Provisioning Camp Floyd: An Analysis of Faunal Remains

Provisioning Camp Floyd: An Analysis of Faunal Remains

BY KAYLA REID

From 1858 to 1862, the United States Army operated Camp Floyd, a military outpost in Utah’s Cedar Valley that, at its height, housed thousands of soldiers. Even though Camp Floyd has long since been abandoned, clues about life there can be coaxed from archaeological remains. Dale L. Berge, a professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University, and his students conducted archaeological field schools at Camp Floyd from 1982 to 1993. Most of the artifacts they recovered came from several refuse pits, and the largest collections of artifacts consist of ceramics, glass, and animal bones. 1 Unfortunately, very few collections from Berge’s excavations have been analyzed. The majority of the field work was done by Berge’s students and volunteers, and information about the project comes from student field notes, maps, and the physical artifact collection. 2 The following article represents the first in-depth analysis conducted on the animal remains excavated from Camp Floyd (CF87–1). 3

Bones are more than artifacts; they are clues about the diet and health of nineteenth-century soldiers, the draft animals serving as the army’s food supply, and the butchering and meat processing methods employed at Camp Floyd. 4 They say an army marches on its stomach and in the case of Camp Floyd, this is historically and archaeologically true. By uncovering details about the percentage and distribution of valuable meat cuts, the quality of butchering, and the general age of animal harvest we can add to what is already known about Camp Floyd.

United States soldiers created Camp Floyd, some forty-six miles south of Salt Lake City, when they were sent there by President James Buchanan in 1857 in an attempt to expand and guard communication routes across North America and to establish federal law in Utah Territory. 5 Camp Floyd was only operational for a short time, from 1858 to 1862, but it gave an early jumpstart to Utah’s economy. The outpost was heavily populated and well provisioned, despite being located in a relatively isolated area within a new, unconstructed territory. 6

This bone, a distal tibia epiphysis from a cow, comes from faunal remains excavated from Camp Floyd. The checkered cuts on it suggest that soldiers might have used it as a game piece. Accession Group CF87–1, 2001.15.265.4.

Lieutenant Colonel Dane Ruggles designed the camp, which was built by a combination of local residents and military prisoners; the camp headquarters, infantry and artillery units, ammunition housing, storehouses, stables, corrals, barracks, theater, and aqueduct were made from adobe, wood, and stone sourced from the Oquirrh Mountains. 7 Its construction and maintenance were intertwined with the local economy, since most supplies were sourced locally or purchased from civilian companies. 8 At its height, Camp Floyd was home to more than 300 buildings. 9

Merchants eventually moved to Camp Floyd to join the businesses located there. The territory’s most successful merchants and bankers, the Walker Brothers, built a general store at the post in 1859. 10 Because the soldiers—especially those who were lower-ranking and enlisted— had backdated salaries, most of them could not afford to shop locally and had to rely solely on the military provisions and gardens. 11 The US Army often hired civilian contractors in moving their freight, and some of these contracted suppliers struggled to keep up with the flood of new business and the delivery of supplies across thousands of miles. 12 The freighting company of Russell, Majors and Waddell took on the immense task of supplying the post. They had to raise equipment, men, and money to ship the supplies that the army required—up to sixteen million pounds of freight at one time, which included, flour, sugar, beans, rice, coffee, ammunition, clothing, saddles, and perishables. 13

Camp Floyd quickly grew to be the third-largest city in Utah. With the help of Major Fitz John Porter, the post adjutant and engineer, and Ruggles, who oversaw the post garbage, the soldiers were generally in good health. 14 The sterile soil proved to be a difficult breeding ground for soil-borne diseases that would have negatively impacted the soldiers, gardens, and cattle, and clean, fresh water surrounded the camp. Camp Floyd housed nearly forty acres of gardens, and nearby local gardens provided extra fruits and vegetables. 15

The most difficult health struggle was mountain fever, a tick-borne disease, but the mortality rate from that affliction remained low. 16 Soldiers generally survived on three government-issued rations a day, which consisted mainly of the ingredients for soup, stew, and hash, including vinegar. The soldiers often complained of tough meat, which suggests some dissatisfaction with their meals. 17 They were supplemented with salted fish, salted pork, and occasionally salted beef. The historical record does not suggest that the army raised birds, pigs, or sheep at Camp Floyd, although these were sometimes shipped to the camp or purchased locally. 18

Faunal Analysis Results

The CF87-1 collection from Camp Floyd totals 4,917 bones; not surprisingly, given the historic record for this area, the majority (4,833) belong to cattle, with lesser numbers of unidentifiable medium mammals (81), birds (2), and an unidentifiable small mammal (1). The following section is divided by species or general category type.

Cattle The highest amount of cattle (bos taurus) remains comes from 1,397 ribs, 394 thoracic vertebrae, and 1,038 indeterminate bone fragments (see table one). The lowest number of elements comes from 98 sternum bones and 162 waste products.

To view Tables read it here: https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/utah_historical_quarterly_volume_89_number_4_20

Out of the total, 243 bones are burned (or calcined), which indicates an attempt to dispose of the trash, but the evidence for this is generally low. 1,531 are sawed; 509 are snapped with no other butcher marks; 2,502 are sawed and snapped, meaning that they were broken and had cut marks; and 292 bones show no evidence of human interaction, are intact, or both. Table two shows the level of butcher experience for the collection.

The categories for cut of meat are 161 waste, 0 short plate, 411 round, 1,791 rib, 1 neck, 125 loin, 1,282 indeterminate, 275 hind shank, 270 fore shank, 347 chuck, and 98 brisket. If we discount the indeterminate bones and ribs, the chuck cut rises to 16 percent of the collection and the chuck to 19 percent. This raises the most distributable meat to 35 percent (see table two).

Indeterminate bones were unidentifiable by cut of meat. The round and chuck are nearly tied, combining at 16 percent of the cattle bones, even though some of the ribs could also go into the chuck cut of meat. Round and chuck possess the most usable stew and ground meat and can go the farthest. In certain cases the fore and hind shanks would also be used as stew and ground beef, which combine at 12 percent of the collection.

Cattle were killed off-site and taken to the mess hall kitchens for preparation; this explains why the CF87–1 collection contains no identifiable skull fragments, teeth, horns, or hooves, and only one surviving atlas, out of a total of 4,833 bones. The high percentage of flank, chuck, round, and rib indicates that the people who used the kitchens and disposed of the bone waste were trying to distribute the meat as far as possible. Brisket and loins are the most desired cuts of meat but have the lowest percentage of cattle bone waste in the collection. Only a small number of the bones that would provide evidence for these cuts exist in CF87–1; they consist of the sternum, distal humerus, proximal radius and ulna, some ribs, the pin bone, and a percentage of the pelvis bones (depending on the targeted cut of meat).

Finally, the collection contains only a single soup bone. This seems odd, considering that stew and various forms of soup were a staple for the army. Bone broth is not only a key ingredient in these recipes but also a valuable source of nutrients that apparently was not used much at Camp Floyd.

Medium Mammal The faunal remains in this collection contain far fewer bones from midsized mammals than from cattle. The medium mammal remains were unidentifiable by species, but the possible animals include sheep, pigs, and goats. One metacarpus and all three tibias in the collection are distinctly from herbivores. 19 There is no evidence of carnivores in the collection.

Medium Mammal Elements. Out of the collection’s 4,917 bones, 81 (2 percent) total elements come from medium-sized mammals (see table one). As with the cattle remains in CF87–1, only a small percentage is made up of waste bones (6 bones or 7 percent). The highest bone count is tied among 7 scapula, 7 ribs, and 7 pelvis fragments, totaling nearly 9 percent of the collection, each.

Medium Mammal Butchering Evidence. Out of the 81 medium mammal bones, 2 are calcined, 42 are sawed, 21 are snapped, 1 is sawed and snapped, and 17 show no evidence of human use or remained intact (table two).

Medium Mammal Cut of Meat. The medium mammal collection includes 2 waste remains, 13 round, 15 rib, 18 lumbar vertebrae, 11 indeterminate, 7 hind shank, 4 fore shank, and 11 chuck (table three).

Even though the overall percentage of medium mammal bones is low, these remains are significant. Soldiers were given pig and other meat sources already salted and preserved in their rations. 20 This means that such meats would only have come from local purchasing.

In contrast to the cattle results, the medium mammal quantities show a much higher and more dominant quantity for desirable cuts of meat. Since the only evidence for a loin cut is lumbar vertebrae, this means that in order for this cut to dominate the assemblage it would take multiple animals and in this case, the lumbar vertebrae has the highest element count.

Calcined evidence is also low in this section. The highest percentage of medium mammal bones are sawed, and the lowest percentage are sawed and snapped. The evidence here indicates that the medium mammals were butchered with more experience and accuracy than the cattle.

Small Mammal The CF87–1 collection contains only one small mammal bone, a scapula, which also shows no evidence of being butchered. It was likely a rabbit, since it is too large to be a rodent, but it could have been hunted or naturally deposited.

Birds There are two distinctly avian bones in the Camp Floyd collection, which most likely came from a locally sourced bird or were hunted. No evidence exists of butchering because the humerus (wing cut) and tibiotarsus (drumstick) present are completely intact. 21

The previous historical research about Camp Floyd explains how the army contracted, organized, and executed the delivery of supplies at this large installation. The faunal remains and medical reports provide evidence that the army’s efforts seemingly succeeded. A study of the soldiers’ medical records reports no serious or nutrition-related diseases; and accounts that discuss cattle storage, food orders, transport, combined with a lack of evidence thus far of widespread disease in the cattle bones, all indicate that the soldiers of Camp Floyd had enough provisions to survive and that they possessed enough access to protein and vegetables to be generally healthy. 22 The lack of deer, elk, and rabbit bones suggests that the residents of Camp Floyd did not need to hunt locally to supplement their food supply. This also indicates that the newly founded supply chains and travel routes were succeeding even in the unfamiliar political and environmental climates. This is important because, during this time, even a bout of bad weather could slow down a train or destroy supplies, delaying delivery for weeks. A sudden increase in nutrition-related diseases or remains from local game could show this.

These two cattle bones—respectively, a cleanly sawed proximal humerus epiphysis and a snapped distal humerus— show evidence of different butchering types. Accession Group CF87-1, 2001.15.88.2 and 2001.15.269.3.

The health of the cattle could also directly affect the health of the soldiers; there was little to no evidence of disease in this assemblage. This could be because, during the first year of the camp’s construction, General Albert Sidney Johnston secured contracts to herd livestock. He split up his cattle as needed across the land and stored hay and agricultural surplus to ensure the soldiers and cattle were healthy and fed, given the new challenges that Utah’s climate brought during the five months that growing, grazing, and sometimes even supply transport stopped. Johnston created a military reserve to ensure that Camp Floyd’s cattle had land to graze. By the spring of 1859, forty acres of soil had been seeded and irrigated to support local agriculture. All of this was done in an effort to support the 7,000 lives who inhabited Camp Floyd. 23 It does appear that Camp Floyd was well provisioned and that its inhabitants overcame the challenges that presented themselves in Utah, a place new and unfamiliar to them.

Notes

1. Jennifer L. Elsken, “The Historical Ceramics of Camp Floyd” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2002), 15.

2. Very few collections from Berge’s Camp Floyd excavations have been analyzed, and there is not yet a comprehensive site report for the excavations; however, some literature on it does exist. Jeffrey A. Rust’s 1999 master’s thesis focused on the influence that rank had on aspects of the social, economic, cultural, and political state of the United States Army in 1858 by analyzing the buildings at the Camp Floyd post. Jennifer L. Elsken’s 2002 thesis considered historical ceramics at the camp. Most of the work that has been done to analyze the assemblages has been limited to undergraduate students sorting and classifying artifacts for student projects. Finally, this portion of the faunal collection was originally organized but not analyzed by the BYU Museum of People and Cultures in 2001. Elsken, “Historical Ceramics,” 15; Jeffrey A. Rust, “Camp Floyd: The Influence of Rank at a U.S. Army Post, an Archaeological View” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1999); see also, Audrey M. Godfrey, “A Social History of Camp Floyd, Utah Territory, 1858–1861” (master’s thesis, Utah State University, 1989), 37.

3. Camp Floyd (42UT14) Collection, Accession Group CF87–1, Fairfield, Utah, located at the Fort Douglas Military Museum, Salt Lake City, Utah.

4. Rust, “Camp Floyd”; Danny N. Walker, ed., Archeology at the Fort Laramie Quartermaster Dump Area, 1994– 1996, Division of Cultural Resources Selection Series, no. 13 (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 1998). For a similar study, see David Colin Crass and Deborah L. Wallsmith, “Where’s the Beef? Food Supply at an Antebellum Frontier Post,” Historical Archaeology 26, no. 2 (1992): 3–23.

5. Don Richard Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect” (master’s thesis, University of Utah, 1959), 5; Donald R. Moorman, with Gene A. Sessions, Camp Floyd and the Mormons: The Utah War (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992).

6. Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 178–79; Moorman, Camp Floyd and the Mormons; Rust, “Camp Floyd,” statement of civilian contracts.

7. Thomas G. Alexander and Leonard J. Arrington, “Camp in the Sagebrush: Camp Floyd, Utah, 1858– 1861,” Utah Historical Quarterly 34, no. 1 (1966): 7; Durwood Ball, Army Regulars on the Western Frontier, 1848–1861 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 166; Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 38; Rust, “Camp Floyd.”

8. Ball, Army Regulars, 170; Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 36.

9. Alexander and Arrington, “Camp in the Sagebrush,” 6; Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect.”

10. Alexander and Arrington, “Camp in the Sagebrush,” 8.

11. Ball, Army Regulars, 170; Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 152–53.

12. Thomas J. Caperton and LoRheda Fry, Old West Army Cookbook, 1865–1900 (Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico, 1974), 3.

13. Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 37.

14. Godfrey, “A Social History,” 78, 101.

15. Godfrey, “A Social History,” 108–110

16. Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 61.

17. Godfrey, “A Social History,” 114; Caperton and Fry, Old West Army Cookbook, 3–5.

18. Caperton and Fry, Old West Army Cookbook, 3–5; Godfrey, “A Social History,” 101, 109.

19. April M. Beisaw, Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones: A Manual (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2013); Jack M. Broughton and Shawn Miller, Zooarchaeology and Field Ecology: A Photographic Atlas (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016); Simon J. M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals (London: Routledge, 2016); Diane L. France, Human and Nonhuman Bone Identification: A Color Atlas on DVD (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2009); Hillary Jones, Elizabeth Hora-Cook, Anastasia Lugo Mendez, and David Byers, “Artiodactyl Identification for Archaeologists” (ms. on file, Utah State University, Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology, 2014).

20. Caperton and Fry, Old West Army Cookbook.

21. Beisaw, Identifying and Interpreting; Davis, Archaeology of Animals; France, Human and Nonhuman; Jones et al., “Artiodactyl Identification.”

22. Caperton and Fry, Old West Army Cookbook, 3–5; Godfrey, “A Social History,” 114; Mathis, “Camp Floyd in Retrospect,” 61.