A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: WORKING TOWARDS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF CUT MARKS AND BUTCHERY

Due to the obvious constraints involved with working on human osseous material many advances in experimental aspects of biological anthropology have made use of research from the zooarchaeological analysis of faunal remains. Cut marks represent unequivocal evidence for human activity on animal bones, making the analysis of butchered remains an important part of zooarchaeological research. However, understanding the technical aspects of dismemberment is crucial to interpreting activity from assemblages where cannibalism has occurred. As faunal butchery has played an important part in developing an understanding of how humans may have used implements on other humans, it is equally important for those involved in human osteoarchaeology to also have an appreciation of how orientation, implement use and fundamental carcass dismemberment principles may affect how and why a particular process was carried out. This paper will highlight aspects of butchery and carcass dismemberment that may assist with interpretation and appraisal of cut marks on human remains, for example in distinguishing dismemberment for nutrition as opposed to cut marks made during ritual/sacrificial practices.

[1]  Stephen Pain,et al.  What is an Animal? , 2009, Biosemiotics.

[2]  A. Pluskowski.  Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past , 2005 .

[3]  K. Seetah.  Butchery as a Tool for Understanding the Changing Views of Animals: Cattle in Roman Britain , 2005 .

[4]  T J U Thompson,et al.  Recent advances in the study of burned bone and their implications for forensic anthropology. , 2004, Forensic science international.

[5]  A. Outram,et al.  Fragmentation: The Zonation Method Applied to Fragmented Human Remains from Archaeological and Forensic Contexts , 2004 .

[6]  L. Rival.  Blowpipes and spears: the social significance of Huaorani technological choices , 2003 .

[7]  T. Thompson.  The Assessment of Sex in Cremated Individuals: Some Cautionary Notes , 2002 .

[8]  S. Hurlbut.  The taphonomy of cannibalism: a review of anthropogenic bone modification in the American Southwest , 2000 .

[9]  M. D. Ogilvie,et al.  Ritualized violence in the prehistoric American Southwest , 2000 .

[10]  H. Greenfield.  The Origins of Metallurgy: Distinguishing Stone from Metal Cut-marks on Bones from Archaeological Sites , 1999 .

[11]  P. Andrews,et al.  Surface modifications of the Sima de los Huesos fossil humans. , 1997, Journal of human evolution.

[12]  C. Marean,et al.  Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces , 1996 .

[13]  P. Descola,et al.  Nature in culture or culture in nature?: Chewong ideas of ‘humans’ and other species , 1996 .

[14]  T. White.  Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 , 1993 .

[15]  J. H. Ziegler,et al.  Guidelines for slaughtering, meat cutting and further processing. , 1991 .

[16]  R. Lyman.  5 – Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic Perspective , 1987 .

[17]  L. Binford.  Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths , 1981 .

[18]  A. Sandison.  Bones, Bodies and Disease , 1964 .