1. Ethnicity and Tradition in the Old Town San Diego Diet Trine B. Johansen (UC Davis) and Benjamin D. O. Hanowell (CSU Sacramento)

2. The McCoy-Silvas Site, Old Town San Diego, P1116

3. A Few Details About The Features Site first occupied during the 1830s Artifacts associated with Feature 39 date to the 1840s Artifacts from Feature 141 are possibly associated with the earlier (1830s) adobe structure

4. Faunal Remains From The McCoy- Silvas Site in Old Town San Diego TaxonNISP%NISP Cow271164.5% Canids80.2% Horse40.1% Pig1022.4% Rabbit20.0% Rodents10.0% Sheep1613.8% Unidentified Artiodactyls1253.0% Unidentified Mammals270.6% Bird220.5% Fish170.4% Snake10.0% Unidentified102124.3% TOTAL4202100.0%

5. McCoy-Silvas House faunal remains Relative Frequency of Number of Identified Specimens, and Minimum Number of Individuals (Grayson 1984)

6. Cow Bone Density No correlation between recovered cow bone elements and density (Kreutzer 1992)

7. Cow Meat Utility weak, but positive correlation between recovered cow bone elements and meat utility (Emerson 1990)

8. Fragmentation %Whole elements NISP:MNE ratio Cow (n=2222) 41.653.43 Sheep (n=166) 42.001.81 Cow elements are nearly twice as fragmented as sheep elements (Lyman 1994)

9. Relative Frequency of Skeletal Parts

10. McCoy-Silvas Cow Faunal Remains Compared with Ontiveros Adobe and Rose-Robinson Sites

11. What Type of Waste? MATANZA WASTE (following Gust 1982) Large number of carcasses Deposited on ground surface Located away from living areas No other trash Presence of partially or wholly articulated carcasses

12. The Matanza “When the rancheros had a matanza, which means the killing of a lot of cattle once a year…he would have lots of cattle brought up and placed in corrals near the house some where, and then those in the best condition to kill were selected from the band and slaughtered…” (Belden 1878:22)

13. What Type of Waste? KITCHEN AND BUTCHERING WASTE Variable number of carcasses Concentrated in pits Located near living areas Presence of domestic artifacts Evidence of intensive butchering Presence of other animal species

14. Kitchen and Butchery Waste “Small slaughters seem to have been conducted very near home. A beef for family use was reportedly brought “in to the side or rear of the house, about 100 feet distant, and convenient to the kitchen…and killed…” (Davis 1889:47-48)

15. Hispanic vs. Euro American Butchering Traditions Hispanic –Butchering and consumption on site. –Bones are highly fragmented. –Use of knives and axes in dismembering. –Lack of sagitally split vertebrae. –Smashing of long bones for marrow? Euro American –Specified butchering sites. –Less fragmented bones. –Use of saws. –Suspension of carcass resulting in sagitally split vertebrae. –Sawing the bone into multiple sections.

16. Butchering Techniques

17. Relative Frequency of Chopping Marks

18. A Few Examples of Chopping

19. The Experiment Employed a variety of tool types – axes, hatchets cleavers, knives, saws Recorded the modification effects of each tool Applied this method to several bone elements Hatchets get the job done No marrow extraction?

20. Conclusion Cows Rule Butchery and Kitchen Waste Follows expected pattern for the time period within the cultural context No strong emphasis on particular meat cuts Use of hatchets and axes in primary butchering

21. Acknowledgements Larry Felton, Department of Parks and Recreation, SACRF. Christyann M. Darwent, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Glenn Farris, Department of Parks and Recreation, SACRF.