemblages from other sites may display evidence of ethnic food preparation, particularly in the mining camps.

Concluding Statement

The results indicate that the beef consumed at historic Shasta County Hospital was of the caliber of that served to patrons in saloons. Additionally, over time higher ranked cuts of meat were introduced into the assemblage. Simultaneously, in spite of

Shasta’s economic demise, the beef expenditures for the hospital increased over time in the amount and frequency of withdrawals from the Hospital Fund because the county itself continued to prosper overall with the cumulative success of all the cities comprising

Shasta County.

REFERENCES CITED

Atherton, Gertrude 1914 California: An Intimate History. New York, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Ballou, R.S. 1964 The Iron Mountain Mine. In The Covered Wagon. Roy S. Ballou and Mabel Frisbie, editors. pp. 5-10. (note: this publication is no longer in Volume/Issue format)

Barber, Russel J. 1994 Doing Historical Archaeology: Exercises Using Documentary, Oral, and Material Evidence. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bartram Jr., Laurence E. 1993 Perspectives on Skeletal Part Profiles and Utility Curves from Eastern Kalahari Ethnoarchaeology. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Jean Hudson, editor. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 21, pp. 115-137.

Bayham, Frank E. 2006 Anth 478: Zooarchaeology: Vertebrate Identification and Analysis. California State University, Chico.

Bayham, Frank E., and Pamela Hatch 1985 Hohokam and Salado Animal Utilization in the Tonto Basin. In Studies in the Hohokam and Salado of the Tonto Basin. Glen Rice, editor. Phoeniz, Arizona, Arizona State University.

Bayham, Frank E., Pamela C. Hatch, and Janet Balsom 1982 Interpretation of Faunal Remains from the Original Phoenix Townsite, Blocks 1 and 2. Tempe, Arizona: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.

Bauer, John. E. 1949 The Health Factor in the Gold Rush Era. In Rushing for Gold. John Walton Caughey, editor. Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association Special Publication No. 1. Berkeley, California: University of California Press pp. 97-108.

112 113

Blee, Catherine Holder 1986 Wine Yaman and Stone: The Archaeology of a Russian Hospital Trash Pit, Sitka National Park, Sitka, Alaska. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Brewer, Douglas 1992 Zooarchaeology Method, Theory, and Goals. Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4: 195-244.

Brown, Gregory J. 1989 The Faunal Remains from the John Draper Well: An Investigation in Historic- Period Zooarchaeology. San Francisco: San Francisco State University.

Burk, Brett 1994 Armory Workers’ Domestic Faunal Assemblages. Occasional Report No. 12.: Domestic Responses to Nineteenth-Century Industrialization: An Archaeology of Park Building 48, Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: 7.1-7.24

California Historical Landmarks 1996 Shasta: Established 1850. Ms. on file at Northeast Information Center, Chico, California. pp. 263-267.

Carlson, Laurie Winn 2001 Cattle: An Informal Social History. Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee.

Chapman, Hazel M. 1988 My Memories of Kennett and the Old Mammoth Copper Mine. In The Covered Wagon Madge R. Walsh and Hazel McKim, editors. pp. 11-15.

Chidsey, Donald Barr 1968 The California Gold Rush: An Informal History. New York, New York: Crown Publishers.

Crabtree, Pam J. 1985 Historic Zooarchaeology: Some Methodological Considerations. In Historic Archaeology 19(1): 76-78. 1990 Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity pp. 155-205 In Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 2. Michael B. Schiffer, Editor. Tuscon, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

114

Dedication: 50 Bed Addition to Shasta County Hospital on Hospital Road, Redding, California. 1961 Saturday, May 27th 2:00 PM. Original Program. Original on file at Shasta Historical Society, Redding, California.

Eaton, Edna Behrnes 1944 The Shurtleff House—Shasta. In The Covered Wagon 3(8):39-40. Moton Holt, Editor. Redding, California: The Shasta Historical Society.

Elliot, Daniel R. 1995 Foodways and Economic Systems on the Late California Gold Rush Frontier. Master’s Thesis, State University, Chico.

Fee, Elizabeth 1984 The Social History of the Hospital: From Charity Care to the Management of Medicine: A Review Essay. Radical History Review 28-30. pp. 472-481.

Fite (first name unspecified) 1971 The Early Practice of Medicine, 1850-1900. Manuscript on file at Shasta Historical Society. Redding, California.

Flanner, Michael A.F. 2004 Civil War Pharmacy: A History of Drugs, Drug Supply and Provision, and Therapeutics for the Union and Confederacy. Haworth Press, Inc: Bonghampton, New York.

Florin, Lambert 1971 Ghost Towns of the West. United States (no city or state cited): Superior Publishing Company.

Frank, B.F., and H.W. Chappell 1881 The History and Business Directory of Shasta County. Redding Independent Book and Job Printing House, Redding, California.

Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, New York.

Grinney, Ellen Heath 1991 The Hospital. In the series, Medical Disorders and their Treatment. The Encyclopedia of Health. Chelsea House Publishers: New York.

115

Gust, Sherri M. 1984 Mammalian Fauna From the Woodland Opera House Site. California Archaeology Reports No. 24. Department of Parks and Recreation: Sacramento, California. pp. 181-192.

Harrow, David R. 1968 Shasta County, California: An Economic Geography of the Formative Years, 1850-1900. In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts. California State University, Chico.

Hildebrandt, William R. and Kelly R. McGuire 2002 The Ascendance of Hunting During the California Middle Archaic: And Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity 67(2): 231-256.

Hinman, Robert B. and Robert B. Harris 1942 The Story of Meat. Chicago: Swift and Company.

Horowitz, Roger 2006 Putting Meat on the American Table: Taste, Technology, Transformation. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

House, Kurt D. 1978 Faunal Analysis in Texas Archaeological Sites. In Texas Archaeology: Essays Honoring R. King Harris. Claude C. Albritton, ed. Pp. 93-131. Institute for the Sturdy of Earth and Man, Reports of Investigations: 3. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Huelsbeck, David R. 1991 Faunal Remains and Consumer Behavior: What is Being Measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 62-76.

Jolley, Robert L. 1983 North American Historic Sites Zooarchaeology. Historical Archaeology 17(2):64-79.

Kraft, Jarith, M.A., and Gregory G. White, Ph.D. 2006 Research Design and Work Plan for Archaeological Investigations in Shasta State Historic Park, Shasta County, California. Archaeological Research Program, Reports No. 57. Chico, California: California State University. Prepared for the Department of Parks and Recreation Northern Service Center. Sacramento, California.

Kutras, George C. 1956 Shasta California: A History 1849-1888. In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Arts Degree, California State University, Chico.

116

Landon, David B. 2005 Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and Prospects. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(1):1-36

LeeDecker, Charles H., Terry H. Klein, Cheryl A. Holt, and Amy Friedlander 1987 Nineteenth-Century Households and Consumer Behavior in Wilmington, Delaware. in Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Suzanne M. Spencer- Wood, editor. pp. 233-259. New York: Plenum Press.

Lyons, Albert S. and R. Joseph Petrucelli 1987 Medicine: An Illustrated History. Originally published 1978. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Lyman, Lee R. 1977 Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains. Historical Archaeology 11:67-73. 1979 Available Meat From Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44(3): 536-546. 1987 On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost- Efficient Meat Purchases. Historical Archaeology 21(1): 58-66.

Lyman, Lee R. and Kenneth P. Cannon 2004 Applied Zooarchaeology, Because it Matters. In Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. Lyman, Lee R. and Kenneth P. Cannon, eds. Pp. 1-24. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Marks, Paula Mitchell 1994 Precious Dust: The American Gold Rush Era: 1848-1900. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

McKim, Hazel, editor (no author) 1985 A History of Shasta County, California. Dallas, Texas: Taylor Publishing Company.

Monks, Gregory G. 1981 Seasonality Studies. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 14. M.B. Schiffer, editor. New York: Academic Press.

North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) 2007 The Meat Buyer’s Guide: Beef, Lamb, Veal, Pork, and Poultry. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Orser, Charles E. and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

117

Petersen, Edward 1974 Cottonwood: The Brief History of a Small California Town. Self-Published. Ms. at Shasta Historical Society, Redding, California.

Philbin, Vicki J., M.D. 2005 The Shasta County Hospital, 1855-1900: Research Proposal. 2006 Shasta County Hospital Archaeological Record, CA-SHA-1234H, on file at Northeast Information Center, Chico, CA.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 2001 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Don Brothwell, Graeme Barker, Dena Dincauze, and Priscilla Renouf, series editors. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Renner-McCaffrey, Jo and Anna Hendricks Leyshon 1989 Quality Assurance in Hospital Nutrition Services. Aspen Publishers, Inc.: Rockville, Maryland.

Rixson, Derrick 1962 Beef Cutting: A Step by Step Guide. A Meat Trades Journal Publication. London, England: Theba House.

Ritter, Eric, Sherry Melton, Jay Thompson and Miguel Reynoso 2005 Archaeological Field Excavation Forms: Shasta County. March 5, 11, 19.

Rosner, David 1982 A Once Charitable Enterprise: Hospitals and Health Care in Brooklyn and New York, 1885-1915. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, Peter D. 1979 Historical Faunal Remains from Panamint City: Notes on Diet and Status in a California Boom Town. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(4): 55- 63. 1984 Nineteenth-Century Fish Remains from Woodland, California. California Archaeology Reports No. 24. Department of Parks and Recreation: Sacramento, California. pp. 158- 166.

Schulz, Peter D., and Sherri M. Gust 1983 Relative Beef Cut Prices in the Late Nineteenth Century: A Note for Historic Sites Faunal Analysts. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(1): 12- 18.

Searls, G.A., R.J. Maddock, and D. M. Wulf 2005 Intramuscular Tenderness Within Four Muscles of the Beef Chuck. Journal of Animal Science 83: 2835-2842.

118

Shackel, Paul A. 1996 Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. New York: Plenum Press.

Shasta County Board of Supervisors N.d. Minutes recorded (1855-1900). Shasta County Supervisor’s office. Redding, California.

The Shasta Courier N.d. Newspapers (1855-1900) on microfilm, Shasta Historical Society, Redding, California.

Sheets, E. W. 1934 Meat Research in the United States. The Scientific Monthly 38(1): 50-59.

Simons, Dwight 1984 Avifaunal Remains at the Woodland Opera House Site. California Archaeology Reports No. 24. Department of Parks and Recreation: Sacramento, California. pp. 167-180. 2008 Personal Communication via phone. September 8.

Skaggs, Jimmy M. 1973 The Cattle-Trailing Industry: Between Supply and Demand, 1866-1890. The Wichita, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas; 1986 Prime Cut: Livestock Raising and Meatpacking in the United States, 1607-1983. Texas A&M University Press.

Spooler, C. A. 1915 Education in Economy: How to Save by Knowledge of Domestic Economy: How to Buy and What to Buy in Meats, Poultry, Fish, Game and Provisions: How to Cook, Serve, and Conserve. Pomona, California: Published by the author.

Shackel, Paul A. 1996 Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Smith, Dottie 1999 The Dictionary of Early Shasta County History. 2nd edition. Self-published. Redding, California.

Southern, May Hazel 1942 Our Historical Landmarks: Shasta County, California. San Francisco, California: P. Balakshin Printing Company.

119

Stewart, R. Michael 2002 Archaeology: Basic Field Methods. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Straubing, Harold Elk 1993 In Hospital and Camp: The Civil War through the Eyes of its Doctors and Nurses. Stackpole Book: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Brooke S. Arkush 2002 Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction. Third Edition. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Talbott, Page 2000 The Two Hundred Yeah History of the Lancaster County Almshouse and Hospital. Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society 102:2/3. pp. 82-113.

Templeman, Eleanor Lee 1986 Redding, My Home Town. In The Covered Wagon, Hazel McKim, editor. pp. 85-92.

Thomas, David Hurst 1998 Archaeology. Third Edition. San Diego, California: Harcourt College Publishers.

Tibbets, Deborah Irene 1997 Gold Mining in Northern California 1848-1890: Development of a Taxonomic Framework and Harrison Diggings Revisited. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Chico.

Turner, Lorenzo Dow 1929 The Civil War Period (1861-1865). In The Journal of Negro History. 14(4):476-488.

Tyree, Daniel Jason 2004 The effects of the Civil War on the Health of the United States Populations: Evidence from Secular Trends in Stature. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Chico.

Unknown Author 1967 The Bonanza Days and Decline of Kennett. In The Covered Wagon, Roy S. Ballou and Mabel Frisbie, editors. pp. 11-16.

Varney, Philip 2001 Ghost Towns of Northern California: Your Guide to Ghost Towns and Historic Mining Camps. St. Paul, Minnesota: Voyageur Press.

120

Vogel, Morris J. 1980 The Invention of the Modern Hospital: Boston 1870-1930. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Walker, Phillip L., and Katherine D. Davidson 1989 Analysis of Faunal Remains from Santa Ines Mission. California Historical Archaeology. David R. Huelsbeck, Ph.D., series editor. Coyote Press: Salinas, CA. pp. 162-176.

Wells, O. V. 1937 The Depression of 1873-1879. Agricultural History 11(3): 237-251.

Woodrum, Henry C. 1972 Pioneer Medicine in Shasta and Trinity Counties. Redding, California: The Press Room.

APPENDIX A

CSUC FAUNAL RECORDING FORM

122 123

124

APPENDIX B

QUANTITIES OF REPRESENTED BEEF

Quantities of represented beef for Level 1 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs Percent short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 140 16 9 20 180 36.364% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 3 1 3 25 75 15.152% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 51 11 5 28 140 28.283% arm 6 6 1 6 15 90 18.182% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 13 6 2 1 2 0.404% foreshank 9 3 7 hindshank 9 1 5 1* 8 8 1.616% TOTAL 214 25 495 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 1 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat Percent 1 short loin 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 3 7.71 11.353% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 29 37.16 54.719% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 6 6.55 9.645% 6 cross/short rib short rib RIB 14 3.11 4.580% 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 13 3.67 5.404% 9 foreshank shank LBN 12 9.71 14.298% 9 hindshank TOTAL 77 67.91 100.000%

126 127

Quantities of represented beef by Primary Butchering Unit for Level 2 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs Percent short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 372 16 23 20 460 41.667% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 8 1 8 25 200 18.116% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 88 11 8 28 224 20.290% arm 6 14 1 14 15 210 19.022% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 17 6 3 1 3 0.272% foreshank 9 1 3 1* 7 7 0.634% hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 500 56 1104 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 2 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat Percent 1 short loin 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 5 3.72 3.069% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 44 54.94 45.326% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 10 8.66 7.145% 6 cross/short rib short rib RIB 13 1.67 1.378% 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 10 4.85 4.001% 9 foreshank shank LBN 59 47.37 39.081% 9 hindshank TOTAL 141 121.21 100.000%

128

Quantities of represented beef for Level 3 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs Percent short loin 1 4 7 1* 20 20 1.803% rib 2 352 16 21 20 420 37.872% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 4 1 4 25 100 9.017% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 98 11 9 28 252 22.723% arm 6 20 1 20 15 300 27.051% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 60 6 10 1 10 0.902% foreshank 9 1 3 1* 7 7 0.631% hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 539 64 1109 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 3 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat Percent 1 short loin t-bone steak LV 3 3.14 1.766% 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 4 3.08 1.732% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 69 96.73 54.401% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 25 26.19 14.729% cross/short 6 rib short rib RIB 25 6.75 3.796% 7 brisket 7 short plate AX, 8 neck soup bones CV 44 8.79 4.943% 9 foreshank shank LBN 44 33.13 18.632% 9 hindshank TOTAL 214 177.81 100.000%

129

Quantities of represented beef for Level 4 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs Percent short loin 1 2 7 1* 20 20 1.058% rib 2 297 16 19 20 380 20.106% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 15 1 15 25 375 19.841% rump 4 1 4 1* 5 5 0.265% chuck 5 39 11 4 28 112 5.926% arm 6 22 1 22 15 990 52.381% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 6 6 1 1 1 0.053% foreshank 9 4 3 1 7 7 0.370% hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 386 62 1890 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 4 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat Percent 1 short loin t-bone steak LV 2 0.71 0.483% 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 15 12.61 8.581% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 35 33.44 22.756% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 24 22.35 15.209% 6 cross/short rib short rib RIB 11 4.22 2.872% 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 5 1.14 0.776% 9 foreshank shank LBN 114 72.48 49.323% 9 hindshank TOTAL 146.95 100.000%

130

Quantities of represented beef for Level 5 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs % short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 114 16 7 20 140 16.787% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 6 1 6 25 150 17.986% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 25 11 2 28 56 6.715% arm 6 32 1 32 15 480 57.554% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 7 6 1 1 1 0.120% foreshank 9 4 3 1 7 7 0.839% hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 188 49 834 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 5 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat % 1 short loin 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 6 9.24 12.930% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 25 14.4 20.151% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 34 17.37 24.307% 6 cross/short rib short rib RIB 6 2.15 3.009% 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 3 0.4 0.560% 9 foreshank shank LBN 39 27.9 39.043% 9 hindshank TOTAL 113 71.46 100.000%

131

Quantities of represented beef for Level 6 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs % short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 14 16 1* 20 20 4.662% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 10 1 10 25 330 76.923% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 16 11 2 28 56 13.054% arm 6 1 1 1 15 15 3.497% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 2 6 1* 1 1 0.233% foreshank 9 3 3 1 7 7 1.632% hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 46 14 429 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 6 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat % 1 short loin 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 10 7.32 19.132% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 16 14.72 38.474% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 25 15.87 41.479% 6 cross/short rib 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 2 0.35 0.915% 9 foreshank 9 hindshank TOTAL 53 38.26 100.000%

132

Quantities of represented beef for Level 7 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs % short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 53 16 3 20 60 19.737% sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 2 1 2 25 50 16.447% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 13 11 1 28 28 9.211% arm 6 11 1 11 15 165 54.276% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 8 6 1 1 1 0.329% foreshank 9 3 7 hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 87 18 304 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 7 AN lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA PT frequency meat % 1 short loin 2 rib back rib RIB 1 0.92 2.371% 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump standing rump roast FEM 2 1.45 3.737% 5 chuck chuck roast SC 12 9.12 23.505% 6 arm chuck roast HUM 10 7.32 18.866% 6 cross/short rib short rib RIB 8 2.88 7.423% 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bones CV 8 0.54 1.392% 9 foreshank shank LBN 21 16.57 42.706% 9 hindshank TOTAL 62 38.8 100.000%

133

Quantities of represented beef for Level 8 O- E- edible estim. Primary Unit Rank NISP NISP MNBC lbs lbs % short loin 1 7 20 rib 2 16 20 sirloin 2 2 12 round 3 1 1 1 25 25 36.232% rump 4 4 5 chuck 5 1 11 1* 28 28 40.580% arm 6 1 1 1 15 15 21.739% cross/short rib 6 13 6 brisket 7 12 5 short plate 7 8 18 neck 8 1 6 1* 1 1 1.449% foreshank 9 3 7 hindshank 9 5 8 TOTAL 4 2 69 100.000% * rounded up to one unit despite <1 because still indicates at least one unit

Quantities of Represented Beef by Unit of Acquisition for Level 8 lbs Rank Source Cut Probable UA AN PT frequency meat % 1 short loin 2 rib 2 sirloin 3 round 4 rump 5 chuck 6 arm 6 cross/short rib 7 brisket 7 short plate 8 neck soup bone 1 0.43 100.000% 9 foreshank 9 hindshank TOTAL 1 0.43 100.000%

APPENDIX C

MNBC, W/RANK AND PERCENTAGES

Level 1

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

2 3 6 9 b/ oin1 ri rm/ nk/ l und/ a ro chuck/5 neck/8 esha short for MNBC, w/rank

Level 2

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 /5 /9 k ib/2 d/3 m/6 ck/8 oin r n uck e n t l u h ar ro c n shor resha fo MNBC, w/rank

135 136

Level 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 /6 /8 b/2 d/3 k ri n loin uck/5 arm ank/9 rt h nec h o rou c s h e s r fo MNBC, w/rank

Level 4

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 2 6 n / /3 /5 / /9 ck k oi rib nd u rm l u h a neck/8 ro c shan e short for MNBC, w/rank

137

Level 5

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

2 5 /6 /9 ib/ k/ m k/8 loin1 r c t ar ank round/3 chuc ne esh shor for MNBC, w/rank

Level 6

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

/2 /3 /5 /6 9 n1 k k/8 / i rib c lo uc arm e round ch n short foreshank MNBC, w/rank

138

Level 7

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

2 /3 9 d k/8 k/ oin1 rib/ c n l arm/6 roun chuck/5 ne ha es short for MNBC, w/rank

Level 8

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0%

b/2 ri arm/6 round/3 chuck/5 neck/8 short loin1 foreshank/9 MNBC, w/rank

APPENDIX D

PROBABLE UA AND PERCENTAGES

Level 1

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Percentage 20% 10% 0%

2 /4 /5 6 /6 9 k/1 s/ b k/ a ast st es/9 rib o roa roast/ ck bon shan short ri ne ste ba uck o rump r arm oup t-b g ch s n di an st Probable UA, w/rank

Level 2

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Percentage 20% 10% 0%

2 5 6 9 9 s/ / b/6 b st i es/ ri ast/ t r ank/ roast/4 oa ro on h ck or b s p ba sh rump huck r arm t-bone steak/1 c sou nding a st Probable UA, w/rank

140 141

Level 3

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

/6 /9 k/1 /5 t/6 s/9 k a bs/2 st s ib e i an oa rt r on h ste roast/4 roa o s e p k r b back r c sh up on hu arm o t-b c s ing rum d tan s Probable UA, w / rank

Level 4

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

/2 /4 /6 6 /9 st t ib/ k/9 r n oa t k ribs r ones p r ho b sha ac ck roast/5 s p b m u u ru arm roas t-bone steak/1 g ch so in

stand Probable UA, w/ rank

142

Level 5

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Percentage 20% 10% 0%

1 2 /4 9 9 bs/ rib/6 ri teak/ roast s ck bones/ shank/ short one ba ump arm roast/6 b r t- chuck roast/5 soup ng andi st Probable UA, w/rank

Level 6

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Percentage 20% 10% 0%

4 /6 /6 /9 /9 st/ t/5 s ak/1 ast e ribs/2 oas rt rib roa ro o hank p k r bone s sh back uc rm rum a t-bone st g ch soup din an st Probable UA, w/rank

143

Level 7

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Probable UA, w/rank UA, Probable 0%

/2 5 /6 /9 k/1 a st/4 st/ ribs nes roa ste roa roast/6 shank/9 e ack m p bo b ck r short rib u a ou t-bon ch s

standing rump Percentage

Level 8

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

/2 /4 /6 /9 k/1 st s a ast a ne nk/9 te ribs o oast/5 o o a r sh e s rm r short rib/6 p b n back a u rump r o t-bo g chuck s din n ta s Probable UA, w/ rank

APPENDIX E

BEEF EXPENDITURES GRAPHS

1855-1859

$350.00

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

145 $50.00

5 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 8 0 2 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 /2 /2 1 1 2 5 1 8 2 5 8 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

1860-1869

$350.00

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00

0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

9 0 6 7 5 5 7 6 5 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 0 8 0 5 7 0 7 4 6 5 6 3 4 8 5 1 5 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 5 8 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

146

1870-1879

$350.00

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 / /1 4 2 1 8 6 1 7 4 2 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 7 1 7 6 5 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / / / /0 / / / / / / / / / /0 . / / / / / / / / /0 / / 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

147

1880-1889

$350.00

$300.00

$250.00

$200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 2 3 9 4 7 5 8 4 1 7 2 7 0 6 8 6 5 5 4 6 2 6 2 8 6 6 9 4 4 5 5 7 3 7 0 2 5 7 9 8 8 1 2 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2 5 6 8 9 1 2 5 8 2 5 8 1 2 5 1 2 5 8 1 3 7 1 3 7 9 1 1 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

148

1890-1899

$350.00

$300.00 $250.00 $200.00

$150.00

$100.00 $50.00 $-

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 0 5 7 0 2 3 6 5 9 9 4 5 4 7 5 9 0 5 2 8 1 4 7 1 0 7 9 2 9 2 9 5 6 1 8 0 9 5 8 0 3 5 5 1 7 6 2 4 9 8 1 7 1 6 8 5 5 2 8 7 /1 /0 /0 /1 /1 /1 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 /0 /1 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 /1 /0 /0 /1 /0 /1 /0 /0 /1 /1 /0 /1 /0 /0 /0 /1 /0 /0 /0 /1 /0 /0 /1 /0 /0 /0 /1 /0 /1 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 /0 /0 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 8 0 1 2 1 2 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 6 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 149