the importance of cut placement and implement signatures to butchery...

Krish Seetah – ICAZ Essay Prize Submission

The importance of cut placement and implement signatures to butchery interpretation

1.0 Abstract The analysis of butchery cut marks is undoubtedly of key significance to zooarchaeology. The level of tangibility and varied application should hold promise for this line of evidence being used to study issues of alimentation, material culture, technical knowledge transfer, and ethnicity. It is imperative that zooarchaeologists develop both theoretical and methodological frameworks for the study of archaeological cut marks. However, it is unlikely that any single practical approach will satisfy all potential situations where butchery analysis is applicable; this paper illustrates that the problem lies in rigid analytical frameworks and demonstrates that a more flexible and multidisciplinary approach may provide a way forward. The main aim of this paper is to highlight the crucial significance, and value, of integrating the cut mark data with indications of implements used. By using these two distinct lines of evidence to corroborate each other it is possible to gain a significantly clearer picture of the underlying process of butchery. This must be the aim of future research: by deciphering the variation observed within the archaeological record it will be possible to understand some, if not all, of the primary reasons for the pattern cut marks. Secondly, from a methodological perspective, a greater emphasis on interpretation is a vital requirement. By encouraging interpretation directly from the archaeology, it is possible to gain multiple lines of evidence from the initial stages of analysis. As demonstrated, this approach has been highly productive as a means of providing various platforms of assessment and evaluation, from site by site to period-wide comparisons. 2.0 Introduction Before proceeding it is important that I outline the specific personal background upon which I have based the experimental aspects, and subsequent interpretation, of this thesis. I am a fully qualified butcher, having previously undertaken a seven year apprenticeship. During this time I was taught the complete process of ‘butchery’ from animal slaughter to refined cutting practice, including the protocol that should be followed for specific joints and cuts. Supplemental to this, through various other employments I have gained extensive knowledge of carcass processing on large domestic animals such as horses, as well as non-domestic fauna such as deer. I have also disarticulate a wide variety of exotic species ranging from wolves to llamas, as well as more common domestic carnivores such as cats and dogs. This past experience has been invaluable for developing the methods used in this thesis. The processes involved in carcass butchery are an important expression of human behaviour. The disarticulation of a carcass into more manageable components is not unique to hominids. In common with other animals, human mediated carcass dismemberment is carried out in order to break-down the animal into parts that can be more easily transported and consumed. However, butchery goes beyond this one dimensional activity. It incorporates aspects of secondary exploitation for raw materials, nutritional values of different carcass parts, ritual / religious dismemberment related to aspects of sacrifice, and socially sanctioned activity such as food sharing. In a modern setting, carcass processing is a highly organised and technical operation involving complex machinery and equipment. However, aside from the stunning apparatus and large saws the basic implements used by butchers are knives and cleavers of various sizes and shapes. The

1


general processes of modern butchery from live animal to table involve a series of events from stunning, ‘sticking’ (for blood removal), evisceration (removal of soft internal organs), skinning, halving and quartering (Jones et al 1985, 153; Thawley 1982, 219; FAO 1991, 23-40; Court 1989; Church & Wood 1992; Wood & Newman 1928; Ranken 2000). The above is a very simplified version of events; one need only walk into a meat market, butchers, restaurant or household to gain some appreciation of the complex variations in meat processing that can occur. The issue of variation is of particular importance to this study. Variation occurs not just between countries but also between different regions of the same country (Gerrard 1946, 222; Swatland 2000, 60-63). These variations not only stem from location but also from the ultimate use of the meat, age of the animals, species, implements used, and the skill of the practitioner. Butchery analysis from an archaeological perspective has depended on categorisations based on general terms such as knife / cleaver / saw marks, and the location of these marks on the bones (Thawley 1982, 217; Aird 1985, 5-25). This is complemented by studies that aim to identify what the marks represent, for example, the five stages highlighted by Rixson (1988), as described below (amended from Rixson 1988, 49).

• Primary butchery: slaughter and initial dressing of the carcass. Includes killing, sticking for blood removal, skinning and evisceration.

• Secondary butchery: gross dismemberment of the carcass at joints or main muscle sites to

give major portions / cuts of meat.

• Tertiary butchery: further processing of the ‘major portions’ into smaller portions suitable for cooking.

• Utilisation for marrow extraction.

• Bone working.

However, even with both these approaches combined there is the problem that to date very little work exists that qualifies these marks and processes. Placing cut marks under umbrella terms such as primary, secondary or tertiary butchery is useful, but not accurate if the marks themselves have not been standardised. This paper aims to address this issue by providing the supported, evidence-based experimentation that will permit a clear appraisal of the individual stages involved within the whole butchery process. By deconstructing the procedures involved into their component parts, a separation will be achieved whereby the outcomes (final joint / portion of meat) can be distinguished from the initial and intermediate actions involved (the cut marks). This is an overly simplistic synopsis as many factors influence this appraisal of the butchery process, not least of which are issues of the animal’s morphology acting as a ‘constraining mechanism’ to the butchery, and the problem of equifinality (the principle that the same outcome can be reached by a number of potential means, Lyman 2001, 38). However, at present this approach provides the best opportunity to extract the wider reaching implications from butchery that can and should be elicited. It allows us to evaluate how cultural factors such as aesthetics and culinary preference influence the carcass dismemberment process, as well as assess the implications of different ‘modes’ of butchery.

2


3.0 Methodology The rationale behind the experimental aspects and data collection outlined in this paper was the need to place emphasis on ‘interpretation’ and less so on the minutiae of the cut mark. In effect this methodology has to contribute to the notion that ‘the cut mark’ represents activity that is more complex than the relationship between the knife and the mark on a bone. This is in no way meant to undermine the importance of cut marks; the requirement here is to recognise that the ‘butchery data’ is a collection of different types of information and the task of the analyst is to interpret how this links to a wider picture. The cut marks are a means to an end and this end must be kept at the forefront of any applied methodology. The underlying aim of the methodology presented here is to provide a foundation for the future standardisation of cut mark analysis and interpretation. Recording where marks occur and how many were present needs to develop into actual interpretations of what the morphology and arrangements of the marks signify. In order for this to occur, a number of practical considerations need to be addressed and incorporated into the process of developing a suitable method. The three main criteria are outlined below.

• Standardisation of terminology used to describe the butchery activity being recorded and the tools evident;

• development of a flexible recording method that accurately takes into account the type of site / No. of fragments / and what is required from survey and analysis;

• formulate interpretations based on a broader understanding of what is involved within the various stages of butchery based on implement signatures and cut mark placement.

By combining the analysis of archaeological materials with experimental replication and an in-depth understanding of butchery, the methodology presented here provides a means by which butchery data can be used as an effective indicator of culture and socio-economy. 3.1 Sampling strategy Choosing which sites would be most suitable for this study required that a balance be struck between the level of differentiation on each site (thus allowing for comparisons to be made), with enough overall similarity that any comparisons were not inappropriate. The main criteria for choosing the sites were: amount of bone material available; settlement type; level of preservation of material and whether the site had published / in press reports. With these in mind, two large (Cirencester and Coppergate), two medium (Laugharne Castle and Catterick) and two small (Ely and Wortley Villa) sites were chosen (‘size’ was based primarily on amount of material available that could be feasibly studied in the time allocated). In terms of settlement type, there was a distribution between sites considered urban (Coppergate, Catterick, and Cirencester), more rural (Ely, Wortley Villa, and Laugharne Castle) and specialist sites such as Wortley (villa) and Laugharne (medieval castle). Site information detailing aspects of building structures and local environment provided useful distinctions from which to generate an impression of the overall settlement type and function. Butchery analysis was then used to contribute novel insights, while at the same time support or question assumptions regarding the economy, status, or cultural attributes of the settlement. 3.2 The recording phase The recording phase followed a typical bone report with the exception that only cattle bones were recorded from the assemblages. The recording system followed Miracle’s ‘Faunal Coding

3


System’, with some modifications to accommodate the specific parameters under investigation as outlined below.

3.2.1 Butchery parameters recorded Recording the full range of zooarchaeological data from the assemblages (as opposed to just recording the butchery data) was essential for comparison between the sampled sites, to analyse if there were any anomalies that might be present from any particular assemblage, and to facilitate comparison between the data collected for this study and previous research. The following outlines and explains the butchery components of the recording phase, detailing why each parameter was included, recorded and how it contributed to subsequent interpretation. One point to note before detailing the recorded butchery categories is that often specific cut mark types, or groupings of marks, will predominately appear only on specific bones, skinning marks on metapodials being a good example. This needs to be kept in mind throughout the following descriptive appraisal as some of the parameters have been created, and were used, for specific cuts. While this was kept to a minimum, it was deemed necessary in order to gain as full a data set as possible. Observational parameters recorded:

• Butchery Location: this parameter related to the specific area on each bone where the cut mark appeared, for example: whether there were marks only on the joint facets or only on the cortical surface of the bone, or both. This gave an initial, general indication of whether there was any evidence for disarticulation (i.e. as evidenced from marks on the joints), or meat removal (presence of cuts on the surface) or a mixture of activities. A further criterion under this category was ‘margins’ indicating that marks were observed on or around the margins of the joints’ facets themselves, but not directly on the joint or the bone surface. This was taken to be an initial indicator of skinning activity generally associated with certain elements such as the metapodials;

• Surface Location: this indicated the actual location of the cut mark on the bone, if the

bone had been placed in correct anatomical position. This parameter was used as a means of establishing a standard based on the anatomy of the animal providing a means of relating the cut mark to other landmarks on that element, and other body parts. This parameter could then be compared to subsequent records that related to whether the butchery took place with the element out of anatomical position;

• Direction of Mark: this indicated which direction, relative to normal anatomical position, the

mark was ‘travelling’ when made. For example, was the cut mark created from anterior to posterior if the bone was in normal anatomical position? This was again compared to subsequent records as a means of illustrating if the element (and therefore carcass part) showed evidence of being ‘re-positioned’ during the butchery process;

• Multiple Occurrences: indicated whether there was more that one occurrence of any cut

mark category (taking cut mark variability into account);

• Depth: the depth that the cut mark had penetrated into the bone incorporated ‘Shallow’, Moderate, Deep, and ‘Cut Through’;

• Implement: which implement caused the cut mark? Discussed in greater detail below, cf.

section on ‘Implements’ below.

4


Interpretational parameters recorded: • Type of Mark: this was a basic indicator of what mark was being recorded. However,

aside from the usual Chop, Slice, Fine Slice categories, a number of extra types were included, such as Point Insertion (denoting that just the tip of the blade was being used); Blade Insertion (indicating that a portion of the blade was being used for the cut, but without the blade being drawn along the bone as might be noted with a ‘Slice’); ‘Scoop’ (implied a scalloped piece of bone was removed following meat removal from the bone), and ‘Knick’ (indicating a small action created by a flick of the wrist and not resulting in a true slice). These criteria are discussed in greater detail below, cf. ‘Type of Mark – implement signatures and corresponding activity’.

• Pre / Post Disarticulation: denoted whether there were indications of when the cut mark

was created relative to gross disarticulation; for example, if the marks would appear to have been created after the carcass was halved.

• Bone Position: the position of the carcass portion as the butchery took place, for example

– whether lying on the ground or suspended.

• Direction of Cut: the direction of the mark relative to the practitioner during the actual butchery.

• Function: what was the underlying function as indicated by the cut mark? For example,

was the mark for skinning? (cf. ‘Explanation of Functions’, below). As can be seen, each parameter contributes, by adding a small component, to the overall view of what type of butchery activity was taking place. The above, coupled with the more general parameters recorded by Miracle’s system, led to discreet groupings each eliciting a certain type of data. The last four parameters outlined above, for example, all lead to interpretational data regarding the butchery process as it might occur in discreet units, where it might have taken place, and at what stage during the operational sequence that particular activity featured. While the majority of the criteria outlined above are relatively straightforward in their identification and determination, three of the parameters require further explanation as their interpretation is based heavily on modern analogues and a working knowledge of butchery. The next sections explain in greater detail the specific identification criteria for ‘Implement’, ‘Type of Mark’, and ‘Function’. Implements: Cleaver / Romano-British Cleaver From a contemporary perspective, the cleaver is principally a chopping tool. However, from an archaeological standpoint, as illustrated by the Romano-British cleaver, this tool may have been used for slicing at specific points in the butchery process, when exposing a joint for subsequent disarticulation for example. Recognising the use of this tool from archaeological cut marks depends largely on noting a smooth entry point and fractured exit – bone fracturing usually results from the delivered blow travelling through the cortical structure of the bone (Fig 3.1a). However, more so than in the case of knife use, the absence of direct evidence should not be taken to indicate that chopping did not take place. In many instances, particularly where elements are composed mainly of cancellous bone, or where the cleaver does not have a steeled cutting edge, a characteristic smooth entry may not be present (Fig 3.1b); in fact it is often the case that no mark is evident at all. In this instance cut placement, level of systematic occurrence, and bone morphology can be used as indirect indications of chopping activity. For example, if copious

5


amounts of axially split, dense, shaft fragments from long bones in a good state of preservation are found with regularity on a site (Fig 3.1c), we must be prepared to acknowledge that at least some of these fragments were created from butchery as they are unlikely to al be accounted for by trampling or other taphonomic factors. Fig 3.1: Evidence for cleaver butchery: a) smooth entry and fractured exit points on a tibia; b) smooth planes on cancellous bone; c) fractured long bones, no marks present

a b c

Large blade Distinguishing a large blade from a cleaver (particularly when the cleaver has been used to slice) can prove to be complex; indeed these tools have been confused within archaeological assemblages and this no doubt extends to recognition of the butchery signatures left by these implements. The key to identifying a large blade is to recognise the way it has been used; we can consider a cleaver as a large blade, which in effect it is, however, it will be used in a different way (usually to chop). A large blade will only leave a mark if it has been used to slice meat off the bone. Furthermore, of all the implement types, this is likely to be the least commonly found, although within a butchery setting it is arguably the most used. This is due to the fact that a large blade is used after the meat has been removed from the bone; it may well be used to remove the meat, but principally it will be used to slice meat subsequent to jointing, paring, and de-boning. Generally, from the periods under investigation, a cleaver will be used to portion a large carcass section into more manageable or saleable joints; smaller blades are subsequently used to ‘de-bone’ these joints if the need arises. Thus, cleavers and smaller, finer, blades are more likely to leave a mark, whereas the larger blades, used to cut meat into smaller units are rarely employed where they might leave a mark on bone. Therefore their archaeological signature is very much underrepresented. This implement can be distinguished from cleavers as it will leave scoop marks, not chop marks; and from fine blades by the width of the cross section following a slicing cut, a large blade will leave a wider groove compared to the width of a ‘fine blade’. Fig 3.2: Showing modern (a) and archaeological large blades (b – Manning 1985)

a

b

6


Fine blade Smaller knives with thinner cross sections at the edge of the blade are generally more versatile than large blades or cleavers. Unlike large blades or cleavers, they can be used for the entire process of butchery, from slaughter through to final processing. Thus cut placement is less useful in determining the type of blade that has been used when compared to the other cutting implements. However, the shape of the mark is distinctive and will usually be shallow, with a sharply grooved V cross-section. Fig 3.3: Replicated Romano-British fine blade (a) and archaeological examples (b – Manning 1985)

a

b

Saw From the perspective of the two periods under investigation, it is unlikely that the saw was a commonly used butchery tool. Therefore, identifying this tool is more for processes of elimination and to indicate bone working. The saw leaves very characteristic and regular striations on the whole of the cut surface, making recognition of this tool a relatively simple process. Type of Mark – Implement signatures and corresponding activity: Chop Chop marks, created by cleavers, are characterised by a number of factors depending on where they occur on the bone, i.e. whether on the cortical surface or in / around the cancellous bone. When they are present on the cortical surface there is a tendency for the chopping action to leave a smooth surface at the point of impact. There is rarely a corresponding smooth surface at the opposing end of the chop as the bone is invariably fragmented (Fig 3.4a); it is the transferred force of the blow through the bone that results in the bone breaking. This type of smooth surface on cortical bone is rarely evident when chopping into elements composed of cancellous bone or the epiphyses of long bones as there is rarely enough cortical bone to show the smooth cut surface. Chopping of cancellous bone is evidenced by cleanly fragmented and sharp angular ‘facets’ on the cut surface (Fig 3.4b). Furthermore, cancellous bone can show distinctive and clear evidence of chopping activity provided the blade is sharp, as this will result in the type of cut surface illustrated in the Fig 3.4c.

7


Fig 3.4: Chop marks on proximal femur (a); proximal tibia (b) and vertebra (c)

a b c

Slice As with the chop mark, the slice is a ubiquitous aspect of butchery and one that occurs with great regularity. This mark is effectively characterised by a delineated striation along the bone, with a V cross-section (see Fig 3.5 below); although the length of the cut can be relatively short and compact. The depth of the mark, its length, width, placement and number of occurrences at any single location on the bone as well as portion of the implement used (i.e. the point or the blade itself) all show variability and are indicative of different activity patterns and butchery techniques. I have distinguished these into the following categories: fine slice, point insertions and blade insertions, which can be used to gain greater depth of interpretation, where these distinctions can be made. All of these sub-categories are still created by the same implement; however, they are distinctive cut mark signatures and should be distinguished from each other where possible. Fig 3.5: Slice marks (arrowed)

Fine Slice A fine slice is distinguished from a slice mark by the fact that it made with a sharp bladed implement with a thinner cross section. Similar characteristics evident with a ‘slice’ are also typical of a ‘fine slice’, although the mark will be shallower and thinner. A fine slice implies a variation in tool type (for example, a skinning knife generally has a finer blade than a knife used for normal slicing) or manufacture of the implement (a thinner and therefore sharper blade can be achieved with a knife that has been ‘steeled’ than an iron blade).

8


Fig 3.6: Fine slice marks (arrowed)

Point Insertions Point insertion marks indicate that only the tip of the blade was used during the butchery process (Fig 3.7a). Distinguishing this mark from other ‘slice’ and ‘fine slice’ marks depends on recognising distinctive insertion and exit marks at the start and end of the cut mark. Furthermore, cut placement is important in recognising point insertions as these marks are indicative of the tip being used in a specific manner, during skinning for example; the point of the blade is used to puncture the skin (inferring that the blade actually had a tip that could be used in this manner). Point insertions are not restricted to skinning and may occur in other circumstances where only a small part of the blade is needed, as might be seen where there is a need to fillet flesh from tight muscle attachments. Alternatively, the tip of the blade can be inserted into a joint while it is still articulated (Fig 3.7b). Fig 3.7: Point insertions (arrowed) on a thoracic vertebra (a) and proximal articulation of a humerus (b)

a b Blade Insertion This mark indicates a different portion of the knife being used, namely the blade. Again, in distinguishing this sub-group from a more general ‘slice’ we are afforded a more in depth appraisal of activity and butchery technique. This type of mark is usually characterised by smooth entry and exit points of the blade. Rather than being confused with slice marks, this mark is more easily confused with chop marks, particularly where a large blade has been used. Fig 3.8 below

9


illustrates this point; the mark (boxed) would appear to be a chop, however, this cut is in fact indicating that a portion of the blade was inserted into the space between the occipital condyle and the atlas bone in order to decapitate the head. Fig 3.8: Blade insertion

Scoop This type of mark is very distinctive and denotes a blade insertion, but with clearer indications of butchery activity. In this instance the blade has been utilised along the length of bone in order to remove small remnants of meat, or to detach a portion of muscle from a particularly tight attachment to the bone. A characteristic scoop mark is left either if the blade is allowed to cut into the bone, or if the blade encounters protruding bone architecture. As the force being used in this instance is usually minimal, the blade will ‘stick’ into the bone; in order to free the blade the butcher will flick and slightly rotate the wrist to generate a small amount of momentum and thus release the blade. This results in a distinctive cut mark that is usually small, has a smooth entry point, but a fractured exit point (the flick and rotation of the wrist breaks the bone, rather than pushing the blade through, although in some instances a complete flake of bone will be removed).

10


Fig 3.9: Scoop mark on long bone shaft

Knick This type of mark is created in a similar manner to the scoop mark, but is generally found in areas where the bone is more ‘complex’, with a greater degree of architecture. While created in a similar manner and ultimately for a parallel function, to remove meat, the ‘knick’ mark is also present as a consequence of disarticulation. This mark is usually small and differs from the scoop and other blade marks in that it is generally characterised by an abrupt stop (Fig 3.10 a & b). Fig 3.10: Knick mark arrowed on a) scapular and b) distal humerus

a b Saw From an archaeological perspective it is the author’s opinion that saw marks are indicative of bone working and not butchery. They are without exception (for the material studied during this study) found on metapodials and horn-cores. Furthermore, using contemporary practice as an analogy saw marks are rarely noted on carcass parts that are sawn in a modern butchers or abattoir. Saw marks are characterised by regular delineations on the surface of the cut itself. Furthermore, a saw will not fracture the bone as the ‘cutting’ (sawing in this case) is completed, therefore the cut surface will demonstrate the striations through to completion.

11


Fig 3.11: Saw mark on cattle horn-core

Explanation of ‘Functions’: In this section I will present details outlining how the different ‘Functions’ of butchery, effectively the various types of butchery activity, were determined based on implement signature, cut mark type, placement and frequency. Skinning This activity is generally characterised by cut placement focussed around the lower limb extremities and head, with an implement signature indicative of point insertions and fine slice marks (knick marks can also indicate skinning activity). During the operational sequence, skinning generally takes place directly after slaughter, but can occur before or after evisceration. Fig 3.12 illustrates a skinning mark (boxed) noted on the posterior facet of the first phalanx of a cow; this is one of the more typical locations of skinning marks. Fig 3.12: Skinning mark (boxed) on cattle phalange

12


Disarticulation This category denoted that the activity pattern evident from the bones indicated that gross disarticulation, of major limb elements or entire muscle groups, resulted from the marks recorded. This was based on a combination of factors of which the most important was when the particular butchery took place within the ‘operational sequence’. Disarticulation marks are generally observed around joint articulations or on the joints surfaces; alternatively, indications that chopping occurred along a group of elements, such as along the spine, was also used to indicate disarticulation. Disarticulation could be carried out either using the cleaver or knife and was therefore not entirely dependent or characterised by one implement type. For example, Fig 3.13a below shows disarticulation of the femur using the cleaver; Fig 3.13b shows disarticulation of the humerus using a knife as the principle tool. Fig 3.13a: Disarticulation using the cleaver at the distal femur

Fig 3.13b: Disarticulation using a knife at the distal humerus

13


Portioning / jointing This category indicates activity that would occur after gross disarticulation as part of the operational sequence. It denotes the removal of muscles or groups of muscles from the bone, as well as sectioning of carcass parts i.e. lower forelimb from the upper forelimb. As with gross disarticulation, a variety of tools can be used in order to accomplish the task of jointing, for example, a cleaver might be used to joint lower and upper forelimbs. However, in general as meat cutting is predominant, the principle tool used will be the knife, with subsequent cut marks generally indicative of point and blade insertions. Fig 3.14 illustrates how point insertions have been used to bone out, and in so doing ‘joint’, the large bulk of meat from the shoulder blade. Fig 3.14: Portioning / jointing at the scapula

Paring / meat removal This category is distinguished from portioning / jointing in that the marks are indicative of the removal of small remnants of flesh from the bone surface. This is invariably performed with a small, sharp, knife as a larger blade would prove cumbersome and inadequate for the task. Paring is characterised by scoop marks, with cut placement generally occurring on long bone shafts. Fig 3.15: Paring / Meat removal – a) illustrates the archaeological ‘scoop mark’ signature, b) shows the activity, removal of small remnants of meat, that this functions denotes.

a b

14


Filleting This function is caused by the same underlying principle as paring / meat removal, namely to detach and exploit all possible meat resources; however, it is not always possible to use the blade of the knife against the bone to remove these final remnants. In this instance the tip of the knife is used to the same effect. Filleting also incorporates the removal of medium sized portions of meat, again using the tip of the blade, but in a repetitive manner. This activity will be most commonly noted on awkwardly shaped bones such as the scapula, on groups of bones that are in close articulation, such as the vertebrae, or on parts of long bones that have a particularly tight muscle to bone attachments, such as the posterior tibia and the deep digital flexors and popliteus muscles. Fig 3.16: Filleting mark on posterior scapula blade

Prep This function indicates the use of a blade (not necessarily a knife as a sharp, and / or curved cleaver can also be used) to ‘open up’ a joint articulation for further disarticulation (see Fig 3.17). This precursor cut mark is used to facilitate further cutting. It will usually form part of disarticulation activity, although it can be used to section part of the carcass, i.e. the vertebrae. Fig 3.17: Prep mark for femoral disarticulation (boxed)

15


Bone breaking / pot-sizing Bone breaking activity will usually occur at the end of the butchery sequence and may incorporate systematic fracturing of long bone shafts and epiphysis with a cleaver (Fig 3.18a). However, more informative are indications of pot-sizing which is characterised by chopping of larger bones into regularly sized units. The distinction between these two activities lies in the fact that ‘pot-sized’ bones will usually demonstrate more than one cut surface, indicating a specific size requirement was sought after. Fig 3.18b and 3.18c below illustrate this, whereby in Fig 3.18b the ribs have chop marks at both ends and have been cut into regularly sized pieces; Fig 3.18c shows a skull portion chopped on least three planes resulting in a rectangular shaped piece. Both these examples indicate that the bone was cut and then repositioned and cut again in order to achieve the required size and shape. Fig 3.18: Bone breaking on distal femur (a), and pot-sizing of ribs (b) and skull (c).

a b c

3.3 Replication of cutting implements This section will outline the main methodological aspects involved in the replication of the implements used during the experimental replications. I will also briefly outline some of the metallurgic principles and technologies from the periods in question, detailing how they are of importance to the current research. A cleaver from each period was replicated (Fig 3.19 & Fig 3.21g). The main reason for replicating only a cleaver was because of the relative inaccuracy of identifying a specific ‘butchery knife’ from the archaeological record. General purpose metal knives have been a ubiquitous part of day-to-day life since their inception, and have served a range of functions within a variety of settings, from household to numerous trades. Thus at this stage of the research it has not been possible to pin-point specialist knives (as opposed to cleavers) used solely by the butchery trade for either period. There are some clues as to how one might identify a specific butchery ‘knife’, for example whether the knife has been ‘steeled’; however, this is only one aspect involved in the manufacture of an implement and would no doubt have been carried out for a range of knives, not just butchery tools. Both cleavers on the other hand have been replicated from actual depictions of butchery ‘in progress’ and are therefore a more appropriate tool for study and use within the experimental phase.

3.3.1 Replication of the archaeological tools: processes involved The two cleavers were reproduced by professional blacksmiths who specialise in archaeological techniques of forging. This included the use a bellows as opposed to an electrically powered gas-fired forge, using traditional hammer and anvil techniques rather than a powered hammer or press, and actually forging the overall shape of the tool while in the furnace rather than simply grinding the implement from a blank piece of pre-prepared iron.

16


The Romano-British cleaver was commissioned from Hector Cole and was manufactured at his forge, Couzens Farm Studios, in Little Somerville, Wiltshire. The cleaver was replicated mainly from excavated examples of cleavers which had been used in other projects by the blacksmith. There was no steel used in the production of this cleaver; it was attached onto a handle fashioned from oak. The tang was left as an open flange and wrapped around the handle, then fixed in place with rivets. The blade had a strong curve (Fig 3.19), and was pointed thus replicating the typical shape of cleavers from this period, which were effectively a dual purpose implement. Fig 3.19: Romano-British cleaver (Hector Cole) Fig 3.20: Medieval cleaver

As the Romano-British cleaver was commissioned I had relatively little involvement, beyond the initial design stage, with the production of the actual implement. However, fortunately I was able to be far more involved in the production of the medieval cleaver. Creating the medieval cleaver formed part of a smaller project which was carried out over a week long period from the 20-27th Aug 2003, to analyse the specific patterns of butchery that might be employed dependent on the type of tools being used. This smaller research project, and the subsequent reproduction of the cleaver, were funded by, and took place at, the Lejre Centre, Denmark. The project took advantage of the Lejre Centre’s excellent forging facilities as well as the expert blacksmithing skills of Aron Hvid to recreate the desired tool. The basic design of the tool was taken from a combination of iconographic sources and archaemetallurgic finds. The starting point for this cleaver was a British medieval depiction of a butcher using a cleaver with a riveted handle (Fig 3.20, above, from Cowgill et al 2000, 52).

17


The following gives the outline of the processes involved in the forging of the cleaver. Stage 1

Fig 3.21a: Initial heating process Due to the length of the blade a considerable amount of metal had to be incorporated into the cleaver in order for it to be stretched out during the forging process through repeated heating and hammering. Also, in order to adhere to the principles of forging that would have been used during the medieval period three separate strips of metal had to be used. Two strips of iron encasing a strip of steel had to be laminated together at high temperatures upwards of 1000ºC. During the laminating stage, sand is used as a catalyst to allow the core working temperature to exceed the temperature at which steel would normally start to melt. Iron can be heated to higher temperatures than steel, but will eventually ‘burn away’, therefore, the addition of sand acts as a short term shield allowing a higher temperature to be reached as well as forming a barrier to air between the strips that are to be laminated. Fig 3.21a shows the initial ‘heat’ to start the laminating process, the white receptacle to the right contains sand. Stage 2

Fig 3.21b: Laminating 3 strips into 1 This complicated process of lamination was employed as the iron, being a small degree softer then the steel, would wear more than the steel. The harder steel would then be exposed at the blade as the knife was sharpened following use, leaving a sharper more durable edge capable of prolonged and accurate cutting. Fig 3.21b shows the initial hammering to force the iron and steel together, note the longer, slightly bluer steel (arrowed) between the iron strips. The steel was used in this way as it was (and still is) the more expensive and difficult to procure material.

18


Stage 3 Fig 3.21c Laminating 5 strips into 1

Due to the specific shape of the blade, with the portion furthest from the handle being somewhat wider then the back of the blade, the metal that had been laminated into three sheets was insufficient to be fashioned in to the desired width, and still maintain the correct blade thickness. Therefore, to compensate for this, two extra sheets of iron had to be laminated into the blade tip so that the correct blade depth could be maintained. Stage 4 Fig 3.21 d & e show the blade after initial forging at the start of the finishing process. Fig 3.21d shows the blade before any grinding, with the detritus from the forging processes still evident as a grey residue. 3.21e shows the blade after this initial stage. Fig 3.21d: After forging Fig 3.21e: After initial grinding

Stage 5

Fig 3.21f: Blade after hardening and annealing After the initial finishing had taken place the blade was hardened and annealed prior to the final grinding and polishing. Initial finishing has to take place prior to hardening as it is considerably easier to remove the forging residues at this stage. Fig 3.21f shows the blade after it had been hardened by heating and then quenching (rapid cooling in cold water) and annealed (a slight softening of the blade to reduce brittleness). Hardening and annealing are very

19


complicated processes; if the blade is over heated during the hardening process the blade might take on deformities. If the blade is not properly annealed, i.e. the blade is allowed to stay brittle in areas where it should be softer, the blade itself might fracture. The colour of the blade highlights the areas of different hardness. Once the blade has been quenched it is re-heated by conduction. The back of the blade is placed on a very hot rod so that the heat from the rod slowly transfers up the blade, with a greater degree of heat at the back, then the blade edge. This has the effect of leaving the blade edge essentially very hard so that it can maintain a sharp edge, but with the rest of the blade slightly less hard and consequently less brittle. The blue colouration denotes softer areas of the blade. The blade is then left to cool very slowly inside an insulating material, in this case fibre glass roof insulation. Once the blade is completely cool final grinding and finishing can take place, being careful not to heat the blade again as this might lead to changes in the blades composition. Stage 6

Fig 3.21g: Finished blade and sheath The handle of the blade was fashioned from white oak and attached to the blade with rivets. Riveting followed a traditional method, with large iron plugs hammered into the handle and blade forcing a tight fit between the two. The handle was then left to stand in oil over night to improve the overall durability and wear of the handle. Fig 3.21g shows the finished knife and sheath made to protect the blade during transportation. The cleavers re-created from the Romano-British and medieval periods were a crucial aspect of the experimental replication process carried out for this study. They provided an insight, not only in to the technological differences that would have been evident with different types of implements highlighting variations in shape, size and underlying tool composition, but also how these affect the butchery process. The next section details and presents how these implements were used, along with other aspects of the experimental butchery replications. 3. 4 Experimental replication of the butchery marks The final practical aspect of this project involved the replication of various distinctive butchery marks noted on the bone material from the Romano-British and medieval periods. The protocol for the replications was partly derived from other replication studies (Sadek-Kooros 1972; Jones 1980; Binford 1981; Stanford et al 1981; van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1990; Amour-Chelu 1992) although a greater part depended on personal experience. The specific butchery marks which were considered to be most useful for further interpretation of the butchery process were recorded from the assemblages as outlined above, with a permanent image taken using digital photography. These marks were identified as being distinct, although not unique, to the two periods under investigation. The majority of the marks for the Romano-

20


British period were taken from Cirencester, partly because the representative sample was largest from this particular assemblage, and partly because the pattern of butchery was itself highly distinctive. This point notwithstanding, material from all the Romano-British sites was incorporated into this particular aspect. For the medieval period Coppergate provided the majority of the period specific, butchery practice marks. The key to these marks was that they gave an indication of the butchery sequence of events. Following the recording of the cut marks from the archaeological material, attempts were made to accurately replicate the marks seen using the most appropriate implement. This aspect of the replication process relied on personal experience to make an educated judgement based on depth, size, and shape of the mark to be replicated, in order to establish the most likely candidate from the various tools available. The mark was then replicated following the inferred technique (from the cut marks) with accurate and detailed accounts maintained throughout the process. It was imperative that these accounts were highly detailed, as this provided the depth of information necessary for further inferences to be extrapolated. Should the experimental replications have proved unsuccessful in replicating the mark, in other words the mark created did not accurately match the original mark, slight alterations in cutting technique were employed until the archaeological cut mark was accurately imitated. Any changes in technique and implement use were recorded.

3.4.1 The operational sequence Unfortunately, as it was only possible to procure one carcass, an operational sequence for both periods had to be carried out on the same carcass. This was most problematic to the initial splitting and disarticulation; for the majority of the remaining cuts this situation did not pose an issue as there was half a carcass available for each period. The underlying tenet for the process outlined below was to arrive at carcass portions that could be easily transported to, and processed within, a domestic kitchen. Due to DEFRA regulations, I was not able to locate an intact cow carcass, (all carcasses are split for removal of the spine and other cerebral material). The best solution was therefore to use a red deer (Cervus elaphus), which I procured from the Rossshire Forestry Commission. As the deer was from Scotland it was smaller than its southern counterpart; Scottish red deer stags are estimated to achieve a maximum weight of 90-120kgs (Yalden 1999) compared with up to 190kgs for southern deer. The animal used in this study was a young stag, approximately one and a half years old, that weighed slightly less than 40kg dressed, but with the skin (the skin alone account for 8kg). I estimate the animal would have been at least 65-70kgs prior to head and feet removal and evisceration. It had been shot through the chest / abdomen by James McCloud, a Forestry Commission Ranger three days before collection. It had been eviscerated, with feet and head also removed, after which it had been hung in cold storage. Therefore, from the time it was shot to the point at which I butchered the carcass, five days had elapsed in total; during this whole period, including the time spent in transportation, the animal was hung. I butchered the carcass within a small shed and arranged a suspension system for the task.

21


Fig 3.22: The following is an annotated breakdown of the carcass butchery process:

Fig 3.22a: In the absence of hanging equipment, or a pulley system, I was able to hang the carcass by attaching a wooden pole through the Achilles tendons of each hind limb and then suspending the pole between the side walls of a small shed. This system worked exceptionally well given the circumstances and allowed for full access to the whole of the carcass.

Fig 3.22b: For the skinning process a small, steel bladed knife was used. As the animal had already been eviscerated, resulting in a large incision through the body cavity, this seemed an obvious point from which to start the skinning process. Had the animal been considerably larger (in the case of a cow) or had it still been entire (and in the absence of mechanical lifting devices), the more appropriate scenario would be to begin the skinning process on the ground. This is more physically demanding, but the animal can then be attached to a pulley and manually raised as the skinning process proceeds.

Fig 3.22c: This figure illustrates the juncture during the butchery sequence when the tail would be removed. For a cow, which has a long tail, it is considerably easier to remove the tail with the rest of the hide, and then peel back the skin from the tail (as one might remove a glove). By cutting into the joint of the caudal vertebra the tail is easily removed.

Fig 3.22d: Carcass is completely skinned; this process took just under 20 minutes, not taking into account the actual suspension of the carcass.

22


Fig 3.22e: The right side of the animal was assigned to the Romano-British period. From the archaeological material I speculated that, although there was evidence for systematic butchery, the carcass was in fact disarticulated in a piecemeal fashion. Therefore, rather than splitting and quartering the carcass, I disarticulated the forelimb as this was most accessible in terms of height and positioning of the carcass. The Romano-British cleaver proved very effective for slicing; reinforcing the benefits of a curved blade. No mark was left from this process as the cut was made through soft tissue.

Fig 3.22f: This figure illustrates the effectiveness of the Romano-British cleaver for chopping. The long handle allowed for a great deal of momentum to be achieved; splitting the carcass was thus an easy process. This central split was an important cut; it reinforced the notion that limb jointing occurred in the Romano-British period and also highlighted how splitting must have taken place. In the absence of suitable saws, and therefore dependent on cleavers, the butchers of the day had to split the carcass on one side of the vertebrae, through the rib ends.

Fig 3.22g: Splitting continues along the spine, now cutting through the juncture where the rib cage meets the vertebrae.

Fig 3.22h: The carcass is split; the cervical vertebra (neck meat included) is left on one side of the carcass. The carcass was split with four chops.

23


Fig 3.22i: Detail of chopped rib heads, and remnants of the transverse processes of thoracic vertebrae. Figures 3.22i and 3.22j illustrate another potential way for recognising whether a carcass was processed while suspended, should similar fractured rib and vertebrae elements be present within an archaeological assemblage.

Fig 3.22j: Detail of the left side of carcass, retaining spinal column.

Fig 3.22k: Detachment of the right rib flank. This was carried out using the Romano-British cleaver, employing a slicing motion.

Fig 3.22l: Moving to the left side of the carcass, assigned to the medieval period, an attempt was made to see how, if the carcass had been split on one side of the ribs, it would be possible to remove the spine completely (as has been indicated from the archaeological material). It was not possible to carry out this task from the ventral surface as there was no purchase point (as I am right handed, I needed a handling point on the opposing side to steady the carcass whilst I chopped the spine). Thus this process required re-positioning to the dorsal aspect of the carcass.

24


Fig 3.22m: Two hind limbs remain following midline splitting, removal of the rib cage and forelimbs. It took just over 30minutes to arrive at this point from when the carcass was suspended; chopping activity accounted for no more than three minutes of this whole period, with approximately eight to ten chopping blows delivered. This illustrates not only the efficiency of this tool, but also the activity (skinning) on which the majority of time is spent. In a market driven situation, this is an important consideration to take into account.

Fig 3.22n: Spinal column and neck portion remain following rib cage and forelimb removal.

Fig 3.22o: In order to reduce the overall size of the spine and neck portion of the carcass, the same basic technique was used as had been used for tail removal i.e. cutting into the joint space between the vertebrae.

Fig 3.22p: This figure illustrates the ‘medieval hind limb’. Boning of large meat joints was favoured in this period, thus the following figures illustrate a means of achieving this.

Fig 3.22q: This first requirement is to separate the meat and bone of the pelvis from the femur and tibia. This was performed with a knife and required 12 slicing cuts and approximately three minutes.

25


Fig 3.22r: By cutting around the femoral head, it is a simple and easy process to disarticulate the femur from the pelvis. However, it is more time consuming than the method favoured by the Romano-British butchers, who tended to slice into the biceps femoris muscle and then chop the femoral head from the pelvis.

Fig 3.22s: Pelvis bone is removed.

Fig 3.22t: Femur and pelvis are boned out. As there was only one side per period, I carried out two techniques on one set of leg bones. Although not ideal, it was not overly problematic. With the bone exposed, but retaining connective tissue (deliberately left) I firstly cut the joint with a knife, then repositioned the leg and chopped with a cleaver, to establish which marks were left for this disarticulation.

Fig 3.22u: The Romano-British hind limb. As elaborated upon in chapter 7 (sect. 7.4.1.3) this leg should have had the femoral head chopped. The remaining disarticulation was carried out with the cleaver, and required three further chops. Subsequent meat removal was carried out with a knife.

Fig 3.22v: This image illustrates the Romano-British scapula; the knife is highlighting how the scapula spine protrudes to the other fascia. This portion of the deer carcass did not provide an adequate analogy of a cow shoulder for an accurate replication of scapula butchery from this period.

Fig 3.22w: Due to the quantity of chopped vertebrae and ribs recovered archaeologically, it was important to establish how this portion of the carcass was processed. This figure and the subsequent one highlight that the spine is cut down from the top and then chopped.

26


Fig 3.22x: This portion results from the above; it has a high bone content, but also a considerable amount of meat. This would have been ideal for slow cooked dishes due to the nature of the meat (which has a relatively high sinew content) and bone.

These replications have proved to be a crucial part of deciphering the underlying mode of butchery and are discussed in the next section. 4.0 Results Three separate strands of data were generated from the research carried out and presented here. Firstly, the recording of butchery from each assemblage generated a large overall data set that was used to highlight comparative differences between sites and periods. Secondly, by recording the location of the butchery on templates it was possible to generate representative diagrams showing where the majority of the cut marks occurred. These were subsequently used to produce operational sequences of butchery activity and outline schematically different approaches to carcass portioning. Finally, annotations taken during the recording phase and the subsequent replications allowed for detailed interpretations concerning distinctive aspects of butchery procedure. In some cases, for example, indications of handedness, sharpness of tools and specialism in tool manufacture were evident from this analysis. While this last phase was, not surprisingly, limited and very specific, it was also the most intriguing and allowed for the inclusion of specific aspects of butchery practice and analysis to be brought into the sphere of interpretation. 4.1 Results from Cirencester The results from Cirencester were used to establish the ‘Butchery Units’ which were subsequently employed as a means of comparison between sites and periods. Table 4.1 represents all butchery from Cirencester; each mark was recorded as a single count, including incidences of repetition, at any single location. This was deemed a more accurate measure of frequency than to simply note that a particular type of butchery was taking place, but not taking into account the amount (as evidenced by the actual number of marks) of activity. Recording frequency in this way, i.e. taking into account all marks, may seem superfluous as the overwhelming majority of cut marks are incidental and cannot contribute to more pertinent questions regarding patterns of butchery. However, when attempting to represent ‘frequency of activity’ there is no alternative but to look at all the marks; in this way the pattern of butchery can be pinpointed by looking at variability over the carcass. It would be inaccurate to discount certain marks, or multiples of the same mark, without being certain of what those marks represent. For each site, there was clear variation in the different categories of butchery activity (or ‘Function’) that occurred. To arrive at a viable means of illustrating the main differences between sites and periods, it was necessary to devise a scheme by which the variability that occurred over the carcass could be represented. Cirencester, with 1745 records, was the only site that had sufficient data to allow for a comparison of butchery activity on a per element basis over the whole carcass. Once the pattern of variation per individual element was established, this was coupled with findings from the visually recorded data and with my knowledge of butchery to establish distinct ‘butchery units’.

27


The recognisable butchery activities were grouped into three basic sequential stages: 1, 2 and 3 (see below). Each ‘Stage’ encompassed specific practices corresponding to the ‘Function’ records from the recorded database of butchery cut marks. As mentioned in the methodology section above, ‘Function’ denoted which type of butchery activity took place. This was appraised from the preceding three categories recorded (namely – when the butchery took place relative to disarticulation [Pre / Post / During], the Carcass Position and the Direction of Cut). Stage 1 = indicated evisceration, skinning or gross disarticulation of the carcass and was denoted through Function 1, 4 and 6 (namely, disarticulation, preparation and skinning marks); Stage 2 = Jointing and meat removal, denoted by Function 2 and 7 (paring / meat removal and jointing / portioning marks); Stage 3 = Pot sizing and / or final filleting, evidenced through the recording of Function 3 and 5 (bone breaking and filleting marks). Once total number of occurrences of different types of butchery activity were noted and placed into their respective categories according to ‘Function’, each ‘Stage’ was calculated following the protocol outlined above. These figures were then converted into percentages. For Cirencester, the data are presented in table 4.1: Table 4.1 – Frequency of butchery activity from Cirencester per element

For each element, the sum of the different types of butchery activity were recorded. The exception to this was Lower front limb (Lfl – carpals and metacarpals), Lower hind limb (Lhl – tarsals and metatarsals) and Sacral and Caudal vertebrae (S/Cv). Other abbrev: Hd = Head; Cv = Cervical vertebrae; Tv = Thoracic vertebrae; Sca = Scapula; Hum = Humerus; Rd = Radius; Ul = Ulna; Lv = Lumbar vertebrae; Pel = Pelvis; Fem = Femur; Tib = Tibia.

Element Function

Hd Cv Tv Rib Sca Hum Rd Ul Lv S/Cv Pel Fem Tib Lfl Lhl

1 – Disarticulation 40 34 27 10 12 20 7 8 1 1 4 5 2 1 106 2 – Meat removal 4 4 15 36 85 10 15 5 2 1 30 61 76 22 3 – Filleting 55 6 2 23 1 14 4 – Prep mark 6 1 1 2 16 2 5 – Bone breaking 22 13 41 35 1 10 12 10 2 23 20 12 1 28 6 – Skinning 1 9 7 – Jointing FUNCTION TOTAL 66 51 89 136 104 40 34 23 4 5 61 125 93 3 179

1st Stage (%): 60 67 37 7 11 50 21 35 50 40 10 17 4 75 64 2nd Stage (%): 6 8 17 26 82 25 44 22 50 20 49 49 82 0 12 3rd Stage (%): 33 25 46 66 7 25 35 43 0 40 41 34 14 25 42

Total No. of Bones 220 39 99 505 146 62 70 30 11 14 52 116 62 61 222

By placing the various Functions into Stages it was possible to pool records while still maintaining a connection to the original data. Therefore the Stages illustrate a range of activity by highlighting variations in how different parts of the carcass were treated. For each element (and element group i.e. Lfl, Lhl and S/Cv), the percentage of each Stage (shaded area on table above) was then represented on a pie chart to illustrate the differences in activity across the carcass. This is shown below in Figure 4.1.

28


Hd Cv Tv Lv SCv

N=220 N=14N=11N=99N=39

Pel

N=52

Fem

Sca

Hum Rd Ul Lfl Tib Lhl

N=146

N=116

N=70 N=62 N=30

N=222 N=61 N=62 Fig 4.1 Function (butchery activity) per skeletal unit – Cirencester

29

Abbrev: Hd = Head; Cv = Cervical vertebrae; Tv = Thoracic verLv = Lumbar vertebrae; Sca = Scapula; Hum = Humerus; Rd = Ul = Ulna; Pel = Pelvis; Fem = Femur; Tib = Tibia; Lfl = Llimb (carpals and metacarpals), Lhl = Lower hind limb (tmetatarsals), and S/Cv = Sacral and Caudal vertebrae. N = Total number of bones per element or element grouping.

1st stage = Evisceration / skinning / dismem 2nd stage = Jointing / meat removal 3rd stage = Pot sizing / bone breaking

Rib

N=505

tebrae; Radius; ower front arsals and


As mentioned above, the results from Cirencester were then used to establish the butchery units used to compare results across the sites. These units are derived from a combination of data based on archaeological evidence, the operational sequence, and morphological criteria. The first aspect is self-explanatory, and denotes that from Cirencester certain cut marks were indicative of specific cutting practice, for example chop marks at the femoral head indicated removal of the hind limb. The second aspect was more complicated to establish and effectively took into account when the specific carcass part (unit) would be removed as a separate joint from the rest of the animal. However, as butchery may result in the whole carcass being disarticulated this had to be measured against a set point within the dismemberment process; in this instance the point of reference was that the unit had to be evident prior to further processing (incorporating meat removal, bone breaking, and pot-sizing activity). Finally the morphology of the animal was taken into account, incorporating the ease or difficulty with which different parts of the carcass were disarticulated. In total seven units were determined as follows: Unit 1 = Head and cervical vertebrae Unit 2 = Thoracic vertebrae and ribs Unit 3 = Scapula, humerus, radius and ulna Unit 4 = Lumber, sacral and caudal vertebra and pelvis Unit 5 = Femur and tibia Unit 6 = Lower fore limb (carpals and metacarpals) Unit 7 = Lower hind limb (tarsals and metatarsals) 4.2 Site data

4.2.1 Butchery and implement data from the Romano-British sites Having used Cirencester as a basis for proposing the amalgamated units, the records from each site were subsequently placed into these units and compared on the basis of variation in activity across the carcass (from the perspective of butchery activity and implement use). These results are represented in Tables 4.2-4.13, Fig 4.2-4.5, and discussed in subsequent sections. Table 4.2: Butchery activity per Unit – Cirencester Units Function

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 74 37 47 6 7 1 106 2 – Meat removal 8 51 115 33 137 22 3 – Filleting 55 6 2 24 14 4 – Prep mark 6 4 18 5 – Bone breaking 35 76 33 25 32 1 28 6 – Skinning 1 9 7 – Jointing

TOTAL 117 276 201 70 220 3 179 1st Stage (%): 63 ±8.7 15 ±4.2 23 ±6.6 14 ±8.1 12 ±4.3 66 ±53.6 6 ±7 2nd Stage (%): 7 ±4.5 18 ±4.5 57 ±6.8 47 ±11.7 63 ±6.4 0 13 ±4.93rd Stage (%): 30 ±8.3 66 ±5.6 20 ±5.5 39 ±11.4 25 ±5.7 33 ±53.2 23 ±6.1

Total No. of Bones 259 604 308 77 178 61 222

30


Table 4.3: Butchery activity per Unit – Catterick Units Function

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 29 8 18 5 2 16 2 – Meat removal 10 42 81 1 9 3 – Filleting 4 – Prep mark 5 – Bone breaking 11 34 4 16 8 1 6 – Skinning 3 18 7 – Jointing 6

TOTAL 60 90 103 22 17 2 35 1st Stage (%): 53 ±12.6 10 ±6.2 17 ±7.3 23 ±17.6 0 100 97 ±5.7 2nd Stage (%): 17 ±9.5 53 ±10.3 79 ±7.9 5 ±9.1 53 ±23.7 0 0 3rd Stage (%): 30 ±11.6 37 ±9.9 4 ±3.8 73 ±18.6 47 ±23.7 0 3 ±5.7

Total No. of Bones 167 166 142 40 34 27 85

Table 4.4: Butchery activity per Unit – Wortley Units Function

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 4 27 33 4 11 2 – Meat removal 11 37 67 91 3 – Filleting 4 – Prep mark 5 – Bone breaking 6 53 29 5 65 1 5 6 – Skinning 3 20 7 – Jointing

TOTAL 21 60 126 5 234 5 36 1st Stage (%): 19 ±16.8 0 24 ±7.5 0 15 ±4.6 80 ±35 86 ±11.3 2nd Stage (%): 52 ±21.4 62 ±12.3 53 ±8.7 0 58 ±6.3 0 0 3rd Stage (%): 29 ±19.4 38 ±12.3 23 ±7.3 100 27 ±5.7 20 ±35 14 ±11.3

Total No. of Bones 15 68 84 3 96 3 20 The percentage of each stage, per unit (shaded area of above tables), is presented in Fig 4.2 below illustrating the differences in butchery activity as they occur over the carcass.

31


Fig 4.2: Variability in Function (butchery activity) per unit – Roman

Unit Cirencester Catterick Wortley

N=220 N=17 N=234

N=70 N=22 N=5

N=201 N=103 N=126

N=90 N=60

N=60 N=21

N= 276

N=117

N=179 N=35 N=36

N=3 N=2 N=5

1st stage = Evisceration, /skinning / gross dismemberment 2nd stage = 3rd stage = N = Total nu

Jointing / meat removal

Pot-sizing / bone breaking / final filleting

32mber of bones per Unit


The analysis of the Romano-British sites led to some interesting results. A clear difference is evident from the outset with regard to the percentage of butchery marks recorded per site. Given the nature of each site, Cirencester should have demonstrated the highest percentage of butchered bone. As an urban enclave it might be expected that specialist cleavers could be created on or near the site. This coupled with the anticipation that an urban mode of processing might depend on speed and efficiency in order to provide meat for the populace, should have led to a higher percentage of butchery marks recorded. Furthermore, as highlighted from the results of the analysis of implement use, Cirencester showed a bias towards cleavers and large bladed knives (see Fig 4.3); therefore, the marks themselves were easier to recognise. However, this was not evident from the results; Wortley Villa had the highest relative level of butchery (67%) compared to Cirencester (34%) and Catterick (25%). This was in fact the highest for all sites, whether medieval or Romano-British. While this may be indicating a processing bias specific to a ‘villa site’, it would be a mistake to over interpret basic proportions of butchery records, especially considering issues of sample size and element representation. Results from Cirencester and Catterick show a predominance of Stage 1 (Disarticulation) activity on and around the head and neck (Unit 1), coupled with a significant, albeit smaller, indication of Stage 3 (Pot-Sizing / Bone Breaking) activity. Clearly this is to be expected as this region contains a high proportion of bone compared to meat; nevertheless, the underlying reasons for this particular activity profile are somewhat more complex and will be discussed in greater detail shortly in corroboration with the findings regarding implement use. The results from Wortley Villa shows a dominance of Stage 2 (Jointing and Meat Removal) activity, seemingly contradicting the trend set by the findings from the other two sites. However, this difference is due one problem associated with a small assemblage. All the skull elements from Wortley Villa were derived from the mandible, and only two cervical vertebrae (both only 25% complete) had recordable butchery. Thus, the elements that would have illustrated head removal / skinning were not present in the assemblage. The results for the thoracic vertebrae and ribs (Unit 2) were also intriguing; the butchery activity from both Catterick and Wortley showed a predominance of Stage 2 activities; however the findings from Cirencester opposed this trend with Stage 3 (Pot-sizing, Bone Breaking and Final Filleting) predominant. This was largely accounted for by high proportions of fine cut marks running laterally to remove flesh from the outer surface of the ribs and chopped ‘pot-sized’ rib fragments. This coupled with the highly fragmented thoracic vertebrae may be indicative of a greater degree of bone nutrient exploitation in the form of fat or grease (compared to the other two Romano-British sites) or specific culinary preferences favouring smaller portions of ‘boney’ meat (for the preparation of stews, soups, broths, or stock). Not surprisingly, the results from all three sites followed similar pattern for the forelimb (Unit 3), favouring meat removal (Stage 2) activity. As this particular Unit encompasses a high proportion of meat from the shoulder and upper forelimb, it would be expected that meat removal / jointing activity would predominate within this region of the carcass. In contrast, all three sites demonstrate different activity patterns for the lower spine and pelvis (Unit 4), although the results from Wortley will be discounted from the discussion due to an unrepresentative sample size for this element grouping. Butchery at Cirencester showed a dominance of Stage 2 activities, whilst the findings from Catterick favoured Stage 3. This suggested that at Cirencester meat was removed from this Unit prior to cooking (or more accurately, proportionally more meat removal evidence was present for this Carcass Unit than noted on bones from Catterick) whereas at Catterick the evidence

33


suggests that the meat was cooked with the bone. The findings from Cirencester for this Unit tie in with the earlier discussion, indicating a general principle that favours more extensive exploitation of bone nutrient resources. As with Unit 3, which incorporated parts of the carcass with a high meat content, the hind-limbs (Unit 5), also demonstrated results favouring a predominance of Stage 2 activity across all sites. Finally, as expected, the butchery activity for the lower limb extremities of the carcass (Units 6 and 7) favoured Stage 1, mainly accounted for by skinning marks, for all sites (although Wortley had very few lower limb elements). The same butchery units were employed for comparison of implement use carcass. Table 4.5: Implement use per Unit – Cirencester

Units Implement

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

Cleaver (%) 48 33 25 15 29 50 17 Large blade (%) 52 27 36 36 57 45 Fine blade (%) 39 34 15 6 50 29 Romano-British cleaver (%) 1 5 33 7 9

TOTAL PER UNIT (%) 10 27 24 6 21 <1 16 Total No. of cut marks 122 320 276 66 246 2 184

Table 4.6: Implement use per Unit – Catterick Units

Implement

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

Cleaver (%) 33 52 28 76 53 6 Large blade (%) 54 48 56 24 47 50 17 Fine blade (%) 13 9 50 77 Romano-British cleaver (%) 7


Table 4.7: Implement use per Unit – Wortley Units

Implement

1

2 3

4

5 6

7

Cleaver (%) 25 20 24 23 35 80 19 Large blade (%) 49 38 44 57 52 70 Fine blade (%) 26 23 17 4 8 Romano-British cleaver (%) 19 15 20 9 20 2


The percentage figures per unit for the different implements (shaded area) were represented as pie charts against each unit, as illustrated in Figure 4.3 below.

34


Fig 4.3: Percentage Implement use per unit – Roman

Unit Cirencester Catterick Wortley

N=246 N=19 N=202

N=66 N=25 N=79

N=276 N=98 N=178

N=94 N=49

N=122 N=69 N=35

N=320

N=184 N=35 N=74

N=2 N=2 N=5

Cleaver = Fine Blade = Large Blade = RB Cleaver = N = Total number of implement marks per Unit

35


For the purposes of this discussion, indications of Romano-British cleavers will be included under the ‘cleaver’ category as in most cases this tool was used as a chopping implement. Implement usage on the head was overwhelmingly attributed to large blades and cleavers. This was particularly so for Cirencester, where no marks were found to indicate butchery using a fine blade. This would seem to contradict the results from the recorded butchery activity outlined above. However, ‘head’ elements from the sampled assemblage from Cirencester were composed exclusively of mandibles. Of the cervical vertebrae, all showed indications of bone breaking, as did almost all the mandibles. Thus, on closer inspection the implement use data effectively complements the activity results; the marks are largely indicative of chopping for gross disarticulation (in particular for neck elements) and subsequent pot sizing / bone breaking. Therefore, the Romano-British butchers from the sites studied would appear to have favoured large blades and cleavers. Once again, as noted in the findings for butchery on the thoracic vertebrae and ribs, all three sites showed markedly different percentages of implement use. From Cirencester, the greater proportion of final filleting marks (noted on the lateral surface of the ribs) were reflected in a high percentage of fine blade marks, while pot sizing activity was observable in the predominance of cleaver use. Meat processing at Catterick for these elements depended on large blades and cleavers exclusively, complementing the butchery data that outlined near equal proportions of meat removal (large blade) and pot sizing (cleaver) activity. At Wortley, the activity pattern for this Unit, while heavily favouring meat removal did show a significant indication of Stage 2 activity and this is subsequently reflected in the implements used, demonstrating a greater degree of variability across the tool categories. The predominance of Stage 2 activity (jointing / meat removal) for the forelimb is countered by a greater degree of variability in implement use. Looking at the particular elements involved, these results are not surprising. Removing meat from this region of the carcass, which incorporates awkwardly shaped bones such as the scapula and proximal ulna, will require a variety of tools, from fine blades to cleavers, each employed in a certain way for specific parts of the dismemberment process. These findings are supported if we compare one high meat unit with another, namely Unit 5 – the hind-limb. For this unit, large blades and cleavers predominate as clearly jointing and subsequent meat removal is not as complex a task. Implement use on the lumbar and pelvis region correlates closely with the butchery activity, particularly for Catterick, where a 75% indication of Stage 3 activity (bone breaking in this case) is complemented by a 75% ratio of cleaver use. The almost exclusive indication of Stage 1 activity for Unit 6 and 7 from Cirencester and Catterick (Wortley excluded from discussion) is reassuringly complemented by a more even distribution indicating fine blade use for skinning and cleavers used to disarticulate.

4.2.2 Butchery and implement data from the medieval sites Tables 4.8-4.10 and Figure 4.4 represent the findings from the butchery activity from the three medieval sites. The same Units as were used for the Romano-British sites have been employed here.

36


Table 4.8: Butchery activity per Unit – Coppergate Units Function

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 16 25 26 14 19 4 2 2 – Meat removal 2 92 13 32 6 3 – Filleting 4 – Prep mark 1 5 – Bone breaking 27 83 10 37 4 6 – Skinning 6 5 5 7 – Jointing

TOTAL 51 200 49 84 29 9 7 1st Stage (%): 43 ±13.6 13 ±4.7 53 ±13.9 18 ±8.2 66 ±17.2 100 100 2nd Stage (%): 4 ±5.4 46 ±6.9 27 ±12.4 38 ±10.4 20 ±14.6 0 0 3rd Stage (%): 53 ±13.7 41 ±6.8 20 ±11.2 44 ±10.6 14 ±12.6 0 0

Total No. of Bones 204 372 57 86 50 18 67 Table 4.9: Butchery activity per Unit – Laugharne Castle

Units Function

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 16 10 16 11 17 19 20 2 – Meat removal 64 13 37 10 3 – Filleting 4 – Prep mark 5 – Bone breaking 10 23 5 31 2 3 6 – Skinning 56 7 – Jointing

TOTAL 26 97 33 79 29 19 97 1st Stage (%): 62 ±18.7 10 ±5.9 49 ±17.1 14 ±7.7 59 ±17.9 100 76 ±8.52nd Stage (%): 0 66 ±9.4 39 ±16 47 ±11 34 ±17.2 0 0 3rd Stage (%): 38 ±18.7 24 ±8.5 12 ±11.1 39 ±10.8 7 ±9.3 0 3 ±8.5

Total No. of Bones 105 243 94 91 74 38 116 Table 4.10: Butchery activity per Unit – Ely

Units Function

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 – Disarticulation 2 2 3 2 11 2 – Meat removal 1 15 8 3 – Filleting 4 – Prep mark 5 – Bone breaking 16 6 3 10 6 3 6 – Skinning 7 – Jointing 1

TOTAL 19 7 18 22 9 5 11 1st Stage (%): 11 ±14.1 10 ±12.5 33 ±30.7 40 ±32 100 2nd Stage (%): 5 ±9.8 14 ±25.7 83 ±17.4 40 ±20.5 0 0 0 3rd Stage (%): 84 ±16.5 86 ±25.7 17 ±17.4 50 ±20.9 66 ±30.7 60 ±32 0

Total No. of Bones 69 16 12 16 14 7 16

37


Fig 4.4: Variability in Function (butchery activity) per unit – medieval

Unit Coppergate Laugharne Ely

N=50 N=74 N=14

N=86 N=91 N=16

N=57 N=94 N=12

N=372 N=243 N=16

N=205 N=105 N=69

N=67 N=116 N=16

N=18 N=38 N=7
1st stage = Evisceration, /skinning / gross dismemberment 2nd stage = Jointing / meat removal 3rd stage = Pot-sizing / bone breaking / final filleting N = Total number of bones per Unit 38


Unlike the Romano-British assemblages, the results from analysis of the medieval assemblages fell into a smaller range for overall percentage of butchery activity per site. For the head, the butchery activity at Laugharne followed the anticipated pattern: the focus was on skinning and gross disarticulation of this high bone / low meat part of the carcass, with Stage 1 activity dominating. However, the butchery at Coppergate indicated more Stage 3 activity, reflecting a greater degree of fracturing and filleting marks. This, as in the case with Cirencester, would be in-keeping with a more intensive mode of within-bone nutrient exploitation. Indications of Stage 2 activity dominated all three sites for the ribs and thoracic spine. This was evidenced by cut marks denoting that meat was removed from the dorsal aspect of the ribs and along the top-line of the animal (incorporating the lattisimus dorsi muscle). However, Stage 3 activity should not be ignored. There was considerable evidence of final filleting, in the form of point insertion marks running along and across the lateral surface of the ribs, and in some cases on the ventral / medial surface, coupled with indications of rib pot-sizing, particularly from Coppergate. As for the forelimb from the Romano-British sites, all three medieval assemblages favoured the same type of butchery activity. However, in contrast to the Romano-British period, the medieval sites showed a predominance of Stage 1 (gross dismemberment) activities, not Stage 2 (meat removal). As this part of the carcass includes a large amount of meat relative to bone, one might expect more evidence of jointing and meat removal; in fact the marks were assigned to the gross disarticulation category denoting separation of the main forelimb elements rather than subsequent processing (with the exception of Ely, for which only a small sample was available for this Unit). This trend is repeated for the hind limb, the other large, meat-bearing, part of the carcass. There is a relatively equal distribution of marks from Stage 2 and 3 activities for the lumbar and pelvic region across all sites. This would seem to indicate that there was an emphasis on meat removal from this ‘boney’ part of the carcass. Due to the awkwardness of removing meat from around the pelvis and lumbar region proportionally more marks from this category would be created, particularly if compared to meat removal from the femur for example (a simpler process as there is only one bone to deal with). However, subsequent bone breaking is also prevalent; this combination would indicate that the majority of meat was removed and then the bone was chopped into more manageable pieces, presumably for the pot. Taking into account the size of the pelvis and sacrum, this scenario would appear logical. Subsequent cooking may well have re-combined the meat and bone in the pot. As with the Romano-British period, the limb extremities were dominated by Stage 1 activities. The same comparison of Implement Use as executed for the Romano-British period was also performed for the medieval period. Tables 4.11-4.13 and Figure 4.5 below present the results of the implements used per Unit for the medieval assemblages studied.

39


Table 4.11: Implement use per Unit – Coppergate Units

Implement

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

Cleaver (%) 58 48 27 51 20 14 Large blade (%) 25 42 55 33 80 33 29 Fine blade (%) 17 10 18 16 66 57

TOTAL PER UNIT (%) 13 45 11 20 7 2 2 Total No. of cut marks 59 199 49 87 29 9 7

Table 4.12: Implement use per Unit – Laugharne Castle

Units Implement

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

Cleaver (%) 64 29 32 53 15 4 Large blade (%) 18 54 26 28 82 23 Fine blade (%) 18 17 41 19 3 100 73


Table 4.13: Implement use per Unit – Ely

Units Implement

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

Cleaver (%) 57 100 17 50 91 60 Large blade (%) 26 83 9 73 Fine blade (%) 17 50 40 27


40


Fig 4.5: Percentage Implement use per unit – medieval

41

Unit Coppergate Laugharne Ely

N=29 N=34 N=11

N=87 N=78 N=20

N=49 N=34 N=18

N=199 N=95 N=7

N=59 N=22 N=23

N=7 N=80 N=11

N=9 N=21 N=5

Cleaver = Fine Blade = Large Blade = N = Total number of implement marks per unit


The Implement Use results for the medieval sites, while generally indicating that the medieval butchers on the sites studied favoured larger blades and cleavers, do show a greater degree of variability with more indications of fine blade usage than the Romano-British sites. Despite significant differences in the proportions of butchery activity at the head and neck, the evidence from implement usage follows a similar pattern for all three sites. There is a dominance of cleaver use (approximately 60%), followed by large and fine blades (each accounting for 20%). Despite the initial disparity (i.e. the butchery activity is different for all sites, whereas the implement usage follows the same pattern) the butchery activity and implement use actually complement each other. While Stage 1 and Stage 3 activities predominate, in order to achieve the tasks involved – namely skinning, disarticulation and bone breaking – a range of tools are likely to have been needed and this is reflected in the findings for implement usage. For the ribs and thoracic spine, it is evident that large blades were favoured by the medieval butchers on the sites studied for the majority of the meat removal activity. However, as mentioned previously, there was a significant proportion of fine filleting and pot sizing, which is complemented by the indications of fine blade and cleaver use. Both fore-and-hind limbs follow a similar pattern as illustrated for the Romano-British sites with greater variability of implements to deal with Unit 3 (shoulder and fore-limb); the jointing and meat removal dealt with more easily with large blades for Unit 5 (hind limb). Cleaver use is evident to a lesser extent at both Coppergate and Laugharne which, considering that only a few chop marks would be needed to carry out gross disarticulation, this should come as no surprise. Results from Ely for Units 3 and 5 are interesting: Stage 1 dominates Unit 3, with a high proportion of large blade use, while Stage 3 is favoured for Unit 5 and dominated by cleaver use. Unfortunately, while these results contradict findings from the other sites and may indicate specialist processing, the likelihood that these results are due to sampling issues rules out in-depth interpretation. As with the head and neck, the high bone content of the lumbar and pelvis resulted in a more variable use of implements. Although cleaver use was dominant, and reinforces the findings from the Romano-British sites, ultimately this is indicative of constraints placed on the butchery process by the morphology of the carcass. The limb extremities show the highest proportion of fine blade use. This is particularly marked for Unit 6 from Laugharne, which was composed entirely of fine blade marks. The patterning within these results demonstrates how it is possible, through butchery, to gain new insight into settlement type and function. The results from Catterick, for example, presents a more general approach to butchery, which might be expected if we consider that contextually, this site (and Thornbrough in particular) would appear to have been a small town. The picture as expressed through the butchery illustrates a mixture of provisioning to meet the needs of a more diverse community than one would see in a military encampment. A similar observation can be made for the butchery Coppergate. However, this model for mixed provisioning is contrasted by the results from sites such as Cirencester and Laugharne where the evidence suggests that more focused demands resulted in a greater adherence to specific techniques.

42


4.3 Gross disarticulation and the underlying operational sequence By drawing together the various strands of evidence from both the recording and experimental phases of this project a clear and distinct operational sequence has been established, from the sites studied, for each period. These have been represented schematically in Fig 4.6 and Fig 4.7 and illustrate the main techniques of disarticulation and the subsequent carcass parts that are elicited following the cuts. Fig 4.6: Gross disarticulation and butchery sequence – Roman sites

The first main disarticulation to take place was the removal of the fore and hind limbs, these being detached from the main body of the animal, effectively leaving the rib cage, vertebrae and pelvis as a unit. It is likely that the head would have been removed before this juncture; however, there are no archaeological indications as to the precise sequence for head removal, although logistically this would have facilitated subsequent processing.

Once the limbs had been removed the carcass would have been split. However, there is some doubt as to whether this was carried out by sectioning the spine transversely first, or during a single event with the spine split axially. Ultimately, both activities would have taken place as the archaeological evidence indicates this. Once again, the issue is one of timing and establishing the order of events, although it is fair to say that both these activities occurred during ‘jointing’.

Final processing would have taken place to reduce the carcass into units that could be cooked. This phase of activity incorporated all ‘subsequent butchery’ techniques, such as meat removal, bone breaking and pot sizing. The cleaver was used extensively throughout this final phase. Furthermore, it would appear that aesthetic considerations were of little importance (splintering would have occurred with cleaver use) and that all these phases were carried out within a relatively short space of time, perhaps even as one event.

43


Fig 4.7: Gross disarticulation and butchery sequence – medieval sites

Although greater variability was noted from the medieval sites, unlike the results from the Romano-British sites it appears that splitting the carcass axially was the first major carcass division undertaken. This would have resulted in two distinct halves, either with one side retaining most of the vertebral column, or with the vertebrae left more or less as a unit as illustrated in this image.

The next major division would have been a transverse split to render four quarters. It is worth mentioning that there are indications from Coppergate that the order outlined here, with the first and second diagrams, may have been reversed. This will be discussed in greater detail at the end of this section. It is important to remember is that whatever the sequence, the resulting quarters were the underlying requirement.

As with the sequence from the Romano-British sites, final processing would have taken place to reduce the carcass into units that could be cooked. The main difference however lies in the fact that mid-to-long term storage was apparently the aim of this mode of butchery and once the carcass was quartered it was likely stored for a period. Furthermore, aesthetics were important as the knife dominates much of the ‘subsequent butchery’; the cleaver reserved for bone breaking apparently after the meat was removed.

The above has illustrated how the combination of archaeological material and modern analogues can elicit an in depth understanding of the operational sequence of butchery. The key is to realise that not all the marks recorded will lead to useful interpretation; by systematically recording and cataloguing the marks and then deciphering which are useful for establishing an operational sequence we arrive at a viable explanation for the butchery noted. This type of experimental replication (it is also important to remember that the replicated tools made a considerable contribution to understanding how the butchery was

44


performed) from archaeological remains can provide supporting evidence in order to understand the techniques involved within the carcass dismemberment process; from this it is then possible to infer the operational sequence. However, we must also be clear that not all aspects are unambiguous. For example, identifying precisely when marrow fracturing took place, considering that some disarticulation techniques involve splitting the long bones transversely, is likely to be ambiguous. The issue here is not one of whether this activity occurred; it is one of when it took place. This section has raised some comparative issues between each of these sites. I will now broaden the discussion by outlining some of the wider implications from this study; situating the findings from the butchery data in relation to other work carried out at each of the sites concerned. 5.0 Discussion Comparison of the three Romano-British sites suggests that the case for ‘systematic’ butchery observed by both Thawley (1982) and Maltby (1998) from Cirencester is supported by the results of this study, with one key addition not previously identified. The large number of well preserved butchered bones led these authors to carry out detailed appraisals of the cut marks. Thawley pointed to a comparison with modern practices, where the carcass is halved then quartered approximately at the juncture between the thoracic and lumbar vertebra. Thawley speculated a ‘hypothetical’ point of division of carcasses from Cirencester, noting that the “position of severing of the Roman carcass into fore- and hind-quarters is very difficult to determine” (Thawley 1982, 219). It can now be shown that the reason why Thawley found this division hard to decipher was because it was unlikely to have existed. With the only point of reference being a modern analogy, Thawley attempted to explain the butchery from Cirencester within the framework of how butchers might carry out the task of carcass dismemberment today. Thawley goes so far as to state the fact that modern practices rely on using an electric saw to accurately split the carcass into two equal halves. The problem is that this equal splitting in a modern context is only made feasible because of the electric saw (although it would also work with a hand held saw). As shown with the experimental replications (Fig 3.28g) when using a cleaver, the most effective way to split a carcass is on either side of the spine, not directly through it (this point is reinforced by archaeological evidence of vertebrae split on either side of the spine. This was especially true of the Romano-British cleaver, if for example, one compares using these with modern cleavers. However, although during the experimental replications the carcass was split axially, this showed that this was not the manner in which Romano-British butchers, on sites such as Cirencester, were dismembering the carcass. As illustrated previously from Cirencester (Seetah, unpub), the favoured means of femoral disarticulation involved slicing into the gluteo-bicep muscle, medially into the pelvic / femur joint, then chopping the femoral head and removing the hind limb (as opposed to hind-quarter; cf. Maltby 1998, 359 – Maltby indicates 40 such examples of chopped femoral heads from the Chester street assemblage alone). As indicated in the experimental replications above, we can see that splitting the carcass, results in the femur being disarticulated at the neck of the ilium, well above the femoral head. Thus, the sites studied from the Romano-British period would suggest that the carcass was not split at this juncture, the limbs were first removed, then the carcass was split on either side of the spine, with the flanks separated at the rib-head / thoracic vertebrae juncture. The spine was then split into smaller sections using a cleaver to cut down into the vertebrae.

45


Maltby’s (1998) study does not refer to a modern analogue and comes tantalizingly close to the same explanation as deduced from the experimental replications in the current study. His appraisal of butchery highlights three separate processes for the vertebrae, which I outline here in the order presented by Maltby (1998, 359) but with annotations to explain how they fit into the butchery sequence elicited from this study: 1. Horizontal chopping across the body of the vertebrae made during segmentation (the last process to take place). 2. Axial chopping through the body located towards the lateral processes dividing the trunk into two roughly equal halves (this would have occurred directly after removal of the limbs, the key point to note here is ‘located towards the lateral processes…’ – indicating that the chops were directed to either side of the spine, not through it). 3. Chops to the lateral processes and rib heads made during flank removal (this activity occurs after limb removal, detaching the flanks as in Fig 3.28f leaving marks on the rib heads and lateral processes of the. Catterick, whilst associated with an Antonine Fort did not in fact show a typical military signature from the analysis of its faunal assemblage (Stallibrass 2002, 398). This is perhaps less surprising when one considers that the site itself was probably more of a small town with military associations, rather than a military enclave in the same way as, for example, early deposits from Cirencester (Thawley 1982). Thornbrough illustrated a pattern of exploitation heavily dependent on cattle, with evidence for in-situ processing and consumption. Stallibrass (2002) suggests that beef constituted approximately 80% of the meat component of the diet and reports that cattle butchery was carried out in a ‘routine manner’ involving heavy blades and cleavers. These conclusions are certainly supported by the current study, the evidence for implement use indicating a dependence on larger blades and cleavers. However, Stallibrass also indicates that none of the assemblages exhibit the distinctive ‘military signature’ of marrow exploitation, typified by deposits of intensively processed long bones. This in itself partly contradicts the indications from the tools (with a greater degree of large blades / cleavers one might expect more chopping), and is a simplistic view of marrow / grease exploitation. The model that is observed from military sites indicates that marrow extraction is evidenced by axial or medial long bone fracturing (Maltby 1989). However, this is only one aspect of fat utilization. The results from the current study would suggest that while there are proportionally more indications of meat removal activity from the long bones, particularly for the forelimb, this does not preclude ‘bone nutrient exploitation’. The butchery activity data from Catterick shows that bone breaking accounts for between approximately 25% (head and neck) to almost 75% (lumbar and pelvis) as a proportion of all activity from this assemblage. Furthermore, for the long bones of the hind limb, bone breaking activity is only marginally less well represented than meat removal (47% as opposed to 53%). This contradicts Stallibrass’s conclusion regarding marrow extraction. While military enclaves might contain ‘specific deposits of intensively fractured long bone’, this may well be exceptional and unique to military sites; it should not be used as a widely applicable model for bone nutrient exploitation. Marrow cavities are not the only sources of grease and fat, cancellous bone from vertebrae and epiphyses are a good source of bone nutrients (Outram 2002, 51) and any appraisal of resource utilization must look at the carcass from a broader perspective and evaluate patterns of activity as they occur across different parts of the animal. Certainly the results for pot-sizing from this study would appear to support research indicating the importance of grease (Dobney 2001). Indeed, this may have been equally important, taking Coppergate as an example, in the medieval as well as Romano-British period.

46


The butchery data from Laugharne Castle was grouped into two main categories; bones that indicated chopping marks from cleavers, or finer incisions from knives. A third subcategory was also noted as evidenced by saw marks (Hambleton and Maltby forthcoming). Their findings clearly point to a ‘location specific’ pattern of butchery; effectively knife marks for skinning are found where one might anticipate them (astragalus, calcaneus, metapodials etc). The same is true for the location of chop marks. These are found around articular surfaces and as a result of bone nutrient extraction. These results are supported by the findings from this study whereby cleaver use predominates at the head/neck (Unit 1) and ribs / thoracic spine (Unit 2) (both high bone elements) and knife activity is favoured at the distal extremities of the limbs. Intriguingly, context 612 and other assemblages from the Inner Ward are indicative of a pattern of consumption favouring high meat joints. Furthermore, the whole process of butchery, from slaughter to secondary processing all appear to have taken place within the Inner Ward, with at least ten cattle carcasses procured and butchered (Hambleton and Maltby forthcoming). This last point is interesting, as considering the relatively remote location of the site it is likely that, in much the same way as manor houses during this period, the castle also had its own in-house, or local ‘itinerant’, butchers. Evidence from the mid-later 11th century at Coppergate once again points to a mode of butchery that was dictated by morphological constraints and emphasising quick dismemberment of the carcass into constituent parts (O’Connor 1989). In particular, there is consistent evidence of butchery of the vertebrae, both axially and transversely. O’Connor points to two indications of butchery that concur with the findings from this study. Firstly, indications for butchery of the cervical vertebrae point to pot-sizing (this study), which O’Connor refers to as preparation for the ‘stew-pot’. Secondly, the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae show evidence of transverse chopping producing joints similar to the contemporary top-rib or T-bone (O’Connor 1989). The replications illustrate exactly this type of cut and resulting meat portion. In terms of gross dismemberment, this reseach project has shown there to be at least one crucial difference in the way the carcasses were being processed on the Romano-British as opposed to the medieval sites studied. This related to butchery along and around the spine. As highlighted from Cirencester, there is substantial evidence for splitting on either side of the carcass (Thawley 1982; Maltby 1998). O’Connor’s report on the Coppergate assemblage indicates that approximately one third of the butchery in evidence on the vertebrae took place along the axial plane. He concludes that this would have accounted for division into sides of beef (O’Connor 1989). In effect both the Romano-British and medieval practices favour splitting along the mid-line; while this is to be anticipated considering that it results in a major division of the animal, it is not always the easiest butchery practice to execute with a cleaver. Although the cleaver’s ability to chop through bone makes splitting in this way possible (splitting in this manner would not be possible with a knife), it is not the most ideal tool for splitting precisely down the midline of the vertebra (thus we observe splitting on either side) compared to a saw which is much less constrained by anatomy. The problem with using a cleaver is that there is a tendency to deviate from a precisely straight line (although it can be done with practice, and experienced butchers are certainly capable of precise splitting with a cleaver). Experimentation shows that using both hands results in a straighter vertical cut (for example as with an axe); using one hand often leads to a slight curve away from the cutting (dominant) hand (i.e. a right handed butcher will tend to curve slightly to the left). As a result, cutting along the length of a cow’s vertebra is not an easy task, particularly taking into account the size of the animal (see Fig 5.1 for indications of size of a cow in

47


relation to a man, and the effectiveness of using a saw or axe for axial splitting). It would appear, that the Romano-British and medieval meat processors, from the sites studied, approached the problem of how to divide a cow carcass from different perspectives. Fig 5.1: Splitting with a saw a) and b) an axe (Ashbrook 1955, 102)

a

b

The results from the replications, and the above discussion regarding Cirencester, highlight that the Romano-British butchers on the sites studied cut the carcass in a systematic, but ‘piecemeal’ manner. Specifically, the fore and hind limbs were detached and then the carcass split, its flanks were removed, and finally the spine portioned into smaller units. O’Connor’s analysis of vertebra butchery from medieval Coppergate not only suggests that the carcass was being split into sides of beef, but also that there is no evidence to suggest that a systematic approach was being followed, indeed there is considerable variation in butchery traces pertaining to vertebrae. The same findings were concluded from the analysis of the chopped vertebra for this study, with an interesting additional observation that actually illuminates how the medieval butchers at Coppergate resolved the problem of splitting a large bovine carcass. While a number of vertebrae were split to either side, some were split directly in the middle. The key to understanding how this was achieved lay in the direction of the chops marks themselves, as evidenced from the direction in which the cancellous bone of the centrum had been broken, and in the striation marks on the cortical surface of the bones. A few thoracic vertebrae bore cut marks indicating that they had been chopped, almost exactly down the mid-line, cranial to caudal. In marked contrast, a small number of lumbar vertebrae pointed to the carcass having been chopped in the reverse direction: caudal to cranial. These subtle and easily missed differences in orientation indicate that at least in some cases the medieval butchers at Coppergate were not splitting the carcass axially first and then quartering it, as we do today; they were splitting the carcass transversely first (refer to 5.2 below). The reason for this is apparent if we consider the requirements needed to process and animal the size of a cow. By dividing the carcass transversely in two, the sections are easier to process given the available technology. Furthermore, the carcass could not be chopped from the centre of the animal to the extremities as at either end there would either be the neck, or start of the tail, making for a very unstable base through which to chop. What would be needed is a flat surface. By splitting transversely first, the medieval butcher

48


would have effectively created just such a ‘flat base’ so that the carcass could be held vertically on a table. The butcher would be chopping in a cranial-to-caudal fashion for the thoracic vertebrae and caudal-to-cranial for the lumbar (arrowed in 5.2 below). Fig 5.2: Transverse followed by axial splitting

Taking into account the variation noted from this assemblage, it is likely that other quartering / gross dismemberment techniques were employed; however, to my knowledge this method has not been proposed before and seems suitable for dealing with the particular problems of butchering a large carcass. While the parallels seen in splitting the carcass on either side of the spine are apparent from both Romano-British and medieval sites, other similarities are evident in the way the rib fragments have been butchered to a consistent size for cooking. Both of these similarities would be anticipated considering the problems associated with butchering a large carcass and dealing with carcass parts that have valuable nutrition but will not fit into a small-medium pot. The differences between these periods are more evident; there is a greater emphasis on cleaver butchery from the Romano-British sites, which is reversed on the medieval sites. Knives were used for jointing and disarticulation to a greater degree on the medieval sites, this distinction being particularly evident when comparing the fore and hind limbs. While on the Romano-British sites there was a high occurrence of meat removal, the same units from the medieval sites suggest an equally strong bias towards gross disarticulation. This would actually support the conclusions reached above (Fig 4.6 and Fig 4.7) that differentiate between piecemeal disarticulation on the Romano-British sites, as opposed to quartering on the medieval sites. The fact that during the former, there was a tendency to remove the limbs means they are easier to manipulate, and thus could be boned out, hence resulting in proportionally more meat removal marks. Quartering the carcass facilitates initial dismemberment; however, the individual elements of the fore limb still need to be disarticulated, thus leaving a higher proportion of disarticulation cut marks. These outcomes have raised some interesting questions that can briefly be explored here, and should provide a suitable starting point for further research. Firstly, if we accept that the medieval cleaver was a sharp and adept tool, it is therefore surprising that it was not used more extensively for disarticulation (contrast with use of the Romano-British cleaver) and seems to have been reserved for further processing in the form of bone breaking and pot sizing activity. This may have related to aesthetic considerations, or the specific demand for meat without bone splinters (roasts etc). Secondly, from the sites studied there is evidence to suggest that there are different ‘modes’ of butchery from each period, i.e. quartering on medieval sites, vs. piece meal disarticulation on the

49


Romano-British site. This raises an important question: what are the implications on a trade level for these modes of butchery? It could be speculated that the Roman meat processors favoured techniques that resulted in more immediate consumption (or curing).Conversely, the sites studied might suggest that the medieval butchers intended to keep the carcass in a large ‘portion’ for reasons of mid to –long term storage (or maturing of the meat). Future research will show whether these assumptions hold true more generally, and even highlight other fundamental aspects of the butchery process for each of these periods. 6.0 Conclusions This paper has demonstrated the depth of information available to the archaeologist from butchery data. The crucial component has been to identify the intricately connected association between implements and the cut marks. By combining the interpretation of these two data strands it has been possible to gain a clearer account of both the technical aspects of the butchery processes, and the principles that underpin the activity observed from the archaeology. This approach has allowed important contributions to be made at a number of levels: from improving out basic knowledge of which techniques of butchery were being favoured, to detailing the ‘mode’ of disarticulation in use, and subsequently informing us about the wider implications that the specific butchery pattern played on the sites in question. It has been possible to develop the comparative framework that was a key objective of this paper and use this to contrast sites and periods. The methodology employed in this research has allowed for intricate details regarding butchery (and associated material culture) to be deciphered. In the future this line of evidence would be most applicable in debates regarding alimentation, commoditisation, knowledge transfer (associated with techniques of butchery), and the symbolic value of food. The details of the butchery sequence, and tools used, could serve as an important proxy for transitions in cultural and ethnic identity and be employed to address how groups react to changes in their environmental, economic, and social landscape. Butchery is the focus of much zooarchaeological research and the method and results outlined here will not only interconnect on a number of levels with current research, but also facilitate future work on the subject. Because of the specific nature of butchery data, the approach outlined in this paper, i.e. from two separate perspectives analysing the implements used as well as the cut marks, may provide a viable option for advancing the study of butchery cut marks. This is not the normal analytical framework; multiple data lines are recorded in zooarchaeology, but each parameter is recorded in isolation, butchery analysis cannot be studied in the same way. The methodology developed and pioneered in this research project provides a means by which multiple strands of evidence can be brought together from the initial stages of analysis, and is therefore able to draw inference directly from the archaeology. The methodology itself can be manipulated in order to fit the remit of other analysts working within different spatial and chronological situations, and it can easily be amalgamated into other recording systems. It provides an important addition to, and develops, existing techniques for studying cut marks from a practical as well as theoretical standpoint.

50


7.0 Bibliography Aird, P. M. (1985). On distinguishing butchery from other post-mortem destruction: a methodological experiment applied to a faunal sample from Roman Lincoln. Palaeobiological Investigation. N. R. Fieller, D. D. Gilbertson and N. G. Ralph. Oxford, BAR International Series. 266: 5-35. Amour-Chelu, M. J. (1992). Vertebrate resource exploitation, ecology and taphonomy in Neolithic Britain, with special reference to the sites of Noltland, Etton and Maiden Castle. Institute of Archaeology & British Museums. London, UCL. Ashbrook, F. G. (1955). Butchering, processing and preservation of meat. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Astill, G. (1998). Medieval and later: composing an agenda. Science in Archaeology: an agenda for the future. J. Bayley. London, English Heritage: pp. 168-179. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New York, Academic Press. Church, P. N. and J. M. Wood (1992). The manual of manufacturing meat quality. London, Elsevier Applied Science. Court, F. A. (1989). “Seam butchery - 'continental style'.”. Creative Butcher 1: 4-6. Cowgill, J., M. D. Neergaard, et al. (2001). Knives and scabbards. London, Museum of London. Dobney, K. (2001). A place at the table: the role of vertebrate zooarchaeology within a Roman research agenda for Britain. Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. S. James and M. Millett. York, CBA Research Report. 125: 36-46. FAO (1991). Guidelines for slaughter, meat cutting and further processing. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. Gerrard, F. (1946). Meat technology. London, Leonard Hill. Hambleton, E. and J. M. Maltby (forthcoming). Animal bones from medieval contexts at Laugharne Castle, Dyfed, CADW. Jones, P. R. (1980). “Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for palaeolithic archaeology.” World Archaeology 12(2): 153-165. Jones, R. T., P. Langley, et al. (1985). The animal bones from the 1977 excavations. Excavations at Brancaster 1974 and 1977. J. Hinchcliffe and C. S. Green. Norfolk, East Anglian Archaeological Report: 23. Maltby, J. M. (1989). Urban and rural variation in the butchery of cattle in Romano-British Hampshire. Diets and Crafts in Towns. D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron. Oxford, BAR Brit: 75-107.

51


Maltby, J. M. (1998). Animal bones from Romano-British deposits in Cirencester. Cirencester: the Roman town defences, public buildings and shops. N. Holbrook. Cirencester, Cotswold Archaeological Trust. Manning, W. H. (1985). Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum. London, British Museum Publications Limited. O'Connor, T. P. (1989). Bones from Anglo-Scandanavian levels at 16-22 Coppergate. York, CBA. Outram, A. (2002). Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an experimentally based method for investigating levels of marrow extraction. Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. P. Miracle and N. Milner. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 51-65. Ranken, M. D. (2000). Handbook of meat production technology. London, Blackwell Scientific. Rixson, D. (1988). “Butchery evidence on animal bones.” Circaea 6(1): 49-62. Sadek-Kooros, H. (1972). “Primitive bone fracturing: a method of research.” American Antiquity 37(3): 369-382. Seetah, K.(nd). Techniques and implement use in Romano-British butchery. Unpub. Masters Thesis. Bournemouth University. Stallibrass, S. (2002). An overview of the animal bones: what would we like to know, what do we know so far, and where do we go from here? Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997. P. R. Wilson. Yorkshire, CBA Research Reports 129: 392-415. Stanford, D., R. Bonnichsen, et al. (1981). “The Ginsberg experiment: modern and prehistoric evidence of bone flaking technology.” Science 212: 434-440. Swatland, H. J. (2000). Meat cuts and muscle foods. Nottingham, Nottingham University Press. Thawley, C. R. (1982). The animal remains. Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester. J. Wacher and A. D. Whirr. Cirencester, Cirencester Evacuation Committee: 211-227. van-Wijngaarden-Bakker, L. H. (1990). Replication of butchery marks on pig mandibles. Experiment and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology. D. E. Robinson. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 167-174. Wood, T. B. and L. F. Newman (1928). Beef production in Great Britain. Liverpool, Silcock & Sons. Yalden, D. (1999). The history of British mammals. London, T & A D Poysner Ltd.

52

the importance of cut placement and implement signatures to butchery...

Documents