In my researches I have come across several references to bone men (not
skinny people) bone pickers (not as in coal mines, music or Indian burial)
or bone cleaners (usually in association with rag picking, butchers,
peddlers, or scavanging plains buffalo carcasses). I have even heard the
term "Bone Picker" to indicate one who had a terribly menial job.
I did excavations adjacent to the site of a small slaughter house on the
Scottsville Basin of the Genesee Valley Canal in Scottsville, NY, near
Rochester and we found tons of bone but they were mostly of appendages and
few were meat cuts. We also found the front end of a horse that had fallen
into the abandoned canal and gotten stuck in the mud and died (we
appropriately called him "Scotty") - the rest of him (or her) is still in
place.
It was clear that most of the bones were not from the edible parts of the
animals, and I wish we had done deeper analysis on the faunal assemblage to
determine what other parts of the skeleton were missing and may have been
sent off to the bone yard for other uses. Has anyone done this kind of
analysis - to determine which bones of which animals were most suitable for
recycling into other articles???? Antlers, horns, ribs, stout long bones,
hooves, and such come to mind.
Bone was also used in knife handles, corset ribs, tooth brushes, weaving
tools, fertilizers, plasters, glues, and hundreds of other items found in
any household (was bone china really made with bone???). Blood, urine,
skin, fats, and all sorts of internal organs found second lives also
(beyond nutritional consumption), but their perishable qualities would
preclude such analysis!
Here is an entry from a census record that opened my eyes as to the practice:
1860 Federal Census, Town of Dewitt, Onondaga County, NY, Schedule of
Industry: (paraphrased)
Dedrick Bear, bone cleaner, used 40 tons of bone valued at $200.00 and 100
dead animals valued at $100.00; made 7,500 pounds of grease valued at
$350.00 and 40 tons of bones valued at $360.00
Now that is a neigborhood to stay clear of, but I sure would love to
excavate his yard! The leftovers of leftovers ...
The gratuitous web links:
http://redeyevideo.com/index2.html
is the quote from Levi-Strauss correct???
http://www.studioarts.co.uk/tomdodson/tdprints/tdprintrag.htm
Dan W.
At 1/9/03 05:15 PM, you wrote:
>This leads to a terrific problem in modern archaeology! Following Mary and
>Paul, buttons of bone and shell serve as wonderful examples of something we
>really don't quite understand well. Cottage work slowly evolved into button
>manufacturing industries over the 18th and 19th century, and these
>industries siphoned off volumes of what we consider foodways "waste" into
>productive-economic activities. At the household level, the
>trade/production probably provided supplemental income. Industrially, the
>developing industries, ranging from buttons to soap, leather, candles, and
>yes, even POTTERY. We understand that the various industries evolved
>parallel to the developing industrial food network (see Claassen 1994 and
>Landon 1996 for excellent examples!). We also know that we should study
>these processes as taphonomic forces effecting our studies of food remains.
>Has anyone really nailed down the nature or extent of the trade in such
>"waste" products? Differences between local/urban contexts? Considered
>this from a household perspective?
>
>We have studies of the bone buttons, their use, how they served as referents
>of identity, etc. (although I agree we may not have enough yet on this
>topic). We have studies of foodways. Has anybody linked them
>systematically, at either household or regional levels? Claassen and Landon
>both provide good places from which to leap, but will this will be difficult
>to make operational at the household level!
>
>Tim
>
>
>Refs:
>Claassen, Cheryl (1994) "Washboards, Pigtoes, and Muckets: Historic
>Musseling in the Mississippi Watershed." _Historical Archaeology_ 28(2).
>
>Landon, David L. (1996) "Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zooarchaeological Study"
>_Historical Archaeology_ 30(1)
|