Let the cutmarks speak! Experimental butchery to ...

7 downloads 108123 Views 3MB Size Report
Received in revised form 30 November 2016. Accepted 21 .... Nilssen, 2000; Soulier and Morin, 2016). ..... were recorded on bone templates in Adobe Illustrator.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Let the cutmarks speak! Experimental butchery to reconstruct carcass processing Marie-Cécile Soulier ⁎, Sandrine Costamagno CNRS UMR 5608-TRACES, Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Maison de la Recherche, 5 allées A. Machado, FR-31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 August 2016 Received in revised form 30 November 2016 Accepted 21 December 2016 Available online 30 January 2017 Keywords: Zooarchaeology Butchery experiment Ungulates Cutmarks Carcass processing Subsistence

a b s t r a c t This paper presents data on cutmarks obtained through experimental butchery performed within a collective project called “des Traces & des Hommes”. Eighteen half-carcasses of red deer (Cervus elaphus) were processed using replicas of Middle Palaeolithic stone tools. The butchery complied with a strict protocol to allow the activity that produced each cutmark to be identified with confidence. The gestures of the butcher and every instance of contact between the tools and bones were also recorded. Each bone has been analyzed using a magnifying lens, and the cutmarks have been recorded on graphic templates of the bones. Comparison of our experimental data with the other available reference sets highlights several differences and important issues potentially leading to misinterpretation of butchering activities in archaeological contexts. In order to improve our ability to document butchering patterns, we introduce an updated, more complete and more detailed version of the cutmark coding system created by Binford (1981) and later supplemented by Nilssen (2000). The experiments conducted also allowed us to expand our understanding of some poorly documented activities, such as tendon-extraction and skinning. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Many variables, governed by natural and/or cultural contingencies, can affect the butchering activities performed by a human group (e.g., Binford, 1981; Lyman 1987). For example, the removal of the skin of a prey animal differs if it is simply a step toward accessing the meat or if the skin is to be saved for making clothes, and this choice is first determined by the quality of the skin and, thus, by the season of the hunt (Binford, 1978, 1981; Grønnow et al., 1983; Morrison, 1997). Besides these functional and economics factors, the ethnological and anthropological literature stresses that the social identity of each group is well expressed in food-processing activities (e.g., Chenal-Velarde and Velarde, 2004; D'Iatchenko et al., 2007; Fischler, 1988; Guevara, 1988; Havelange, 1998; Lalhou, 1998; Malaurie, 1989; Politis and Saunders, 2002; Serra Mallol, 2010; Simoons, 1994; Vialles, 1998). The codes, rituals and taboos specific to each society can indeed influence the butchery tasks performed, which translates into distinct processing activities. For example, the Dena'Ina people express their respect for their prey by meticulous crushing of all of the bones after butchery (Russell, 1995), while, for the Evenki, this translates into a systematic disarticulation of all the carpal and tarsal bones (Abe, 2005). By decrypting the actions of the butcher, it is thus technically possible to retrace the intentions

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.-C. Soulier).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.12.033 2352-409X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of the butcher and to observe the technical skills, if not the culture, of a human group (e.g., Dumont, 1987; Vigne et al., 1987). The sociological dimension of food practices is, however, very difficult to perceive for human groups that did not leave any written testimonies. The cutmarks observed on bone remains in archaeological contexts were rapidly identified as compelling evidence of meat processing by past human societies (Henri-Martin, 1906; Lartet, 1860; Milne-Edwards, 1875). Therefore, food waste bears evidence of the technical traditions of a human group, much like the artifacts more commonly recognized as material culture, and can be used to retrace the processing activities of past human societies. These marks—associated with other evidence of butchering, manufacturing, or use-wear marks—are frequently used in studies of past human societies as proxies to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire of carcass processing (e.g., Castel, 1999, 2003; Castel et al., 1998; Costamagno, 2012; Fontana et al., 2009; Johnson and Bement, 2009; Laroulandie, 2004; Leduc, 2010; Mallye et al., 2013; Soulier, 2013, 2014). The ethnological observations conducted by Binford (1978, 1981) on Nunamiut groups from the Anaktuvuk Pass area (Alaska) marked a fundamental step in the study of cutmarks. Binford made careful observations of 37 butchery sequences performed with metal knives by skilled Nunamiut butchers, and processed 13 carcasses himself. By matching the cutmarks he observed at recently abandoned Nunamiut camps to the butchery episodes he observed, Binford has suggested a coding system for cutmarks (Binford, 1981). According to the location and orientation of the cutmarks, these codes allow the

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

identification of skinning, disarticulation and defleshing activities. Ethnoarchaeological studies have since developed further (e.g., Abe, 2005; Costamagno and David, 2009; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1989; Lupo and O'Connell, 2002). Despite the recognized need for butchering observations using traditional methods—that broaden our knowledge of the range of the possibilities of prey uses—these studies have not attempted to complete the coding established by Binford and no inventory of cutmarks according to activity is available due the lack of control with regard to distinct butchery activities. The work of Nilssen (2000) is a great addition to Binford's work because most of the butchery activities were videotaped. This protocol allowed Nilssen to attribute most of the cutmarks he observed to specific butchering activities and to complete Binford's reference set by offering new codes for previously undocumented cutmarks. Nilssen's reference set is based on butchery performed using metal blades and, occasionally, stone tools. The butchery tasks were completed by a skilled butcher and hunters, and were aimed at producing dried meat and sausages from African antelopes in the Karoo region (South Africa). This work highlights that the interpretation of cutmarks is not as simple as suggested by Binford, with the observation that defleshing and disarticulation cutmarks can sometimes be superimposed. This reference set, however results from butchery performed with metal knives and, as noted by Nilssen (2000:28), “Some butchery tasks carried out with a metal blade could not be accomplished with stone tools.” The reference sets available therefore appear not to be fully transposable to Palaeolithic assemblages. Examples of experimental butchery performed with stone tools do exist. Some of these were aimed at adjusting Binford's reference set to small game (Cochard, 2004; Laroulandie, 2001; Mallye, 2011; Willis et al., 2008) but cannot be applied to ungulates because of their significant morphological differences. For ungulates, experimental butchery were mostly aimed at testing some specific aspects, such as the relationship between butchering-intensity/meat-quantity/carcass-size and the number of cutmarks produced or the impact of the tool used on the number/location/morphology of the cutmarks (e.g., Dewbury and Russell, 2007; Domínguez-Rodrigo and Barba, 2005; Egeland, 2003; Egeland et al., 2014; Galán and Domínguez-Rodrigo, 2013; Pobiner and Braun, 2005; Val et al., 2017; Walker, 1978; Walker and Long, 1977), and most of them do not provide any extensive documentation of cutmarks. Bez (1995) used stone tools for experimental butchery on a domestic goat, a domestic sheep and a horse's head; only part of the cutmarks he observed are illustrated on bone templates. The experiments conducted by Padilla (2008) were also performed on domestic cows (immature) and with stone tools to document the

783

variability of the gestures made by professional butchers and persons not familiar with mammal anatomy. All of the cutmarks were recorded on bone templates but no distinction was made between the traces resulting from defleshing and disarticulation. Domestication involves morphological changes including changes to the musculature (e.g., O'Regan and Kitchener, 2005), and one can expect that domestic carcasses might be easier to butcher compared to wild animals. Therefore, these data might not be entirely relevant for studies on archaeological assemblages from periods that predate domestication. To our knowledge, the experimental butchery by Galán and Domínguez-Rodrigo (2013) are the only experiments to have been performed both with stone tools and on wild ungulates (Cervus elaphus). The butcher, a skilled hunter, had to make oblique gestures for disarticulation and exclusively transverse motions for defleshing and skinning. The orientations of the cutmarks were consequently used to determine the activity during which the cutmarks were generated. The protocol used to determine the activity that produced a cutmark, however, limits its relevance for accessing carcass processing because the orientation of a cutmark is a major criterion for its attribution to a specific activity (Binford, 1981; Nilssen, 2000; Soulier and Morin, 2016). To gain better knowledge of carcass processing on wild ungulates, we performed highly controlled butchery on wild red deer using replicas of Middle Palaeolithic stone tools, in the framework of a collective project (Thiébaut et al., 2009) called “des Traces & des Hommes” (T&H). Data obtained on limb bones for each activity (skinning, disarticulation, defleshing and tendon-removal) are here presented separately to provide an overview of all the cutmarks produced during each step of the butchery process. We then compare this new reference set with those already available. This comparison allows us to readjust the previously established cutmark codes and to suggest some new codes for activities that lacked descriptions.

2. Materials and methods A total of 18 half-carcasses (Table 1) of wild red deer were processed between 2007 and 2012. Six of the deer were purchased from a severalhectare hunting park, two were shot by local hunters, and one was hit by a car. Except for carcass 1, which was beheaded, all of the carcasses were complete (six carcasses were partially eviscerated for sanitary reasons). The deer were killed shortly before the butchery was conducted (Table 1) and were kept in a refrigerated truck until processing.

Table 1 Description of the experimental material. ID

Description

Side

Lithic tool

Raw material

1

Hunting park. Adult ♂ headless. Death: 1 day before

2

Hunting park. Adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 1 day before

3

Hunting park. Adult ♀ complete. Death: 1 day before

4

Hunting park. Adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 1 day before

5

Hunting park. Sub-adult ♂ complete. Death: 1 day before

6

Wild. Sub-adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 1 day before

7

Hunting park. Adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 2 days before

8

Wild. Adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 2 days before

9

Wild. Adult ♀ eviscerated. Death: 3 days before

R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L

Denticulate Mousterian point Unretouched flake Denticulate Denticulate Unretouched point Cleaver Denticulate Cleaver Cleaver Unretouched flake Unretouched flake Unretouched flake Unretouched flake Denticulate Denticulate Unretouched flake Unretouched flake

Flint Flint Quartzite Flint Quartzite Flint Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Ophite Quartzite Schist Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Flint Flint

784

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 1. Deer experiments: a) longitudinal incision of the skin on the hind leg, b) circular and longitudinal incisions of the skin on the lower leg, c) detachment of the skin, d) dismemberment of the forelimb, e) dismemberment of the hind leg, f) disarticulation between the scapula and the humerus before defleshing, g) disarticulation at the radial-carpal junction, h) disarticulation between the femur and the tibia after defleshing, i) defleshing of the femur, j) defleshing of the tibia, k) defleshing of the scapula, l) muscle removal of the scapula without the use of a lithic tool (see text for explanations), m) thick extensor tendon on the metapodial, n) tendon-extraction while holding the tool longitudinally, o) tendonextraction while holding the tool transversely.

The butchery activities were performed by archaeologists with experience of experimental butchery, except in the case of carcass 9, which was processed by a professional butcher (left side of the deer) and his apprentice (right side). All of the butchery activities were performed using replicas of Middle Palaeolithic stone tools. The diversity

of the tools and the raw material utilized (Table 1) correspond to the parameters that lithic specialists participating in the experimental program wanted to test (i.e., the incidence of the type of tools, the edge aspect and the raw material used in particular butchering activities: Claud et al., 2009, 2015; Thiébaut et al., 2009). All the butchery activities

Table 2 Experimental protocols used for each butchery experiment. Abbreviations: Disart. = disarticulation; Post. = posterior; Ant. = anterior; Med. = medial; Lat. = lateral; Ph. = phalanx; Met. = metapodial; Dist. = distal; Sh. = shaft; Ep. = epiphysis; sup. = superficial defleshing (see text). * between the two rows of the carpal bones. Side

Limb

First circular incision

Longitudinal incision

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9

R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L R R L L

Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post. Ant. Post.

Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Tibia Dist. Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Ep. Met. Dist. Ep. Met. mid-Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Ep.

Med. Med. Med. Med. Lat. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Post. + Ant. Med. + Ant. Post. Ant. Med. Med. Med. Med.

Met. Dist. Sh. Met. Dist. Sh. Phalanx 1 Phalanx 1 Phalanx 1 Phalanx 1 Met. mid-Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Met. mid-Sh. Humerus Femur Humerus Femur Met. mid-Sh. Met. Dist. Ep. Met. mid-Sh. Met. Dist. Sh.

Second circular incision

hooves hooves hooves ph. 1

Longitudinal incision below the 2nd incision

Post. Post. Post. Ant.

Girdle Disart.

Defleshing

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X sup. sup. sup. sup. X X X X sup. sup. sup. sup.

Disarti. stylopodial/ zeugopodial

Disart. zeugopodial/ autopodial

Disartic. metapodial/ phalanx 1

Disart. phalanges 1 axial-abaxial

X X X X X X X

X

X X X X

Radius/Carpals Tibia/Tarsals Carpals* Tarsals/Met.

Anterior tendons removal

Posterior tendons removal

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X

X X X X

Tendons removal on phalanx

X X X X

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Carcass ID

X

X X X X

Radius/Carpals Tibia/Tarsals Carpals Tibia/Tarsals

785

786

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

A.

M.

L.

A.

M.

a)

L.

b)

M.

c)

e)

d)

L. E.

A.

f)

g) M.

A.

circular incision longitudinal incision detachment of the skin

A.

L.

L.

M.

Fig. 2. Cutmarks produced during skinning on a) metacarpal, b) metatarsal, c) tibia, d) phalanges, e) vestigial phalanges, f) pyramidal, lunatum and pisiform, g) calcaneum and cubonavicular. Abbreviations: M. = medial, A. = anterior, L. = lateral, P. = posterior, E. = external.

have been carefully planned to avoid performing distinct activities in the same area (e.g., when the tendons were removed from the metatarsal, the circular incision to remove the skin was performed on the phalanges). The activities (skinning, disarticulation, defleshing, and tendon-removal: Fig. 1) performed on each carcass are listed in Table 2. In order to document disarticulation, carcasses 7 and 9 were exclusively disarticulated. For the right side of carcass 7 and the left side of carcass 9, the disarticulation was performed without defleshing, but this made the articular zones of the humerus and femur difficult to locate. For the other two half-carcasses, a superficial defleshing was performed prior to disarticulation. For the right side of carcass 9, the defleshing was performed very superficially in order to avoid producing any cutmarks; for the left side of carcass 7, the wind had dried the fascia of the muscles, permitting us to simply pull the muscles out and to section the ligaments without any contact with the bone (Fig. 1l). For other carcasses, no disarticulation was performed on meaty portions

except for the pelvis-femur junction, where disarticulation was systematically performed. This was necessary because the separation between the pelvis and the axial skeleton is very difficult when using cutting tools alone, and butchering motions are very restricted while the rear leg is attached to the pelvis. Consequently, for defleshed carcasses we were unable to distinguish whether the cutmarks produced on the proximal part of the femur resulted from defleshing or disarticulation. When performing the butchery, all of the activities executed were written down and videotaped. Additionally, during the butchery, each tool-bone contact and its precise location and orientation were noted on paper bone templates by a zooarchaeologist along with indications of the gesture involved (e.g., oblique contact on the medial face of the humerus, proximal shaft, cutting off the M. subscapularis). Once the animal was butchered, all the bones were buried in a fly-screen for at least one year. This protocol was preferred to boiling to avoid any damage to the readability and morphology of the cutmarks.

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

787

processing we noted that, on deer, the second phalanx was partly enclosed in the hooves; consequently, performing circular incisions at the skin-hoof junction produced cutmarks on second phalanges. Longitudinal incisions—to link the incision made for the evisceration and the circular incision—typically generated long, longitudinal cutmarks (the blue cutmarks seen in Fig. 2). No cutmarks were produced when this incision was made on the posterior face. When performed at the inner leg, cutmarks were created on the medial face of the metapodials, the calcaneum, the cubonavicular joint and the lower half of the tibia. Making this incision on the outside of the leg produced longitudinal cutmarks on the lateral face of the metapodials, and on the pyramidal and the pisiform bones. When this action was made on the anterior face, cutmarks were only observed on the lunatum. Making oblique gestures using the stone tool allowed final skin detachment. This generated oblique, often isolated and shallow, cutmarks on the lateral and medial sides of the metapodials (the green cutmarks seen in Fig. 2). In our experimental sample, a number of oblique cutmarks are also present in the cluster of cutmarks resulting from the circular incision. These oblique cutmarks can nevertheless be easily distinguished from those resulting from the oblique gesture to detach the skin by considering the context (i.e., depth and whether clustered or isolated: Fig. 3). 3.2. Defleshing

Fig. 3. Cutmarks produced during skinning. Scale: 1 cm. An enlargement of the cutmarks is shown on the right.

This study focuses on leg bones. The scapula is included in this analysis because the disarticulation between the scapula and the axial skeleton is easy to perform (unlike the pelvis-axial skeleton disarticulation, see above). Each bone was observed under a lowangled light with a magnifying lens (× 30) and the cutmarks were recorded on bone templates in Adobe Illustrator. The recording of each cutmark was checked by at least two zooarchaeologists and then interpreted with reference to the protocol applied on each half-carcass. The contact-sheets that were filled out during the experiment were used to define the motion that produced each cutmark. For the analysis, a cutmark has been considered longitudinal when the orientation is between 0 and 15° and 165 to 180° with regard to the longitudinal axis of the bone. Bones were also divided in 6 portions, coded from 1 (proximal) to 6 (distal). The limits of these bone portions are visible on Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. 3. Results 3.1. Skin removal Removing the skin requires various gestures: circular incision of the skin, longitudinal incision, and detachment. In our reference set, these three steps have distinct signatures (Fig. 2). Circular incisions led to the creation of mostly deep, transverse, and clustered cutmarks on the medial and lateral sides of the bones (the orange cutmarks shown in Fig. 2). This incision was made at different locations on the metapodials and the phalanges, but also on the distal part of the zeugopodial bones. No marks were created when incisions were made at this latter location. When performed at the zone of metapodial articulation, the circular incision also generated cutmarks on the vestigial phalanges. During the

Defleshing cutmarks were observed on all the meat-bearing long bones, as on the scapula, fibula, and patella (Fig. 4). These defleshing cutmarks are mostly transverse or oblique, although some longitudinal marks are present, especially on the scapula and the ulna. The defleshing also produced cutmarks on articular zones, as on the condyles and the intercondyloid eminence of the tibia (on 5 out of the 14 butchery that exclusively involved defleshing) and, to a lesser extent, on the humeral head, the trochlear ridge of the femur, and the trochlear notch of the ulna. Defleshing cutmarks were also made on the calcaneum while sectioning the tendons of muscles located on the tibia. 3.3. Disarticulation The disarticulation cutmarks in our sample (Fig. 5) are mostly short with a transverse or oblique orientation. Some longitudinal cutmarks have been recorded on the distal extremities of the humerus, femur, and metapodials, as well as on the pisiform and near the articular surface of the malleolus bone on the calcaneum. It should be noted that no cutmarks were generated during the separation of the forelimb from the axial skeleton because there is no articular junction between these elements; the same is true for the scapula-humerus separation because of the very loose articular connection and thick cartilage. For the meaty long bones, disarticulation has produced cutmarks on both extremities of the humerus, radius, and femur, but, interestingly, not on the tibia. When disarticulating the tibia, cutmarks were produced, however, at the distal articulation of the femur, the fibula, malleolus, and tarsals. The disarticulation performed on the lower legs generated cutmarks on the upper part of the proximal and mesial phalanges, as well as on the posterior crest of the lateral and medial sesamoids and on the first vestigial phalanges. Some incidental cutmarks (see the blue cutmarks shown in Fig. 5) were produced while trying to access the articular zones on the carcasses for which the disarticulation has been performed while the whole flesh was still in place. These do not reflect successful dismembering motions. 3.4. Tendon extraction The removal of tendons located on the lower legs generated cutmarks on the metapodials, phalanges, and sesamoids (Fig. 6). In our reference

788

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 4. Cutmarks produced during defleshing on a) scapula, b) calcaneum, c) humerus, d) radio-ulna, e) femur and patella, f) tibia and fibula. For gray cutmarks, the protocol used does not allow discrimination between defleshing and disarticulation. Abbreviations: see Fig. 2.

set, cutmarks due to sectioning are only located at the extremities of the bones because we attempted to obtain the tendons at their maximum length; these cutmarks are short, transverse-to-oblique, and are often deep. Some of these sectioning cutmarks are also present on the condyles of the metatarsal. The longitudinal cutmarks on the metapodials result from gestures that were aimed at pulling out the tendon from the inside of the grooves. These marks have been observed on both of the metapodial bones, mostly on the posterior side because the tendons are more deeply set inside the grooves. Longitudinal but short cutmarks are also present on the external face of distal part of the first phalanx.

4. Discussion 4.1. How relevant is the T&H reference set? As mentioned in the introduction, the type of tool used for butchering (i.e., metal knives vs stone tools) impacts the gestures that are possible and, consequently, the cutmarks created (Nilssen, 2000). Differences in the morphology of the cutmarks made by stone tools and metal knives have also been documented through observations under high magnification (Greenfield,

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

789

Fig. 5. Cutmarks produced during disarticulation on a) humerus, b) radio-ulna, c) femur, d) left: fibula, up: sesamoids, down: malleolus, e) metacarpal, f) metatarsal, g) carpals, h) tarsals, i) first phalanges, j) second and vestigial phalanges. Incidental cutmarks are represented in blue. Abbreviations: see Fig. 2.

1999), and a number of studies based on butchery performed with metal knives indicate the presence of shave-marks (Abe, 2005; Costamagno and David, 2009; Nilssen, 2000; Soulier, pers. obs. 2015 on the Nunamiut collection). None of these shave-

marks have been observed in the T&H experiments, and we believe that this is due to the difference in the gestures that are possible with stone tools and with long metal blades. Another illustration of the differences between metal blades and stone

790

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

A.

A.

P.

P.

b)

a)

spine greater acromion trochanter

humeral head

E.

P.

A.

c)

Fig. 6. Cutmarks produced during tendon removal on a) metacarpal, b) metatarsal and c) first phalanges. Abbreviations: see Fig. 2.

tools is that longitudinal cutmarks related to skinning can be observed on the posterior side of phalanges with metal knives (Costamagno and David, 2009), while no similar cutmarks were produced during the T&H experiments. This area is well protected by the thick extensor tendons (see Fig. 1m) and a long and sharp metal blade can penetrate easily through these thick tendons, while a stone tool cannot. Furthermore, butchery performed with metal blades tends to produce longer cutmarks than those observed in Palaeolithic series involving stone tools (Soulier and Morin, 2016). In the T&H sample, 105 out of 3050 cutmarks fall in the “short cutmarks” class defined by Soulier and Morin (2016). It is now evident that butchery leaves distinct cutmark signatures according to the material of the tools used. Consequently, the butchery sequences of the T&H project—all performed with stone tools—appears more relevant to the interpretation of prehistoric assemblages than reference sets that rely on butchery performed with metal blades. Contrary to the reference sets of Binford and Nilssen, the T&H experiments were mostly performed by archaeologists. A study focused on the concept of learning in butchery (Padilla, 2008) indicates that novices tend to produce incoherent gestures compared to skilled butchers. However, Padilla's novices were especially chosen for their total ignorance of anatomy, unlike the persons involved in the T&H experiments (zooarchaeologists and persons familiar with domestic butchery). Padilla's (2008) work also indicates that skilled butchers tend to produce a

Fig. 7. Location of the Hp-3 and S-12 codes (white lines) that are interpreted as dismemberment cutmarks. The dotted black line shows the articular junction, and the arrows illustrate the gesture associated with the cutmarks.

lower number of cutmarks than novices do, which is a commonly accepted assumption. The butchers that have participated to the T&H experiments said that tool-bone contacts—and thus cutmarks—cannot be avoided when removing the deeper muscle masses. Costamagno (2012) has suggested that the observation that skilled butchers did not leave many cutmarks might be true for modern butchers who want to preserve their metal blade as long as possible, but may not apply to butchery performed using stone tools. This could produce a fundamental difference in the number of cutmarks produced, especially in contexts where the availability of raw materials is not a constraining factor. The use-wear of the stone tool edges—and by extension instances of tool-bone contacts—should be a less fundamental problem for prehistoric people because flint flakes are perfectly suited for defleshing and are numerous among

tibia radius

bone metacarpal

metatarsal

Fig. 8. Bone areas that are directly exposed under the skin on deer legs (enclosed by the dotted lines).

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

debitage waste (Costamagno, 2012). In the T&H reference set, a relatively high number of cutmarks, with a large range of orientations (transversal to longitudinal), were generated (e.g. see Fig. 4), which is similar to what is documented in the Palaeolithic record (e.g., Castel, 2011; Cho, 1998; Costamagno, 1999; Soulier, 2013; Soulier and Morin, 2016). 4.2. Reassessing cutmark interpretations Because only four half-carcasses were disarticulated during the T&H experiments, our reference set potentially does not document the entire range of cutmarks that can be produced during disarticulation. Cutmarks related to disarticulation are commonly expected on articular zones; yet, like Nilssen (2000), we observed that the articular extremities were also frequently affected by defleshing cutmarks (see Fig. 4). Areas adjacent to the articulations can also bear disarticulation marks as documented by previous reference sets (Binford, 1981; Nilssen, 2000). The Hp-3 cutmarks, located at the neck of the humerus, are considered as indicative of disarticulation (Binford, 1981). However, because of their location far from the articulation, these would imply a gesture incompatible with a successful disarticulation (Fig. 7). IN Binford's coding, the Hp-3 cutmarks also appear very similar to the Hp-4 cutmarks, which are assigned to defleshing. Like Nilssen (2000), we only obtained Hp-3/4 cutmarks during defleshing. Both Nilssen's and our reference set benefited from rigorous recording of the butchery tasks, while Binford's coding is based on interpretations of archaeological series based on gestures that he observed during his ethnographic fieldwork rather than on direct observation. This leads us to suggest that the attribution of Hp-3 cutmarks to disarticulation is erroneous. In Nilssen's study, the S-12 cutmarks located at the neck of the scapula, are said to be “unambiguously associated with disarticulating the scapula from the humerus” (Nilssen, 2000: 245). These cutmarks appear, however, also too far from the zone of articulation to allow successful disarticulation of these two bones (Fig. 7). Separation between the scapula and the humerus is, moreover, very easy to perform and does not necessitate insistent gestures, such as those suggested by the numerous S-12 cutmarks (Nilssen, 2000: 188). These cutmarks seem therefore more consistent with defleshing activities. Caution is thus advised when interpreting cutmarks located on or near the articular extremities because many of the cutmarks identified as related to disarticulation by Binford (1981) can have dual interpretations (see infra Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15). The idea that disarticulation marks are frequent in the European Palaeolithic record (Costamagno and David, 2009) should be reassessed as our data shows that some cutmarks might have been misinterpreted as evidence of disarticulation. For example, when examining the cutmarks recorded at Vogelherd (Niven, 2006), all of the marks that were interpreted as resulting from disarticulation can also be produced during defleshing. The same is true for the cutmarks on the epiphyseal humerus fragments from BK, Upper Bed II at Olduvai Gorge that have been interpreted as among the oldest cutmarks to show a secondary disarticulation of the humerus-radius joint (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2009). Nilssen states that he was unable to determine whether the transverse cutmarks located on the distal shafts of the radius and tibia resulted from skinning or defleshing (his Rcs-2 and Td-5 codes, Nilssen, 2000: 255 & 257). In the T&H sample, no cutmarks related to skinning were observed on carcass 2, on which circular incision for the skin was performed on the distal shaft of the tibia. However, the skin comes into direct contact with bones on the distal part of the zeugopodial bones (Fig. 8), and the cutmarks observed by Nilssen might indeed be related to skinning. Because the marks illustrated by Nilssen seem quite long compared to those we obtained during defleshing and are substantially similar to the circular incisions that we obtained on the metapodials and phalanges, the length and the general organization of the cutmarks might be a useful criterion to discriminate between these two activities. Most of the cutmarks located on these parts therefore seem to be

791

ambiguous: the circular incision appears to be clearly documented in Nilssen's sample, and the longitudinal incision left marks up to the mid-shaft of the tibia in our reference set. In Binford's codification, the Mtd-4 and Mcd-4 codes are said to refer to defleshing but the metapodials are free of meat (see Fig. 8 and 1m). Therefore, these cutmarks have been frequently misinterpreted in archaeological assemblages, as at Schöningen (Voormolen, 2008), Le Flageolet (Deplano, 1994), or La Grotte du Lazaret (Valensi, 1991) or overlooked, as at Pataud (Sekhr, 1998), Moulin-Neuf, Saint-Germain-la-Rivière (Costamagno, 1999), Vogelherd (Niven, 2006), Monruz (Müller, 2013) or Gönnesdorf (Street and Turner, 2013). According to the T&H reference set, these cutmarks better correspond to the oblique cuts that permit detachment of the skin, as also suggested by Bez (1995). 4.3. A new coding for cutmarks When comparing the reference sets of Binford (1981) and Nilssen (2000), some issues have been identified. In Binford's work (1981), some inconsistencies are noticeable between the illustrations and the descriptive Table 4.04. The illustration of the Rcd-3 code (Binford, 1981: 133) is different from its description (Binford, 1981: 141). Also, the Mtd-1 code is illustrated twice (Binford 1981: 107 & 121); the Mtd-1 (Binford, 1981: 107) is actually described as Mtd-2 in Table 4.04 (Binford, 1981: 140), but the description of the other Mtd-1 does not match any of the descriptions in Table 4.04. Nilssen completed Binford's coding system by adding many new codes, thereby making it more complex to use. However, many of the new codes referred to an existing activity in Binford's codes. For example Nilssen has divided the Hd-1 code from Binford into three different codes (2000: 191), all referring to disarticulation as does the initial Hd-1 code. Also, some ambiguous uses of the initial codes of Binford have been noticed. For example, Binford's Hp-1 code refers to disarticulation (Marks along the border of the ‘lip’ of ball, Binford, 1981: 140) but has also been used by Nilssen for longitudinally oriented cutmarks that are related to defleshing (Nilssen 2000: 190). In order to complete and to clarify the initial coding set up by Binford (1981), we suggest a new coding for cutmarks that combines the data from the experiments made under the T&H program and by Vigne (2005), as well as the data from Binford (1981), Nilssen (2000), and Costamagno and David (2009). For the reasons given in the introduction, the reference sets of Abe (2005), Galán and DomínguezRodrigo (2013), Padilla (2008) and Bez (1995) are not included. The coding (Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) has been simplified by grouping codes that identify a unique activity and by retaining the separation of cutmarks that can result from several activities. The cutmarks located on the shaft portion of meat-bearing bones are—for now—exclusively considered related to defleshing, and it is unlikely that cutmarks related to other activities could occur in these areas. On the contrary, several cutmarks are ambiguous for the articular extremities and because of this we choose to maintain a broad distinction for these areas. This will facilitate the evolution and adjustment of the coding with future reference sets. The orientation of a cutmark provides important information on the activities performed, and this aspect is integrated in the coding we present (Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15). For example, a longitudinal cutmark on the shaft of the femur is coded Fs-a’ (“Fs” means “Femur, shaft” and the prime symbol indicates a longitudinal cut), while a transverse or oblique cutmark on the proximal portion of the metatarsal is coded Mtp-a (“Mtp” refers to “Metatarsal, proximal”). In some cases, different activities can be documented according to whether the cutmark is transverse or oblique, which sometimes leads to another subdivision: oblique cutmarks on the medial face of the radius (proximal part) are coded Rp-f and refer to defleshing, while transverse cutmarks resulting from disarticulation are coded Rp-f” (with a double prime symbol indicating a transverse cut). The codes that have equivocal meanings in terms of activities and that cannot be determined precisely are shown in light gray in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

792

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 9. Coding system for the humerus proposed in this work by integrating cutmark data from Binford (1981), Nilssen (2000), Costamagno and David (2009 “C&D”), Vigne (2005) and the reference set presented in this work “T&H”. See Supplementary content for a detailed version that contains data from the other reference sets. Color legend: dark gray zones: a single activity is documented in the area; medium gray: the orientation of the cutmark permits the identification of the activity; light gray: it is not possible to assign a cutmark to an activity; white: no cutmark documented in these areas. a Abbreviations: dir. = direction of the cutmark; T = transversal; ST = sub-transversal; SL = sub-longitudinal; O = oblique; L = longitudinal. b Location according to a division of the bone in 6 portions. c Abbreviations: L = lateral; M = medial; P = posterior; A = Anterior; Cran. = cranial; Palm. = palmar; Ext. = external. d XX+XX indicates that both activities are documented; XX(+XX?) indicates that the first activity mentioned is attested but that the second, in parentheses, is uncertain; XX?/XX? indicates that the protocol used does not allow discrimination between the activities. Abbreviations: DC = defleshing; DS = disarticulation; DP = skinning; TN = tendon-removal; exten. = extension; flex. = flexion; SP = suspension; ANT = anterior; POST = posterior; CAR1 = carpals first row; CAR2 = carpals second row; TAR1 = tarsals first row; TAR2 = tarsals second row; RAD = radius; TIB = tibia; MET = metapodial.

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 10. Coding system for the radio-ulna (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

793

794

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 11. Coding system for the carpal bones and the metacarpal (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 12. Coding system for the femur (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

795

796

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 13. Coding system for the tibia, the patella, the fibula and the malleolus (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 14. Coding system for the tarsal bones and the metatarsal (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

797

798

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 15. Coding system for the scapula, the phalanges and the sesamoids (see legend of Fig. 9 for details).

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Fig. 16. Differences in the location of the disarticulation cutmarks according to whether the foreleg is held in flexion or in extension.

When the orientation permits identification of the activity, the area is depicted in medium gray. The unequivocal areas are depicted in dark gray. An interactive database program that will use the areas presented here—with possibilities for improvement through the integration of new data—is currently under development. Such a program based on a touch-screen interface will allow easy recording of the position and orientation of cutmarks and directly interpret the data on the basis of the coding presented here. 4.4. How this new coding improves our abilities to understand carcass processing? In the T&H experiments, we sought to remove each muscle while the reference set of Nilssen corresponds to filleting for meat drying (Nilssen, 2000), a preparation that necessitates removing large pieces of meat and which is generally carried out over the entire leg (Binford, 1978; Odgaard, 2007; Pasda and Odgaard, 2011). Only 5.60% (171/3050) of the T&H defleshing cutmarks are longitudinally oriented, far less than the 20% of longitudinal cutmarks reached in Nilssen's sample (as discussed in Soulier and Morin, 2016). Thus, simple defleshing appears to have a distinctive cutmark signature compared to filleting meat for drying. It is noteworthy that the rate of longitudinal cutmarks obtained in the T&H experiments through simple defleshing falls within the range of that documented for most of the Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern France (Soulier and Morin, 2016). The T&H experiments also highlight that simple defleshing produces a different cutmark-location pattern than that documented for defleshing after boiling. Indeed, unlike the cutmarks recorded by Abe (2005) for defleshing performed after boiling, the defleshing cutmarks from the T&H experiments are located on the whole shafts of the meaty bones. The orientation and location of cutmarks must therefore be considered during the analysis of the cutmarks located on meaty long bones because this provides insight into meat-preparation strategies. The T&H experiments also show that longitudinal marks can be created during disarticulation. This is due to the way in which the leg is held during disarticulation (i.e., extension or flexion), which also influences the location of the cutmarks. Indeed, cutmarks are unlikely to be produced above the olecranon fossa and on the upper margin of the olecranon if the leg is held in flexion, while these can be inflicted on the anconeal process of the ulna (Up-g) and longitudinally (Hd-d′) on

799

the edge of the humeral trochlea (Fig. 16). Transverse cutmarks on the edge of the humeral trochlea (Hd-d″), as documented in the Aurignacian assemblages of La Quina aval and Roc-de-Combe (Soulier, 2013) and in the Magdalenian of Saint-Germain-la-Rivière (layer 3–4: Costamagno, 1999), indicate that the forelimb was held in extension during disarticulation, unlike that recorded for the Lazaret assemblage (Valensi, 1991). On the tarsal block, the Tal-a, Tal-e, Cal-a and Cal-b areas can only be reached when the leg is in flexion. The orientation of the cutmarks located on the Tal-c and Cal-e areas can allow us to distinguish between flexion and extension. For example, the oblique cutmarks documented on the Tal-c area at the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site (Rabinovich et al., 2008) result from flexion, while transverse cutmarks, such as those observed at Lundby Mose (Leduc, 2010), are indicative of disarticulation performed in extension. The skin is desirable for various uses (blanket, clothing, shelter, etc.) and the cutting actions will vary according to the destined use (e.g., Binford, 1978; Grønnow et al., 1983; Manning, 1944). A better identification of the processes related to this activity was necessary because the reference sets previously available did not provide consistent data for this activity. More importantly, cutmarks produced during skinning could not safely be distinguished from cutmarks produced during sinew-extraction on the lower legs. As a consequence, the lack of appropriate reference set hindered the identification of cutmarks consistent with skinning in sites, such as Vogelherd (Niven, 2006). The T&H data show that three types of cutmarks can be generated during skin removal: 1) transverse cutmarks that correspond to the circular incision of the skin, 2) longitudinal cutmarks that result from the longitudinal incision of the skin, and 3) oblique cutmarks generated when detaching the skin. All these marks can be identified on the cutmark recording from Vogelherd (Niven, 2006: 144), allowing for a new interpretation of the butchering activities carried at the site. Exact identification of the location of the circular and longitudinal incisions is of particular relevance because this allows discussion of the intentions underlying skin removal. For example, performing the longitudinal incision on the outside of the leg—as documented at Cuzoul-de-Vers (Castel, 2003), SaintGermain-la-Rivière (Costamagno, 2012), Isturitz (Soulier, 2013), Vogelherd (Niven, 2006) or Umingmak (Münzel, 1987)—does not allow the removal of the entire skin in a large single piece, which requires that incision be performed on the inner leg (as at Les Abeilles: Soulier, 2013). At Castanet, cutmarks on metapodial shaft fragments that could not be precisely located were recorded by randomly distributing them across the diaphysis (Castel, 2011); however, a precise determination of the anatomical location of fragmentary metapodial remains that bear circular incisions is important. Indeed, for example, making the circular incisions on the upper part of the lower legs is inconsistent with the removal of a large piece of skin. Similarly, the identification of oblique cutmarks occurring below a circular incision can for example be interpreted as a two-step skin removal process (Soulier and Costamagno, accepted): first, skinning during the initial stages of the butchery (circular incision) and, secondly, removal of the remaining skin adherent to lower legs elements (oblique marks). This is noteworthy because the skin from the lower legs is greatly prized by people from the Far North for making boots because it is particularly resistant, waterproof, and insulating (e.g., Abe, 2005; Binford, 1981; Russell, 1995; Seeman, 1933; Stefansson and Palsson, 2001). Skin-removal evidence and seasonal data discussed together can therefore yield important information for reconstructing carcass processing (Soulier, 2013, 2014) and should receive special attention. The use of tendons is frequently documented in the ethnological literature, to make glue, thread, or ropes (Ekblaw 1928; Gowdy 1998; Malaurie 1989; Russell 1995), but also for consumption (Costamagno and David 2009; Stefansson 1913). Until now, tendon-removal was only explored by an experiment that specifically focused on the tendon located on the distal shaft of the radius (Vigne, 2005). Thus, the removal of the thick tendons located on the lower legs remained undocumented until the T&H experiments. Because of this, this activity has rarely been

800

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

identified in zooarchaeological studies (but has been suggested by Castel, 1999, 2011; Castel et al., 2016; Costamagno, 1999; Morel and Müller, 1997; Müller, 2013). According to the T&H data, numerous cutmarks recorded on the metapodials from various archaeological sites may be assigned to removal of tendons and/or M. interosseus medius (e.g., Cho, 1998: 293 & 298; Morel and Müller, 1997: 63; Niven, 2006: 144; Street and Turner, 2013: 103; Valensi, 1991: 819). The tendons are easy to remove on the anterior side of horse metapodials without generating any cutmarks because the tendons for the M. extensor digitorum are not inserted in grooves, but simply lie on the bone (Müller, 2013. On the posterior face, the tendons for the M. flexor digitorum can also be removed without any tool-bone contact because the bone is protected by the M. interosseus medius. Consequently, the longitudinal cutmarks that can be observed on the posterior face of the metapodials at Monruz (Müller, 2013: Figs. 125 & 131), Isturitz (Soulier, 2013) or Umingmak (Münzel, 1987: 304) better correspond to the removal of the sinewy muscle (M. interosseus medius) located between the tendon and the metapodial. During the T&H experiments, some cutmarks were produced inside the grooves of the metapodials when removing the tendons because tendons are inserted inside protruding grooves on both faces of the metatarsal and on the posterior side of the metacarpal on artiodactyls—and particularly for cervids—(see Fig. 6). Distinctive marks were produced according to the gesture made to extract the tendons. Holding the tool transverse to the bone and using a gesture that progressively detaches the tendon produced transverse or oblique cutmarks on the edges of the groove (Mcs-f, Mts-f & see Fig. 1o), while using the tip of the tool to detach the tendon from the bone generated longitudinal marks inside the grooves (Mcs-f’, Mts-f’ & see Fig. 1n). The first method seems to be the most commonly observed in the archaeological record (Combe-Saunière, Cuzoul de Vers: Castel, 1999; Saint-Germain-la-Rivière, Rond-du-Barry: Costamagno, 1999; Bois-Ragot, Troubat, Rhodes II: Chevallier, 2015; La Quina aval: Soulier, 2013), but some assemblages are indicative of the concomitant use of both techniques (Vogelherd: Niven, 2006; Pataud: Cho, 1998; Roc-de-Combe: Soulier, 2013; Roc-de-Marsal: Castel et al., 2016). 5. Conclusions As stressed in the introduction, carcass processing is a major expression of social identity and is a crucial component of the economic, social and symbolic system. Therefore, a detailed understanding of butchering practices is highly informative. Experimental butchery performed during the collective project “des Traces & des Hommes” provides consistent data on butchering activities because each activity was completed using a highly controlled protocol. By offering new keys for interpreting some poorly documented activities—such as sinew-removal and skinning—and by refining the analysis of more “classic” activities (i.e., defleshing and disarticulation), the T&H data provide a new framework for cutmark studies on ungulates that greatly enhances our ability to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire of carcass processing. Even if cutmarks are epiphenomena (Lyman, 1994) and if the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (e.g., for disarticulation), the application of this new analytical tool will permit researchers to further identify a site's function in the archaeological record (e.g., by identifying specific modes of skin exploitation), to potentially reveal distinct traditional skills, and to better compare prey processing between sites. This paper focuses on qualitative data regarding the cutmarks produced on limb bones and the scapula; an extension of this study to the axial skeleton is currently in progress. A quantitative analysis of the cutmarks generated during the T&H experiments is in progress to evaluate the frequency with which a certain cutmark is generated, and by extension, to evaluate our ability to perceive a particular activity. Because functional and cultural practices are strongly connected, a better understanding of the constraints related to the modes of food consumption, the species processed, the tool used, etc., is also critical. Several experiments are currently in progress to better evaluate the various techniques that can be used for the processing of lower legs and to assess how the

morphological differences between species (bison, horse) can affect the butchering gestures. The development of this type of study opens new lines of investigation that should allow us to better retrace the intentions and the technical skills of a human group through an examination of their food debris. Acknowledgments The project “des Traces et des Hommes” was funded by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication (Service Régional d'Archéologie de Midi-Pyrénées) and the General Council of Dordogne (Service de l'Archéologie de Dordogne). The analysis of the faunal remains received financial support from Archéologies and from the CNRS TRACES-UMR 5608. The CNRS TRACES-UMR 5608 also funded the language editing of the manuscript (by C. Heckel). We are very grateful to all the persons involved in the collective work “des Traces et des Hommes” and especially to the coordinator of the project, Céline Thiébaut, and the zooarchaeologists who participated in the project: Sebastian Chong, Marie-Pierre Coumont, Magali Gerbe, Jessica Lacarrière, Célimène Mussini and Aurore Val. We would also like to thank the editor, reviewers, as well as E. Discamps, for their useful comments. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.12.033. References Abe, Y., 2005. Hunting and Butchering Patterns of the Evenki in the Northern Transbaikalia Russia. (PhD thesis). Stony Brook University. Bez, J.-F., 1995. Une expérience de découpe bouchère pratiquée au silex: aspects anatomiques. Préhistoire Anthropol. Méditerranéennes 4, 41–50. Binford, L., 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Binford, L., 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. Castel, J.-C., 1999. Comportements de subsistance au Solutréen et au Badegoulien d'après les faunes de Combe-Saunière (Dordogne) et du Cuzoul de Vers (Lot). (PhD thesis). Université Bordeaux I. Castel, J.-C., 2003. Économie de chasse et d'exploitation de l'animal au Cuzoul de Vers (Lot) au Solutréen et au Badegoulien. Bull. Société Préhistorique française 100, 45–56. Castel, J.-C., 2011. Archéozoologie de l'Aurignacien de l'Abri Castanet (Sergeac, Dordogne, France): les fouilles 1994–1998. Rev. Paléobiol. 30, 783–815. Castel, J.-C., Discamps, E., Soulier, M.-C., Sandgathe, D., Dibble, H., McPherron, S., Goldberg, P., Turq, A., 2016. Exploring variability in Neandertal subsistence strategies through a zooarchaeological perspective: the Quina Mousterian at Roc de Marsal (France). Quat. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.033. Castel, J.-C., Liolios, D., Chadelle, J.-P., Geneste, J.-M., 1998. De l'alimentaire et du technique: la consommation du renne dans le Solutréen de la grotte de Combes Saunière. In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Économie Préhistorique, Les Comportements de Subsistance Au Paléolithique, VIIIe Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, Actes Des Rencontres, 23–24–25 Octobre 1997, APDCA. CNRS éditions, Antibes, pp. 433–450. Chenal-Velarde, I., Velarde, L., 2004. Petites bêtes à usages multiples: diverses utilisations du cobaye (Cavia porcellus) dans les Andes centrales. In: Brugal, J.-P., Desse, J. (Eds.), Petits Animaux et Sociétés Humaines, XVIe Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APDCA. CNRS éditions, Antibes, pp. 337–352. Chevallier, A., 2015. Chasse et traitement des mammifères durant le Magdalénien et l'Azilien dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. (PhD thesis). Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Cho, T., 1998. Étude archéozoologique de la faune du Périgordien supérieur: couches 2, 3 et 4 de l'abri Pataud, Les Eyzies, Dordogne: paléoécologie, taphonomie, paléoéconomie. (PhD thesis). Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. Claud, E., Brenet, M., Maury, S., Mourre, V., 2009. Étude expérimentale des macrotraces d'utilisation sur les tranchants des bifaces. Caractérisation et potentiel diagnostique. Les Nouv. Archéologie 118, 55–60. Claud, E., Deschamps, M., Colonge, D., Mourre, V., Thiébaut, C., 2015. Experimental and functional analysis of late Middle Paleolithic fake cleavers from Southwestern Europe (France and Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 62, 105–127. Cochard, D., 2004. Les léporidés dans la subsistance paléolithique du sud de la France. (PhD thesis). Université Bordeaux I. Costamagno, S., 1999. Stratégies de chasse et fonction des sites au Magdalénien dans le Sud de la France. (PhD thesis). Université Bordeaux I. Costamagno, S., 2012. Des stries de boucherie aux sous-systèmes techniques de transformation et de consommation des ressources animales: apport de l'approche expérimentale. (HDR thesis). Université Bordeaux I. Costamagno, S., David, F., 2009. Comparaison des pratiques bouchères et culinaires de différents groupes sibériens vivant de la renniculture. Archaeofauna 19, 9–25.

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802 D'Iatchenko, V., David, F., Gratchev, I., 2007. Les animaux dans les pratiques funéraires du IXe-Xe siècle dans l'île de Tagar (bassin de l'Ienisseï). Comparaisons avec quelques données ethnographiques. In: Beyries, S., Vaté, V. (Eds.), Les Civilisations du Renne d'hier et d'aujourd'hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques et anthropologiques, XVIII Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. APDCA, CNRS éditions, Antibes, pp. 363–376. Deplano, S., 1994. Etude de la faune de la couche IX de l'abri du Flageolet II (Dordogne): Approche taphonomique et palethnographique. (Master thesis). Université de Paris X. Dewbury, A., Russell, N., 2007. Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 354–357. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., 2005. A study of cut marks on small-sized carcasses and its application to the study of cut-marked bones from small mammals at the FLK Zinj site. J. Taphon. 3, 121–134. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A., Bunn, H.T., Barba, Diez-Martín, F., Egeland, C., Espílez, E., Egeland, A., Yravedra, J., Sánchez, P., 2009. Unraveling hominin behavior at another anthropogenic site from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): new archaeological and taphonomic research at BK, Upper Bed II. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 260–283. Dumont, B., 1987. Relations entre la découpe bouchère et la structure de la musculature. Anthropozoologica special issue 9–17. Ekblaw, W.E., 1928. The material response of the polar eskimo to their far arctic environment (continued). Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 18, 1–24. Egeland, C., 2003. Carcass processing intensity and cutmark creation: an experimental approach. Plains Anthropol. 48, 39–51. Egeland, C., Welch, K., Nicholson, C.M., 2014. Experimental determinations of cutmark orientation and the reconstruction of prehistoric butchery behavior. J. Archaeol. Sci. 49, 126–133. Fischler, C., 1988. Food, self and identity. Soc. Sci. Inf. 27, 275–293. Fontana, L., Chauvière, F.-X., Bridault, A., 2009. In search of total animal exploitation case studies from the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Proceedings of XVth IUSPP Congress, Lisboa 2006. BAR International Series 2040. Oxbow books, Oxford. Galán, A., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., 2013. An experimental study of the anatomical distribution of cut marks created by filleting and disarticulation on long bone ends. Archaeometry 55, 1132–1149. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., 1989. Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: some cases from East Africa. In: Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M. (Eds.), Bone Modification. Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono, pp. 179–246. Gowdy, J., 1998. Limited Wants, Unlimited Means. A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment. Island Press, Washington. Greenfield, H., 1999. The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cutmarks on bones from archaeological sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 797–808. Grønnow, B., Meldgaard, M., Nielsen, J., 1983. Aasivissuit, the Great Summer Camp: Archaeological, Ethnographical and Zoo-archaeological Studies of a Caribou-hunting Site in West Greenland. Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland, Copenhagen. Guevara, M., 1988. Ethique du chasseur et tabous alimentaires chez les Talamanca. In: Bodson, L. (Ed.), L'animal dans l'alimentation humaine: les critères de choix. Anthropozoologica, Paris, pp. 221–228. Havelange, C., 1998. Manger au XVIIIe siècle. Quelques éléments d'interprétation d'un discours médical. In: Bodson, L. (Ed.), L'animal dans l'alimentation humaine: Les Critères de Choix. Anthropozoologica, Paris, pp. 155–161. Henri-Martin, L., 1906. Désarticulations de quelques régions chez les Ruminants et le Cheval à l'époque moustérienne. Bull. Société Préhistorique française 6, 303–310. Johnson, E., Bement, L., 2009. Bison butchery at Cooper, a Folsom site on the Southern Plains. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1430–1446. Lalhou, S., 1998. Penser, manger: les représentations sociales de l'alimentation. PUF, Paris. Laroulandie, V., 2001. Les traces liées à la boucherie, à la cuisson et à la consommation d'oiseaux. Apport de l'expérimentation. In: Bourguignon, L., Ortega, I., Frère-Sautot, M.-C. (Eds.), Préhistoire et Approche Expérimentale, éditions Monique Mergoil Montagnac, pp. 97–108. Laroulandie, V., 2004. Exploitation du Harfang au Magdalénien final: l'exemple du BoisRagot (Gouex, Vienne). In: Bodu, P., Constantin, C. (Eds.), Approches fonctionnelles En préhistoire. Société Préhistorique française, Paris, pp. 387–396. Lartet, E., 1860. On the coexistence of man with certain extinct quadrupeds, proved by fossil bones, from various pleistocene deposits, bearing incisions made by sharp instruments. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 16, 471–479. Leduc, C., 2010. Acquisition et exploitation des ressources animales au Maglemosien: essai de reconstitution des chaînes opératoires globales d'exploitation d'après l'analyse des vestiges osseux des sites de Mullerup et Lundby Mose (Sjaeland Danemark). (PhD thesis). Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. Lupo, K., O'Connell, J., 2002. Cut and tooth mark distributions on large animal bones: ethnoarchaeological data from the hadza and their implications for current ideas about early human carnivory. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29, 85–109. Lyman, R., 1987. Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: a taphonomic perspective. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory 10, 249–337. Lyman, R., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Malaurie, J., 1989. Les derniers rois de Thulé avec les Esquimaux polaires face à leur destin. Collection Terre humaine, Plon, Paris. Mallye, J.-B., 2011. Réflexion sur le dépouillement des petits carnivores en contexte archéologique: apport de l'expérimentation. Archaeofauna 20, 7–25. Mallye, J.-B., Soulier, M.-C., Laroulandie, V., 2013. Grands carnivores et mésofaune de l'Aurignacien ancien à La Quina aval (Charente, France) (fouilles V. Dujardin). Paléo 24, 235–248. Manning, T., 1944. Hunting implements and methods of the present-day eskimos of North-West Hudson Bay, Melville Peninsula, and South-West Baffin Island. Geogr. J. 103, 137–152. Milne-Edwards, A., 1875. Observations on the birds whose bones have been found in the caves of South-West France. In: Lartet, E., Christy, H. (Eds.), Reliquae Aquitanicae:

801

Being Contributions to the Archaeology and Paleontology of Perigord and Adjoining Provinces of Southern France. Williams and Norgate, London, pp. 226–247. Morel, P., Müller, W., 1997. Hauterive-Champréveyres - Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel. Etude archéozoologique. Archéologie neuchâteloise Vol. 23. Musée cantonal d'archéologie, Neuchâtel. Morrison, D., 1997. Caribou Hunters in the western Arctic: Zooarchaeology of the RitaClaire and Bison Skull Sites. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull Quebec. Müller, W., 2013. Le site magdalénien de Monruz. Acquisition, traitement et consommation des ressources animales. Archéologie neuchâteloise 49. Musée cantonal d'archéologie, Neuchâtel. Münzel, S.C., 1987. Archaeological research on Banks Island 1970–1975. Volume 2: Umingmak, a hunting site for musk-oxen on Banks Island, N. W. T., Canada. Archaeozoological Analysis of Area ID. Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen. Nilssen, P., 2000. An Actualistic Butchery Study in South Africa and Its Implications for Reconstructing Hominid Strategies of Carcass Acquisition and Butchery in the Upper Pleistocene and Plio-Pleistocene. (PhD thesis). University of Cape Town. Niven, L., 2006. The Palaeolithic Occupation of Vogelherd Cave: Implications for the Subsistence Behavior of Late Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen. O'Regan, H., Kitchener, A., 2005. The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mammal Rev. 35, 215–230. Odgaard, U., 2007. Historic and prehistoric Caribou hunters in West Greenland. In: Beyries, S., Vaté, V. (Eds.), Les Civilisations du Renne d'hier et d'aujourd'hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques et anthropologiques, XVIII Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. APDCA, CNRS éditions, Antibes, pp. 89–110. Padilla, M., 2008. Transmisión cultural y procesos de aprendizaje de carnicería: un estudio experimental comparando expertos y novicios en el descarnado y desarticulación. Arqueoweb. 9, 1–76. Pasda, K., Odgaard, U., 2011. Nothing is wasted: the ideal “Nothing is wasted” and divergence in past and present among Caribou hunters in Greenland. Quat. Int. 238, 35–43. Pobiner, B., Braun, D., 2005. Strengthening the inferential link between cutmark frequency data and Oldowan hominid behavior: results from modern butchery experiments. J. Taphon. 3, 107–120. Politis, G., Saunders, N., 2002. Archaeological correlates of ideological activity: food taboos and spirit-animals in an amazonian rainforest hunter-gatherer society. In: Miracle, P., Milner, N. (Eds.), Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 113–130. Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Goren-Inbar, N., 2008. Systematic butchering of Fallow Deer (Dama) at the Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israel). J. Hum. Evol. 54, 134–149. Russell, P., 1995. Some Large Game Animal Traditions of the Inland Dena'Ina. University of Alaska, Report. Seeman, A., 1933. Development of reindeer activities in Alaska. Econ. Geogr. 9, 292–302. Sekhr, A., 1998. Etude archeéozoologique des niveaux aurignaciens (couches 14 à 6) et de la base des niveaux gravettiens (niveaux X à T4) de l'abri Pataud (Les Eyzies, Dordogne). (PhD thesis). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Serra Mallol, C., 2010. Manger du chien à Tahiti: une affirmation identitaire? Anthropozoologica 45, 157–172. Simoons, F., 1994. Eat not This Flesh. Food Avoidances From Prehistory to the Present. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Soulier, M.-C., 2013. Entre alimentaire et technique: l'exploitation animale aux débuts du Paléolithique supérieur. Stratégies de subsistance et chaînes opératoires de traitement du gibier à Isturitz, La Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe et Les Abeilles. (PhD thesis). Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail. Soulier, M.-C., 2014. L'exploitation du gibier au Paléolithique supérieur ancien à travers l'exemple des Abeilles (Haute-Garonne, France). Paléo 25, 287–307. Soulier, M.-C., Costamagno, S., 2016. A game for multiple uses: faunal exploitation during the early Aurignacian. In: Conard, N., Dutkiewicz, E. (Eds.), Early Symbolic Material Culture and the Evolution of Behavioral Modernity. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen (accepted). Soulier, M.-C., Morin, E., 2016. Cutmark data and their implications for the planning depth of late pleistocene societies. J. Hum. Evol. 97, 37–57. Stefansson, V., 1913. My Life With the Eskimo. Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish. Stefansson, V., Palsson, G., 2001. Writing on Ice: the Ethnographic Notebooks of Vilhjalmur Stefansson. University Press of New England, Lebanon. Street, M., Turner, E., 2013. The Faunal Remains of Gönnesdorf. Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz. Thiébaut, C., Claud, É., Costamagno, S., Coudenneau, A., Coumont, M.-P., Deschamps, M., Gerbe, M., Mallye, J.-B., Mourre, V., Asselin, G., Beauval, C., Brenet, M., Chacón, G., Maury, S., Paravel, B., Provenzano, N., Soulier, M.-C., 2009. Des Traces et des Hommes. Projet interdisciplinaire pour interpréter les comportements techno-économiques des Néandertaliens. Nouv. Archéologie 118, 49–55. Val, A., Costamagno, S., Discamps, E., Chong, S., Claud, E., Coudenneau, A., Deschamps, M., Gerbe, M., Mourre, V., Soulier, M.-C., Thiébaut, C., 2017. Testing the influence of stone tool type on microscopic morphology of cut marks: experimental approach and application to the archaeological record with a case study from the middle palaeolithic site of Noisetier Cave (Fréchet-Aure, Hautes-Pyrénées, France). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 11, 17–28. Valensi, P., 1991. Etude des stries de boucherie sur les ossements de Cerf élaphe des niveaux supérieurs de la grotte du Lazaret (Nice, Alpes-Maritimes). Anthropologie. 4, 797–830. Vialles, N., 1998. Toute chair n'est pas viande. Etud. Rurales 147 (148), 139–149. Vigne, J.-D., 2005. Découpe du cerf (Cervus elaphus) au Mésolithique moyen, à Noyen-surSeine (Seine-et-Marne): analyses tracéologique et expérimentale. Rev. Paléobiol. 10, 69–82.

802

M.-C. Soulier, S. Costamagno / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 782–802

Vigne, J.-D., Audouin, F., Lefèvre, C., Marinval-Vigne, M.-C., Pichon, J., Poplin, F., 1987. Introduction à l'acte du colloque “La découpe et le partage du corps à travers le temps et l'espace”. Anthropozoologica Special Issue 115–119. Voormolen, B., 2008. Ancient Hunters, Modern Butchers: Schöningen 13II - 4, a KillButchery Site Dating From the Northwest European Lower Palaeolithic. (PhD thesis). Leiden University.

Walker, P., 1978. Butchering and stone tool function. Am. Antiq. 43, 710–715. Walker, P., Long, J., 1977. An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks. Am. Antiq. 42, 605–616. Willis, L., Eren, M., Rick, T., 2008. Does butchering fish leave cut marks? J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1438–1444.