Fort St. Joseph Critters

 Hello, fellow archaeology enthusiasts! 

My name is Hollie Powless, and I am currently in my last year of studying anthropology at WMU. 

While we are first and foremost focused on the archaeological aspects of this site, I cannot help but notice the natural world around us. Fort St. Joseph is located right on the river, surrounded by lush grasses and trees occupied by a vast array of animals. Many of these critters seem to have taken an interest in our work, frequently stopping by, and pausing in and around our units. Over the last two weeks in the field, my classmates and I have documented and discussed the various bugs and such we meet each day. Daddy long legs, isopods, dragonflies, bumblebees, beetles, slugs, worms, grubs, frogs, and toads are the most abundant across all the units thus far. Other creatures, including various waterfowl and songbirds, turtles, snakes, and an unexpected and adorable mink, grace our presence from a distance from time to time.

In our unit, which will be explored in greater depth in a future blog, my partner Emma and I have discovered and excavated a significant number of bone pieces and fragments. As a result of these excavations, we have started to question how the 18th-century fort’s animal inhabitants compare to what we see there today. Many of the bones we have found so far this field school season, as well as those that have been found in the past, belong to animals that still occupy the area (deer, raccoon, beaver, etc.). The bones of vertebrates, animals with spinal cords and backbones, including all mammals, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and birds, remain preserved in this heavily waterlogged archaeological site. The same, however, cannot be said for invertebrates like bugs, insects, arachnids, slugs, and worms. 

Is it possible that the same kinds of creepy crawlies we interact with now, existed among the Jesuit missionaries, French fur traders, and Natives over 300 years ago? This is an interesting question to propose, as it cannot be answered simply through bone analysis and identification, in the way vertebrates can. 

Although I admittedly would rather the spiders on the site not crawl up my pantlegs, I appreciate their presence in my first field school experience. We look at the bones of dead animals all day, and while undoubtedly exciting, I am thankful to otherwise be surrounded by life. With so much of our excavated bone being in tiny fragments, the hopping frogs and tweeting birds serve as a helpful reminder that though unrecognizable now, that bone once belonged to a living being. Remember to watch where you step if you come out to visit Fort St. Joseph because you never know what little critters might be visiting too!

Zooarchaeology Lab with Dr. Martin

Hey there,

Last week, we attended a zooarchaeology lab in the basement of the Niles District Library. We learned about the types of animals that lived in and around Fort St. Joseph, and how to identify and catalog their remains. Terry, the host, was extremely knowledgeable about bones, and could identify bone fragments after just a few seconds of looking at it. It helped provide a lot of context for the bones we are finding at the site. 

Zooarchaeology is the study of faunal remains found in archeological sites. Studying animal bones can reveal a lot about the people who hunted, farmed, and cooked them. In the big picture, this helps us have a better understanding of the daily life of people in the fort. Knowing the diet of the people who lived in the fort gives us a lot of information about wealth, living conditions, and population.

We are always on the lookout for bones that have any sort of human modification. Modifications come in a few different categories: cultural, natural, and environmental. Cultural modifications include butcher marks, evidence of hunting, cooked bones, and modifications for decorative use, such as drilled holes or etched designs. Natural modifications are usually marks leftover from predator animals, who often leave bite marks on the bones of prey. Environmental modifications come from the conditions that the remains are left in. High moisture environments, like the floodplain that the fort sits on, preserve bone differently than dry environments, and is important to consider when assessing remains.

One of the most common faunal remains found at the fort are deer bones. We have already identified a mandible, multiple teeth, and an astragalus (heel bone) across a few different units that all belong to deer. Deer are an important species to study, because they are commonly hunted, and their bones are used for all sorts of things, even today. I took this picture of an intact deer mandible at the lab (above left), to help identify the partial mandible found in our unit.

One of the most interesting things from the zooarchaeology lab was learning about the lack of fish bones found at the site. Carson, the lab coordinator, suggested that fish remains may be found in a garden-like deposit because fish could be used as fertilizer. This would explain why we haven't found many yet, and maybe in the future somebody will excavate a pile of fish bones and interpret the area as a garden. Terry did show us a fragment of cartilage and bone that came from a sturgeon (right), so we would know what to look for! 

• Kieran 

The Birds at Fort St. Joseph

Rolling up on site in the morning, one of the first sounds you are likely to be greeted by (given good weather) is the shrill cry of the many killdeer that gather along the St. Joseph river. Often their ruckus will continue throughout the day and even into the afternoon--becoming a sort of white noise in itself (or, perhaps more accurately: a white, black, and brown noise.)

The river in itself provides a great setting to see many birds. You might stroll over to the water screen, heavy bucket of plow zone in hand, and look over to see a flock of Canadian geese chilling out on the sandbar. I have also seen mallards hanging around, heard the chattering of many a belted kingfisher, and the shriek of a gull. One day we spotted a swan pair with their young cruising out on the water!

Now, you might say, “hey, you’re out there digging. Is there really time to be looking around at birds?” And yes, I have spent plenty of time scraping diligently away, hardly daring to look up too much as the hot afternoon rays beat down upon the earth. But that does not stop one from hearing the birds. And oh my, there are a lot of them. I have already discussed the cry of the killdeer. But there are plenty of other birds that makeup the background noise on site (or foreground noise, if you are a blue jay with plenty to say). On several days I have heard what is either a hairy or downy woodpecker--or both. Funnily, these two woodpeckers look similar to each other, too, though when you see them side-by-side you realize the harry is much larger. Speaking of larger woodpeckers, THE largest woodpecker (the pileated) has also been heard on site. I hope to see one flitting about one day when I am taking a water break!

There have also been the more gentle chips of the northern cardinal. I would not be surprised if some of these chips are those of the rose-breasted grosbeak--the two sound very similar at times. One afternoon, we saw a hawk (probably a redtail) circling over, calling. We have heard hawk calls on other days too but it’s also very likely that some of the noises we have heard are actually imitation calls done by blue jays! Chickadees have also made their presence known, usually earlier in the day. 

I hope that maybe one morning there will be a great blue heron along the bank--or maybe an osprey soaring above the water one afternoon. It is interesting to think about what same birds those who resided in the fort may have heard, what species may no longer be in the area or, in some cases--like that of the passenger pigeon--no longer exist. Did the French also get irritated with the call of the clever jays? While our excavations will likely not provide an answer to that question, it is good food for thought while I trowel away.

Abbey Churney