1973 uerpmann animal bone finds and economic archaeology, a critical study of osteoarchaeological...

8/9/2019 1973 Uerpmann Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology, A Critical Study of Osteoarchaeological Method

1/17

Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A Critical Study of 'Osteo-Archaeological'MethodAuthor(s): Hans-Peter UerpmannReviewed work(s):Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 4, No. 3, Theories and Assumptions (Feb., 1973), pp. 307-322Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124190 .Accessed: 01/12/2012 06:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized us er from 192.168.72.228 on Sa t, 1 Dec 2012 06:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/124190?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/124190?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/17

n i m a l o n e f i n d s n d e o n o m i archaeologyc r i t i c a l s t u d y o osteo-archaeological e t h o d

Hans-Peter Uerpmann

i Introduction

Prehistoric archaeology and Quaternary palaeontology were originally closely related, butin time they diverged from their common origin and interest was lost by those working inprehistoric archaeology in the results of palaeontological studies, and vice versa. Thissituation has changed since I950: prehistorians have become interested in the backgroundto archaeological phenomena, and advances have been made in the methods and contentof palaeontology, with particular emphasis placed on the study of domesticated animals.

The first serious attempts to extract socio-economic information from archaeologicalfinds were made in Eastern Europe and most of the methodology of modern 'osteo-

archaeology' stems from this initial period (e.g. Kubasiewicz 1956; Paaver 1958). Today,the potential of these studies is appreciated in Western Europe too, and recent work ondomesticated animals deals with both cultural and economic history. In Britain in par-ticular, specialised palaeo-economic studies have been published (e.g. Higham I967;I969; Jarman I97I), but so far, these only cover some aspects of the subject's potential.

This paper will describe how the study of animal bones from archaeological sites maycontribute to our knowledge of cultural and economic history. The theory and method-

ology of 'osteo-archaeology' will be examined critically so that archaeologists can assessthe reliability of analyses of a material with which they are basically unfamiliar.

2 Reconstructing economic history from archaeological bone finds: thetheoretical basis

Although all animal bones recovered in excavation may be used for palaeontology, onlythose found under certain conditions can be used for studies of palaeo-economy. Theobvious condition is that the material must be the result of human activity, i.e. not thework of predators or simply the remains of dead animals. If the results of analysis are tobe meaningful the material must also meet the following requirements:

Context

It is vital that the bones should be from primary deposits. Bones which have been

redeposited or are found on the surface should not be included in the material to be

analysed. Another difficulty which all excavators must face is to distinguish between'living floor' deposits and levels which accumulated over a long period of time. Clearly,

This content downloaded by the authorized u ser from 192.168.72.228 on Sa t, 1 Dec 2012 06:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

308 Hans-Peter Uerpmann

any palaeo-economic interpretation will only reflect the mean economic activities carriedout during the whole period of accumulation of a deposit.

Excavations

Since the material must be assignable to narrow time horizons, bones must be treatedwith at least as much attention as other finds during excavation. Since palaeo-economicstudies are based on quantitative analysis, they will not be meaningful if the materialstudied has been selected.

The nature of the excavation may also limit the usefulness of the bone material, forexample if excavation is restricted to those areas where a single complex of material is tobe expected. This applies to most sites. The partial excavation of a site does not provide,in a

statistical sense, a representative sample. However, such a sample may be approxi-mated by including material from trenches laid out beyond the main excavation area.The size of the sample must also be examined in order to decide whether a quantitative

analysis is worth while. The study of the extensive bone material from the Celticoppidum of Manching summarized by Boessneck et al. (I97I) showed that if the bonematerial from each season's work was treated as a separate sample, differences in thecomposition of their material were greater than would be expected for this sample sizeon statistical grounds alone. This shows that absolute sample size by itself is of lessimportance in osteo-archaeology than in some other statistical studies because of archaeo-logical sampling procedures. Using statistical methods, several attempts have been made

to calculate the error likely in relating a sample of a given size to the total material, butthis is only applicable to representative samples. A simple example illustrates how diffi-cult this calculation can be in osteo-archaeology: on a prehistoric site, the bone debris inliving areas will consist of small, inconspicuous fragments, whereas larger remains willbe found in refuse dumping areas. If, therefore, the excavation is limited to the livingarea, bones of small animals will predominate, if limited to refuse areas, those of largeanimals. These errors cannot be estimated by mathematical procedures. The calculationof the 'statistical error' of a sample will confuse the reader into thinking that all economicactivities of the inhabitants of the site were carried out within the excavated area.

Excavators intending to study the animal bone material from their sites in terms of

economy must consider these factors when laying out the area to be excavated.

Zoological identificationThis is the only stage of the osteologist's work which the archaeologist cannot control(unless specially trained). Errors in identification - e.g. failing to distinguish betweendeer and domesticated cattle - are found in the literature and have resulted in falseinterpretations. After their initial analysis the bones should therefore be accessible forre-examination by other specialists. This applies to pure palaeontological studies too, butin palaeo-economy, there is far greater incentive to identify the maximum number of

bones. The portion of the material identified, which can be called its 'degree of identifica-tion', is an important indication of the likely accuracy of the results of any study. Forexample, of the I2,000 pieces of bone recovered in excavation from the cave of HauaFteah, North Africa, 5,000 were identified according to species (Higgs i967). The degree




4/17

Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological' method 309

of identification of the material is therefore about 42%. Should the composition of theunidentified portion differ from that of the identified (Higg's fig. II, i does in fact suggestthis) the results of the analysis would differ greatly from the true composition of thematerial. The otherwise well-constructed framework of Higg's ecological and climato-logical theories are therefore seen to have a rather shaky foundation. However, Higgspublished his work in a form that makes it possible for others to test his findings: manyother authors do not specify the unidentified portion of their material.

The state of preservation of the material may limit identification below that necessaryfor obtaining reliable results. Even so, there has been a tendency to ignore many identi-fiable fragments because they would not contribute to the essentially qualitative aims ofpure palaeontological research. However, for palaeo-economy, more work, bettercomparative collections and more detailed anatomical methods are required. In the older

literature, frequencies of individual species are usually based on numbers of jaw bones orother easily identified bones, and the numerical reliability of these statements was notconsidered. This means that results from different sites cannot be compared since theirrespective accuracy cannot be controlled.

The complete qualitative analysis of bone material is sometimes prevented by badpreservation of the bone, the lack of comparative material, or the lack of time. However,these factors should not prevent the classification of unidentified bones according toanimal size. Most bones are fairly easily attributable to large animals (cattle, horse, largedeer etc.), medium (smaller ruminants, wolves, dogs etc.), and small (small dogs, cats,hares etc.). Groups of very large (elephant, rhinoceros etc.), or very small animals(rodents etc.) can be added if appropriate. These size groups can then be treated asstatistical units, each including the corresponding identified bones. The identified piecesare then samples of each unit and may be accepted as representative samples since thestate of preservation of animal bones is largely determined by the initial size of the pieces.This means that, for example, a wolf bone is as likely to remain identifiable as a sheepbone; and that a cow bone can be broken down into many more retrievable - but atypical- fragments. On a statistical basis, the quantitative findings from the identified bonescan be related to the entire group. Careful amalgamation of the various results can revealthe overall composition of the material. Ducos has proposed a similar method forquantifying animal bone finds (Ducos 1:968: 6 ff.).

In summary, one can say that in addition to its actual quantity, animal bone materialwhich is to be used for a study of economic history must comply with certain conditions.A critical examination is needed of all the factors which might have affected any of thematerial: disturbance during burial, extent of the area excavated, care taken duringexcavation and anatomical identification - none of these factors should have been allowedto bias the composition of the material. Both pre-burial selection and the disintegration ofburied bone are serious problems in these studies: they will be dealt with below.

3 Osteo-archaeological methods and interpretations

As described in the previous section, the analysis of animal bones for economic historyconsists of dividing the material into inter-relatable parts. The first division, on the basis




5/17

3IO Hans-Peter Uerpmann

of identified/non-identified bone pieces, has already been described. In some cases,however, the relationship between identified and unidentified fragments can itself be an

indication of some economic aspect; for example, if the degree of identification is excep-tional and is related to economic activities. From Switzerland (Schmid I964) andSouthern Germany we know of Mesolithic bone debris which is particularly shattered.Schmid (I964: 93) attributes this to intensive marrow extraction; Stampfli (unpublishedmanuscript) relates the similar condition of Neolithic bone debris to the use of bone as araw material in tool production. Both economic inferences are based on the unusuallylow degree of identification of the bone material.

Further subdivision of the material will depend on the osteologist; it is usually madeon the basis of species, and is intended for a quantitative analysis. The various frames ofreference are as follows:

(a) The quantification of animal bone inds

This is a method for obtaining information on the economic importance of the different

species to the inhabitants of the site. Just how this is reflected in the bone debris iscontroversial. Find frequency is often equated with economic importance, but this

ignores factors other than butchering that can affect the numbers of bones of different

species found. Further, the economic importance may not be great simply because thenumber of animals butchered is high. For example, in the Mesolithic levels of the GrandAbri at Chateauneuf-les-Martigues (Ducos 1958), rabbit bones are found in considerablenumbers and rabbit-hunting was surely a principal occupation of the inhabitants of thecave. Yet the meat of ruminants contributed more to their diet even if the bones of theseanimals are less frequently represented in the bone debris (Clason 197I). The value of acount of bone pieces per species is limited by the different meat quantity represented byeach species and the nature of the fragmentation of its bones. Neither Ducos (i968) norPerkins (I97I) has overcome these difficulties; Perkins suggests that osteologists choosefor analysis only those bones which are not affected by cultural activities But all analy-sable material is incorporated in a deposit as a result of cultural activities, and in theabsence of a uniform, methodological basis, this approach cannot be expected to produce

comparableresults.

All the difficulty of determining the economic importance of different species might beovercome if a better system of quantification, such as Kubasiewicz's weighing method,were used. The principle of this method (Kubasiewicz 1956) is that the palaeo-arcticmammals which played a part in prehistoric man's economy, all show a distinct corre-lation of bone to flesh weight. Therefore, weighing all the bones of one species shouldprovide quantitative results more directly related to meat weight than could be obtainedby counting the bones. The degree of fragmentation does not affect the accuracy of thesemeasurements. Kubasiewicz (I956) calculated the meat weights from the bone weights ofdifferent species using empirical values for their relationship. The proportions of species

judged by the bone and the meat weights are virtually identical. In fact, since the meatweights are hypothetical and only represent a part of the meat consumed on the site (seebelow), it is possible to ignore their calculation and to use bone weight proportions directlyfor determining the contribution of different species to the diet of the site occupants.




6/17

Animal bone inds and economic archaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological' method 31

Some criticisms of this method of relevance to osteo-archaeology may be mentioned.First, the biological assumptions of the method may be questioned. Modern do-

mesticated animals show racial or individual variation in the ratio of bone to meat weight,and some domesticated species have produced breeds with different relative boneweight. But in pre- or proto-historic times, the variation in heavy and light boned breedswas probably less marked than at present and at worst, such error is likely to be small.Variation between individuals would not affect the weights since one is always dealingwith bones from many animals.

A second objection to the use of this method concerns burial conditions. It is knownthat buried bones can change their specific weight; thus, if burial conditions are notuniform throughout a site, incorrect results may be obtained by weighing the bones.However, the average specific weight of bones of different species (or other portions of

the material) can be established by sampling, and the results then corrected. Alternatively,the material from areas with distinct burial conditions can be treated separately; suchunits will often correspond with archaeological units. At present, it is the careful

application of this method that can give most information on the importance of differentspecies in prehistoric economy and diet.

As mentioned above, the relative importance of an animal species in an economy ordiet is not the same as the frequency of its slaughter or butchering due to the differentmeat quantities involved for different species. The slaughter frequencies are related to the

type of stockbreeding practised (see below) and can therefore be typical of a given culture.Most osteologists use the so-called 'minimum number of individuals' to establish these

frequencies. The validity of this concept has already been criticized in detail (e.g. PaaverI958; Ducos 1968; Ambros I969; Uerpmann I97Ia; Perkins I97I); its past and currentuse will now be discussed briefly.

The calculation of the minimum number of individuals involves deciding which bonescould be from the same animal. Subjectivity in making this decision (especially whendealing with different parts of the skeleton) can be eliminated by counting only the mostfrequently represented bones and including others only when it is quite clear that theanimals they represent are not included in the first count (i.e. on objective criteria of ageetc.). In extensive collections, the most frequently occurring bone usually represents theentire range of a species and the calculation of the minimum number of individuals will

be based on this bone alone. Such results will not be comparable with those from smallercollections of material, since the smaller the number of finds the more closely this willapproach the 'minimum number of individuals', until ultimately, with a single find, boththe find number and the 'minimum number of individuals' for the species are i. Thedifference between number of finds and 'minimum number of individuals' increases asthe size of the sample increases. Therefore, since almost all collections will include somespecies represented by many, and others represented by few finds, the 'minimumnumber' calculated for the various species will not be comparable. In many publications,species represented by few finds are over-represented in the proportions of the minimumnumbers of individuals. It is important, therefore, that only the minimum numbers ofindividuals calculated from similar sized bone samples are considered. It must be madequite clear that the 'minimum number of individuals' is not the same as the 'number ofindividuals'.




7/17


The use of the minimum number of individuals for calculating meat quantities is

permissible but every error will be cumulative. The relative meat quantities can be more

directly calculated by the weighing method previously discussed. It would be useful tocheck one method against the other, but, because the units of measurement involved arenot the same, cross-checking is, in fact, difficult. A conversion could be calculated asdescribed above, using an empirical value for the meat quantity per individual of a

species. However, empirical values taken from modern domestic animals cannot accom-modate variations in the size and meat yield of prehistoric animals which are oftenconsiderable.

Recent attempts to determine the weight of an animal from its skeletal build are verypromising (Matolcsi 1970; Noddle 1971). Noddle's method - based on bone measure-ments - is more useful in osteo-archaeology than Matolcsi's. This is based on the

absolute weight of metapodia and so is sensitive to alterations in the weight of buriedbones. Studies carried out to date suggest that it will be possible to calculate the weightof an animal, using only measurements of its bones, as soon as the necessary empiricalinvestigations of all species of interest are completed. It will then be possible to convertthe proportions of meat weights - obtained by using the weighing method - into pro-portions of individuals (Uerpmann I97ib).

(b) The age and sex determination of animals chosen or slaughter

Methods for determining the age of the animals represented by different bones are fullydescribed in the literature, both basic techniques (e.g. Habermehl 1961; Silver I969),and special procedures (e.g. Klevesal and Kleinenberg 1967; Hatting 1969). Habermehl'swork is particularly important for palaeo-economic analyses since he deals with bothdomesticated and wild animals.

Two methods of age determination are particularly relevant to osteo-archaeology. Thefirst is based on jaw-bones, the second, on the state of the epiphyses of certain bones. Afairly accurate determination is only possible if the jaw-bones are well preserved, or if thefusion of the epiphyses can be seen to be under way. In all other cases, the bones canonly be said to be from animals above or below a certain age. The problems of applyingquantitative analysis are illustrated by this example: Fusion of the epiphyses of extremitybones of domesticated pigs occurs in three main stages at i, 2 and 32 years of age (e.g.Silver I969: 285, table A), at i year: the shoulder and pelvic bones, distal extremity ofhumerus, proximal extremity of radius and second phalange; at 2 years: distal extremityof tibia and metapodia, proximal extremity of first phalanges; at 3-1 years: proximalextremity of humerus, femur, ulna and tibia; distal extremity of radius, ulna and femur.Extremity bones with these epiphyses therefore indicate whether the animal representedhad passed the above stages. In classifying the bones according to age the minimumnumber of individuals is determined for each extremity bone with (A) open epiphyses or(B) fused epiphyses. One can then relate A and B (the minimum number of individualsbelow and above the

agein

consideration), e.g.A x I00: A + B. This

equation givesthe

percentage of animals slaughtered before reaching that particular age. The proportionsshould be similar for bones at the same fusion stage from different parts of the skeleton:for minor differences, an average can be calculated. Major differences, possibly due to




8/17

Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological' method 3I3

different conditions of preservation or human interference, must be studied in moredetail since they can preclude the application of this method.

A simpler method is to count all bones relatable to each stage, both below and abovethe age it represents (e.g. all tibia, metapodia and first phalanges on which the epiphyseswhich fuse at two years are either fused or open). This gives the number of bones fromanimals (a) under i year and (b) over i year for the first stage; similarly (c) and (d) for the2-year stage; (e) and (f) for the 3k-year stage. If both epiphyses of a bone are recognized,both must be counted. It is important to note that (c) will also include (a) and corres-pondingly (e) includes both (c) and (a), i.e. bones of animals aged less than 2 years andi year respectively. Taking this into account, one can calculate the percentage of finds ofanimals under i year, between i and 2 years, between 2 and 3? years and over 32 yearsof age. Individuals represented by several bones will be counted several times in their

age groups. This will distort the results unless sufficient material is analysed so that over-representation of individual animals will not cause significant distortion. For smallsamples, it is necessary to work with the minimum number of individuals.

With appropriate modifications, this method can be applied to the bones of otheranimals (Uerpmann I97Ia: 76). The more gradual fusion of epiphyses occurring in manystages in other species creates a major difficulty since the number of bones assigned toeach stage will be small and the errors inherent in working with small numbers willreduce the credibility of the results. Usually, good quantitative results can only beobtained by studying large bodies of material.

The quantification of jaw-bones of determinable age is easier than dealing with epi-physes since the age groups of animals represented by well-preserved jaw-bones areclearly distinguishable. The minimum numbers of individuals calculated for each agegroup can be related to each other.

In sexing animals from their bones, identification is a greater problem than quantifica-tion. Pig jaws are most easily identified since the development of the canine is sexuallydetermined. Thus, a combination of age and sex determination is possible with pigbones. For ruminants, horn-cores, pelvic bones and metapodia may be sexed, but heresex-determination is subject to different degrees of possible accuracy. The sex of sheepand goats is clearly reflected in either the horn-cores or the frontal bones of hornlessanimals but quantification is difficult because of differential preservation. For example,female goat horn-cores are harder and more resistant than those of males and are betterpreserved. They will consequently be overvalued. With sheep, females are often hornlessand surviving, identifiable female bones (frontals) are not really comparable with those ofmales. Even if only frontal bones were counted, male sheep would be over-representeddue to the heavy structure of their skulls. Different problems are encountered in sexingcattle bones: growth variability, the presence of young animals, and the practice ofcastration obscure the sexually determined differences between horn-cores of adultmales and females. Knecht (X966) has shown how castration affects the sex-determinationof horn cores.

Pelvic bones are a better basis for the sex determination of ruminants.Boessneck,Muiiller nd Teichert (I964: 78 ff.) have described the relevant criteria for sheep and goat

bones and Lemppenau (i964) those for other central European ruminants. Althoughcastration complicates the sex determination of pelvic bones too, the advantage of using




9/17


these bones is that preservation is equal for both sexes. The minimum number ofindividuals is then readily calculated for both sexes and can be related. The criteria for

the sex determination of the sacral bone of the smaller central European ruminants areto be found in Boessneck and Meyer-Lemppenau (I966).

The differences between male and female horn-cores and pelvic bones are secondarysexual characteristics but those recognized in the metapodia of ruminants are tertiary,related to the greater body weight of male animals. The former develop with the repro-ductive functions of the animals, the latter appear later. It is therefore extremely difficultto determine the sex of animals on the basis of metapodia. In domesticated ruminantsthe distal epiphyses fuse between 2 and 2z years and no further objective age determina-tion of metapodia is possible. Thus, sub-adults (i.e. animals of 2-4 years), are not dis-

tinguishable. This is the stage at which sexual dimorphism is not completely developed,especially with prehistoric cattle which were slow to mature, so that broadening of themetapodia of bulls occured mainly in the fourth year. There is therefore no adequatebasis for distinguishing between male and female metapodia even without the admixtureof bones of castrated animals (see Mennerich 1968). Higham and Message's successfulsex determination of metacarpals of cattle from Troldebjerg is an exceptional case

(Higham and Message I969). Their study was favoured by the small number of identified

bones, the uniformity of the isolated island cattle population (see Uerpmann 197Ia), andthe large size of the cattle. (It is known that considerable size reduction of domesticatedcattle involves a decrease in sexual dimorphism.) However, on many European mainlandsites, sex determination of many of the metapodia and consequently the quantification ofidentified bones has presented problems. Studies of the metapodia of modern cattle (e.g.Boessneck I956; Zalkin I960; Fock I966; Mennerich i968; Higham I969; Matolcsi

I970) have not solved this problem but have confirmed the feasibility of determining thesex of the animals represented by metapodia. Similarly many sheep bones must remainundetermined due to the overlapping variation of male and female metapodia. Zalkin

(196I) and Haak (I965) have published studies on modern sheep material. Clear sexual

dimorphism is seen in the metapodia of goats by the time the epiphyses fuse and identi-fication is therefore usually possible. A study of modern material - with a different bias -

has been published by Schramm (I967). The metapodia of wild ruminants can usually beidentified according to sex: the basis of identification is the work of Bosold

(i968).

(c) The correlation of archaeological bone inds with prehistoric stock-breeding ractices

Osteo-archaeology is expected to contribute to economic history because animal bonedebris can indicate both the species of slaughtered animals and the stock-breedingpractices of prehistoric people. So far, the latter has received little attention.

There is definitely no absolutely direct relationship between stock-breeding practicesand bone remains. There are at least two processes by which herded animals become bonedebris: firstly, living, breeding populations are slaughtered; second, the skeletons become

debris (in several stages). As shown above, under favourable conditions the secondprocess can be followed; but is it possible to recognize the first? Higham, who has studied

prehistoric stock-breeding very thoroughly, apparently denies the existence of the

primary transition and relates the results of the second process (viz. bone debris) directly




10/17


to stock-breeding practice. He overlooks the fact that this is only true in very specialsituations, i.e. where the entire animal population kept by the occupants of the site was

slaughtered and is represented by bone material on the site. The existence of this situationwill be difficult to prove because so many cultural factors operate against it. It wouldhave to be established for each site and for each level.

One cannot, therefore, expect the osteologist to decide whether the population of

slaughtered animals he is dealing with is in fact representative of the stock-breedingpractice of the site's inhabitants. An extreme example of the discrepancy which mayoccur between the amount of meat consumed and the extent of cattle breeding is seenwith the Masai of East Africa: for them, the former is minimal, the latter highly de-

veloped. But by using all the techniques available to archaeology one may hope tocontribute towards an understanding of stock-breeding practices from the analysis ofbone remains of slaughtered stock. In so doing, two important questions must beanswered. First: what type of occupation is involved - was the site used only for certainactivities; if it was a settlement, was occupation seasonal, or all year round, or of varyingintensity at different times of the year? Second: what was the socio-economic status of the

community living there - does the site represent an independent economic unit, or partof a unit, or part of a larger system?

If it is possible to say that the intensity of occupation was more or less constant

throughout the year and that the site was inhabited by an independent economic unit,then it is permissible to infer the nature of the stock-breeding from an analysis of theanimal bones. If, however, intensity of occupation is known to have varied seasonally,the animals slaughtered during periods of greatest occupation will be dominant, those

slaughtered at other times will not even be found at the site. Similarly, sites occupied bygroups which are part of a large economic system, where meat or animal exchange occurs,will - depending on their function - either include bones of animals bred elsewhere andconsumed on the site, and/or lack of bones of animals bred there and consumed else-where. The results of Miiller's study of the exchange of animals between a medieval

village and its manor are of considerable interest (Miiller I97I), but it is seldom possibleto illuminate complex economic systems in this way. Most excavated sites are not easilyidentified as independent units or as parts of larger, unknown systems. Similarly, deci-sions about the

regularityof intense

occupationare not

easilymade.

Highamand

Messagehave claimed that the stock-breeding pattern of every prehistoric site can be established

(Higham and Message I969: 3 5); it would be more realistic to say that under favourableconditions the pattern of slaughter can be established.

It is only possible to estimate the composition of the stock reared by a group if thenature of the occupation and the economic status of the group do not affect the selectionof animals for slaughter. Determination of the age and sex of the bones can then indicatethe criteria for selecting animals for slaughter. This is an important aspect of the

economy, one which can, if used sensibly, reveal the background to economic behaviour.The use made of domesticated animal species will be reflected by their age of slaughter

since each use is characterized by an optimal slaughter age. For example, with animalsbred for meat, this optimal age is at the transition from the juvenile to the sub-adult stagewhen rapid growth has ceased and the meat output no longer increases relative to thefood input. This knowledge was basic to past as well as to modern stock-breeders.




11/17


In central and Western Europe, the optimal slaughter ages for animals reared for theirmeat were approximately: pigs IX years, cattle 2-3? years, small ruminants I-2 years.

Thus if the bones representing these ages are dominant, the animals were probably bredfor meat. Any variation from the above slaughter ages indicates some other, moreobscure use to which the animals were put. The large-scale slaughter of young animals isthe most difficult to interpret: it could be due to the scarcity or over-abundance of meat,or ignorance of stock-breeding principles, but most often it can be taken to indicatevariation in the nature or intensity of occupation. Should the major part of the material

represent a slaughter age above that quoted here, the living animals were probably usedfor milk or wool production, for labour or as items of social or cult significance. Thedetermination of the sex of bones is important if these functions are to be considered.

Living animals are often exploited differentially according to their sex. Where use is

connected with reproduction, more females are needed than males, e.g. for milk pro-duction. Adult males are not needed since sub-adult males are at the best age for provid-ing meat and can ensure continued breeding. When bred for milk production, femaleswill have a high slaughter age while most males of the same species will be slaughtered ata lower age to provide meat. The value of male animals is often limited even for functions

independent of sex, e.g. wool production. This is due to the aggression shown by maleanimals to each other and to humans; many males are consequently slaughtered orcastrated. Evidence of castration therefore indicates the use of living animals for purposesnot determined by their sex, for example for wool production, as prestige possessions oras a measure of value. This does not apply to pig, since the meat of uncastrated males has

a poor flavour. Low numbers of young animals of both sexes and evidence of castrationcharacterize these uses. Theoretically it should be possible to recognize the use of animalsfor labour from bone remains, since adult males (sometimes castrated) are more highlyvalued than females. In practice, however, this age/sex composition rarely occurs, sincelabour is often subsidiary to other uses. Bone material from highly developed militaryinstallations would perhaps be of this composition.

(d) The meat value of bones and bone distribution n excavated areas

Osteo-archaeology has not made full use of the spatial distribution of bone materialwithin an excavated site. The analysis of the distribution would be in the form of maps,on which all material can be located. A subdivision of the material according to thequantity of meat that bones carry could be useful in this context.

The quantity and quality of meat on different bones will vary. In order to estimate theirmeat value, bones can be classified in three grades:

A: the vertebral column (excluding the tail), upper leg bones, and bones of the shoulderand pelvic girdle: these are muscular parts of the body with high value meat;

B: the lower leg bones and skull (with brain and jaw musculature) and mandible (jawmusculature and tongue), ribs and sternum: medium value meat;

C: face bones, tail, feet (including ankle joints): lowest value meat.

In order to be able to compare grades the bones of each species are classified accordingto this system within the excavated areas. Recognition is therefore possible of areas with




12/17


remains of the highest value meat, and those with bones of minimal value which were

probably discarded during butchering. Excavators can contribute towards this analysis

by giving the exact find-spot for every bone. The osteologist can then establish thedistribution of bones unaffected by the choice of areas excavated. The extra work thisinvolves for the excavator is certainly justified by the information obtained on economicand culture history. This is shown by the work of both Soergel (1969) and Stampfli(I966; I97I), although they do not include meat value classification.

Kubasiewicz (I956) has shown that differences in the distribution of meat values invarious areas of pre- or protohistoric sites can provide indices of cultural or social

diversity. The meat value determination per area unit is therefore important for a func-tional interpretation of an excavated site. A system of classification, e.g. as described inthis paper, is indispensable if objective results are to be had. The parts into which the

material is divided can be measured in weight or, if the degree of fragmentation isconstant throughout the excavated area, the bones may be counted.

(e) The methods of palaeo-zoology and their relevance to palaeo-economy

Work on animal bones has tended to develop in two directions: some studies follow anarchaeological approach where important palaeo-zoological methods are not applied; onthe other hand, some studies with a zoological bias fail to deal adequately with aspects ofarchaeological interest. This polarization of palaeo-zoological studies is regrettable, butof the two extremes, the former is least acceptable since in these studies, information onthe animal per se is thought to be uninteresting. This neglect of qualitative aspects byarchaeologists is particularly disturbing. On the other hand, the lists and tables of a goodpalaeo-zoological publication will contain all the data necessary for an economic interpre-tation. Because domesticated animals are artefacts, the palaeontology of domesticatedanimals is part of culture history and the investigation of early domesticated animals is asmuch a part of archaeology as is the study of prehistoric man's pottery or stone tools.Concrete statements on economic history can only be made on the basis of a completepalaeo-zoological analysis of the relevant material.

Archaeologists often fail to give adequate detail of the size and form of prehistoricdomesticated or wild animals. It is

thoughtthat the

publicationof these details will either

dismay or appear meaningless to readers who are not familiar with such material. How-ever, the factors affecting the size and development of animals should be brought to theattention of the layman; the work will then be comprehensible to him. The main factorsinvolved are the hereditary constitution of animals and their nutrition. With domesticatedanimals, these factors are virtually under human control. The stages of developmentrecognized on domesticated animal bones are therefore indications of human will andare therefore cultural characteristics.

Some workers in this field object to the concept of man's role in determining animal

development and refer instead to ecological determinants. This is correct only to the

pointthat the environment is the main

determinant of available food resources. How-ever, the remarkable differences observed between the size of small La Tene cattle

(kept by Celtic La Tene people) in central Europe, and the large cattle kept by theRomans, in the same region where no environmental change is known for the period, is an




13/17

3 8 Hans-Peter Uerpmann

indication of the considerable freedom for man to decide on the type of animals he kept.Another argument against environmental determinism is the fact that stock-breeders

have voluntarily chosen most of the areas that they now occupy. It is true, therefore, thattheir animals had to adapt time and again to the environmental conditions of new areas,and if economic difficulties were to be avoided, the adaptation process would have hadto be completed before the move. Changes in prehistoric domesticated animals due toenvironmental conditions should not be considered as direct results of environmentalinfluences but as responses to the new environments into which the animals wereintroduced by man. The main influences on the development of domesticated animals aretherefore always cultural and economic. The changes which domesticated animals have

undergone in the past and the mechanisms of these changes have been studied bypalaeontologists and zoologists and are fairly well understood. Nevertheless, much more

basic palaeo-zoological work is still needed for the gaps in our picture of the economichistory of stock-breeding cultures to be filled. The techniques of palaeo-zoology shouldalso be applied to the study of the morphology of wild animals, which will have beenaffected in the past by man's alteration of their environments. In the context of palaeo-economy, however, this reflection of man's influence may be a disadvantage since, when

analysing wild animal bones with palaeo-zoological methods, one is trying to obtaininformation on the nature and potential of the environment in which they and theirhunters lived.

4 Osteo-archaeological perspectives

Any paper on the potential and limitations of osteo-archaeology must also deal withunsolved methodological problems. These are found at both the beginning and the end ofthe procedure (described above) for analysing animal bones in palaeo-economy.

The first problem is that it is never possible to recover all of the bone debris from a site:no matter how careful and how extensive the excavation may be, there is always anunknown missing quantity. Even in more or less completely excavated sites, the quantityof animal bones which could be expected from the calculation of the minimum number ofindividual animals is never found. For example, at Burgaschisee-Siid, about forty-fivebone fragments per animal were found. The original number of bones would have beenmore than 200 (see table 2, p. I2 in Boessneck, Jequier and Stampfli 1963). The variousbones of the skeleton are consistently represented in different proportions to their naturaloccurrence (see table i, p. io in Boessneck, Jequier and Stampfli I963). Some parts ofa particular bone are more frequently found than others, e.g. the distal extremity of thehumerus and tibia, the proximal extremity of the radius of ungulates. What has becomeof the missing bones or parts of bones?

The usual answer is that they have 'disappeared into the earth'. This is not a satis-

factory answer because it does not explain, for example, the occurrence within a uniform

depositof

onlyone

extremityof a

bone,or of some

fragile bones,such as

vertebrae,which have not deteriorated more than others. Therefore in order to justify the study ofanimal bones for economic history, a better answer to this question must be found.

It is preferable to concentrate on the disappearance of bone remains before rather than




14/17

Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological' method 319

after their inclusion in the deposit where they are later found. The loss of material occursbetween the butchering or consumption of the animal and the incorporation of the debris

in the deposit. Once covered by a sediment, not much selective alteration of the com-position of the debris occurs (except for the cases described above in Section 2). Inunfavourable burial conditions, all the remains of a particular material will be equallyaffected. The disappearance occurs immediately after the formation of the debris and isnot affected by the length of time between this and excavation. Factors affecting the

missing quantity are: consumption of fresh meat beyond the limits of the site; the

consumption and removal of bones by dogs; the use of bone as raw material; weatheringof exposed bone debris. The last is most important. Due to its laminar structure, the

weathering of a bone is not a uniform process. A bone exposed to weathering is at first

only slightly altered in form. Only when the inter-laminar bonds are broken do the

compacta peel off and then, depending on their thickness, bones will begin to crumblerapidly. Bones of different structure will therefore reach this disintegration point atdifferent rates. If a piece of bone is covered by a sediment before reaching this point, itwill be preserved. Depending on the rate of sedimentation, this is more likely to occurwith bones which are resistant to weathering than those prone to it.

This somewhat simplified description of the hypothesis of bone disappearance is basedon archaeological material and a knowledge of bone structure and weathering. The detailsare difficult to verify and it is hoped that others working in this field will test the hypo-thesis with their data. An interesting approach to this problem is made by Chaplin (I97I).

This discussion emphasizes that species with particularly resistant bones are more

likely to be represented in archaeological inventories. The major difference in bonesolidity, however, is that between mammal and bird or fish bones.

A quantitative analysis of the species represented in a complex of bones is therefore ofpotential significance for economy in archaeology. However, the problem of the missingquantity affects the various procedures of this analysis in several ways, e.g. the calcula-tion of the minimum number of individuals will depend on the rate of disintegration ofonly the most resistant, and not all, bonles of a species. This rate is known to vary fordifferent species. The validity of the results of quantitative studies based on slaughter agewill be in doubt since bones of young animals are certainly less resistant than those ofadult animals.

It may be possible to develop the model of bone disintegration further so that themissing material can be determined and calculated scientifically. As seen above, theextent of the disintegration depends on the interaction of two successive independentprocesses. The first is the differential disintegration of the different parts of the skeleton.The second process, which interrupts the first, is the incorporation of the remains in asediment; this occurs more or less simultaneously for all remains. There is no reason todoubt that the occurrence of both processes conforms to certain laws which could beunderstood by the application of statistical methods. One can therefore expect to beable to calculate the missing quantity in due course. All statements about animal con-sumption must in fact be relative. Information on the quantity of meat consumed on asite would be useful as a basis for estimating settlement duration or population density.However osteo-archaeology is not yet able to make absolute statements about quantitysince all such estimates must include a subjective estimate of the missing material. Once

EA




15/17


this can be calculated, absolute quantities will be available for study. However, their

archaeological use will still be limited since the relative contribution of vegetable and

animal matter to human diet varies considerably. It is known that an adult relying on ameat source for protein would require a minimum of o00 gm. of meat per day; the calorieintake would have to come from vegetable matter. If meat were to provide the calorificcontent of the diet, c. 2,000 gm. of lean meat would be required per adult per day. Theminimum and maximum requirements are thus seen to vary by a factor of 20. Anyestimations of length or density of settlement based on the quantity of meat consumedwould have to take this factor into account. One would therefore have to say that a

prehistoric village had 10-200 inhabitants or was occupied for 50-I,000 years: state-ments of very little value.

Nevertheless, the hope of achieving useful results should not be abandoned: the

investigation of plant remains for palaeo-economy has only just begun and its potential isstill unknown. Quite independently the chemical analysis of human remains may one

day provide us with information on the animal and plant content of prehistoric peoples'diet. In fact the methodology for the entire field of palaeo-economic studies has still to be

developed. Computers will help to make accessible data from archaeology that is stillunused. Perhaps osteo-archaeology, with its easily coded data, will lead the way for

archaeology in general.

Acknowledgement

This paper was translated from the German by Susan Frankenstein.30.v. 972 Institutfiir Urgeschichte,

University of Tiibingen

References

Ambros, C. 1969. Bemerkungen zur Auswertung der Tierknochen aus Siedlungsgrabungen.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, orschungsberichte Wiesbaden) 15:76-87.

Boessneck, J. I956. Ein Beitrag zur Errechnung der Widerristh6he nach Metapodienmassen eiRindern. Zeitschr. . Tierziichtung nd Ziichtungsbiol. 8:75-90.

Boessneck, J., Jequier, J.-P. and Stampfli, H. R. 1963. Seeberg Burgaschisee-Siid, Die Tier"reste. Acta Bernensia 11/3. Bern.

Boessneck, J., Miiller, H.-H. and Teichert, M. 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmalezwischen Schaf (Ovis aries LINNE) und Ziege (Capra hircus LINNE). Kiihn-Archiv 8:1-1I29.

Boessneck, J. and Meyer-Lemppenau, U. 1966. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiede amKreuzbein der kleineren mitteleuropaischen Wiederkiuer. Sdugetierkundl. Mitt. 14:28-36.

Boessneck, J., Driesch, A. von den, Meyer-Lemppenau, U. and Wechsler-von Ohlen, E. 1971.Die Tierknochenfunde us dem Oppidum von Manching. Ausgrabungen n Manching 6, Wies-baden.

Bosold, K. 1968. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiede an Metapodien und Phalangenmitteleuropaischer Wildwiederkauer. Sdugetierkundl. Mitt. I6:93-153.

Chaplin, R. E. 1971. The study of animal bones rom archaeological ites. London, New York.




16/17

Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological' method 32I

Clason, A. T. I97I. Some problems concerning stock-breeding and hunting after the Band-ceramic north of the Alps. Ille Congres nternational esMusdes d'Agriculture, Risumes. (Buda-

pest) :252-4.Driesch, A. von den, Boessneck, J. 1969. Die Fauna des 'Cabezo Redondo' bei Villena (Prov.Alicante). Studien iberfriihe Tierknochenfunde on der Iberischen Halbinsel. :43-95, ioi-6.

Ducos, P. 1958. Le gisement de Chateauneuf-lez-Martigues B. du Rh.), Les mamiferes et lesproblemes de domestication. Bull. du Mus. d'Anthrop. Prehist. de Monaco. 5:119-33.

Ducos, P. I968. L'origine des animaux domestiques n Palestine. Publ. de l'Inst. de Prehist. del'Univ. de Bordeaux, Memoire No 6. Bordeaux.

Fock, J. I966. Metrische Untersuchungen n Metapodien iniger uropdischer inderrassen. hesis,Munich.

Haak, D. I965. Metrische Untersuchungen an R6hrenknochen bei Deutschen Merinoland-schafen und Heidschnucken. Thesis, Munich.

Habermehl, K.-H. I961. Altersbestimmung ei Haustieren, Pelztieren und beim agdbaren Wild.Berlin and Hamburg.

Hatting, T. I969. Age determination or subfossil beavers (Castor fiber L.) on the Basis ofRadiographs of the Teeth. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren. I32:115-28.

Higgs, E. S. I967. Environment and Chronology the evidence from mammalian auna. In:McBurney, C. B. M.: The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaika) and the stone age of the south-east Mediter-ranean. Cambridge. pp. I6-44.

Higham, C. I967. Stock rearing as a cultural factor in prehistoric Europe. Proc. Prehist. Soc.33:84-107.

Higham, C. 1969. Towards an economic prehistory of Europe. Current Anthropology. o: I39-45.

Higham, C. and Message, M. 1969. An assessment of a prehistoric technique of bovine hus-bandry. In Science n archaeology. nd edn, pp. 315-30, London (eds D. Brothwell and E. Higgs).

Jarman, M. I971. Culture and economy in the north Italian neolithic. World Archaeology.2:255-65.

Klevesal,G. A. and

Kleinenberg,S. E.

I967. Altersbestimmungbei

Saugetierenauf Grund

geschichteter Strukturen n Zahnen und Knochen (Russ.). Moscow.

Knecht, G. I966. Mittelalterlich-friihneuzeitliche Tierknochenfunde aus Ober6sterreich(Linz und Enns). Naturkl. Jahrb. d. Stadt Linz. Linz.

Kubasiewicz, M. 1956. 0 metodyce badan wykopaliskowich zczatk6w kostynch zwierzecych.Materialy Zachodnio-Pomorskie. :235-44.

Lemppenau, U. I964. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiede m Becken mitteleuropiischerWiederkiuer. Thesis. Munich.

Matolcsi, J. I970. Historische Erforschung der K6rpergr6sse des Rindes auf Grund von un-

garischem Knochenmaterial. Zeitschr. . Tierziichtg. u. Ziichtungsbiol. 7:89-137.

Mennerich, G. 1968. R6merzeitliche Tierknochen aus drei Fundorten des Niederrheingebietes.Thesis, Munich.




17/17


Muller, H.-H. I97I. Widerspiegelung gesellschaftlicher Verhaltnisse m archaologischen Tier-knochenmaterial. IIe Congres nternational des Musdes 'Agriculture, Resumes. Budapest):264.

Noddle, B. I97I. Estimation of body weight from measurements on bones. IIIe CongresInternational des Musees d'Agriculture, Resumes. Budapest):232.

Paaver, K. L. I958. Zur Methodik der Bestimmung des relativen Anteils von Saugetierartenund -gruppen im Knochenmaterial archaologischer Ausgrabungsstatten. Russ.) Nachrichtender Akademie der Wissenschaften er ESSR, 7, Biol. Ser. Nr. 4.

Perkins, D. jr. 197I. A new method of quantifying aunal remains. IIIe Congrs International esMusees d'Agriculture, Resumes. (Budapest):228-9.

Schmid, E. I964. Die Tierknochen. Birsmatten Basisgrotte. Acta Bernensia :93-00o.

Schramm, Z. I967. Long bones and height in withers of goat. (Polish with English andRussian summary). Roczniki Wyisej Szkoly Rolniczej w Poznanin. 36:89-105.

Silver, I. A. I969. The ageing of domestic animals. In Science in Archaeology. 2nd edn, pp.283-302, London (eds D. Brothwell and E. Higgs).

Soergel, E. I969. Stratigraphische Untersuchungen am Tierknochenmaterial on ThayngenWeier. Archaologie und Biologie. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, orschungsberichte 5:I57-7I'

Stampfli, H. R. I966. Die Tierreste aus der r6mischen Villa 'Ersingen-Murain' n Gegen-iiberstellung zu anderen zeitgleichen Funden aus der Schweiz und dem Ausland. Jahrb. d.Bern. His. Mus. 45/46:449-69.

Stampfli, H. R. I97I. Die Knochenfunde aus Auvernier. Unpublished manuscript.

Uerpmann, H.-P. 197Ia. Die Tierknochenfunde us der Talayot-Siedlung von S'Illot (SanLorenzo/Mallorca). Studien fiber frihe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Halbinsel 2.Munich.

Uerpmann, H.-P. Ig97b. Ein Beitrag zur Methodik der wirtschaftshistorischen uswertung vonTierknochenfunden aus Siedlungen. IIIe Congres International des Musees d'Agriculture,Resumes. (Budapest):230-2.

Zalkin, V. J. I960. Die Variation der Metapodien und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Erforschung derFriihgeschichte des Rindes. (Russ.) Bull. d. Mosk. Ges. d. Nat'forscher, Abt. Biol. 65 (I): 09-26.

Zalkin, V. J. 196I. Die Variabilitat der Metapodien bei Schafen. (Russ.) Bull. d. Mosk. Ges. d.Nat'forscher, Abt. Biol. 66 (5):115-32.

Abstract

Uerpmann, H.-P.

Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a critical review of 'osteo-archaeological' method

This paper describes how the study of animal bones from archaeological sites ('osteo-

archaeology') may contribute o our reconstruction f cultural and economic history. Methods ofidentification, quantification and sex and age determination are critically reviewed. The basic

problem of relating bone debris at archaeological ites to a prehistoric animal population isdiscussed.

1973 uerpmann animal bone finds and economic archaeology, a critical study of osteoarchaeological...

Documents