Cutmark data and their implications for the planning depth of Late Pleistocene societies

Abstract

a b s t r a c tCutmarks provide empirical evidence for the exploitation of animal resources by past human groups. Their study may contribute substantially to our knowledge of economic behavior, including the procurement of prey and the analysis of butchery sequences. Butchering practices can be investigated using cutmark illustrations recorded on bone templates. In this paper, quantitative data on cutmarks were derived from published and unpublished cutmark drawings for 27 French assemblages dated between the late Middle Paleolithic and the final Upper Paleolithic. The analysis of cutmark data on meaty long bones (humerus, radio-ulna, femur, tibia) highlights strong variations in cutmark length and orientation in the sample that potentially reflect significant shifts in meat processing strategies during the Late Pleistocene. The present study shows that long longitudinal cutmarks are considerably more frequent during the Late Glacial Maximum than in the early Upper Paleolithic. Although the number of studies is small, actualistic data generated in controlled settings indicate that long longitudinal cutmarks are commonly produced during filleting, an activity closely associated with meat preservation, as is the case with drying and smoking. Because they provide information on possible changes in the capacity for anticipation, these results have potentially important implications for the logistical and economic organization of Paleolithic hominins.

Bone marrow storage and delayed consumption at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel (420 to 200 ka)

“…Dry flesh is more attached to the bone, which is why more effort is required to remove it than when it is fresh, as is the case when the tool reaches the muscular insertions or tendons firmly attached to the bone. This leads not only to a greater number of marks but also to a different pattern with different morphologies and orientations from those observed in the defleshing of large, fresh muscle bundles or when the butchery is performed with a specific purpose, such as extracting long cuts or slices of flesh of roughly standardized shape (i.e., fillets) for drying [e.g., ( 34 )].…”

Experimental butchery study investigating the influence of timing of access and butcher expertise on cut mark variables

“…The length of cut marks has received little theoretical or experimental focus (but see Merritt, and Soulier & Morin, ). Although cut mark length was not statistically correlated with the amount of prebutchery flesh quantity or butcher expertise in this study, cut marks on the partially defleshed limbs were on average shorter than those in the fully fleshed limbs (7.24 and 9.06 mm, respectively).…”

“…Recently, Soulier and Morin () found that cut marks on long bones from both experimental and zooarchaeological assemblages (27 Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites from France) are generally longer when longitudinally oriented than when obliquely or transversely oriented. They also found that in the archaeological samples, cut marks were longer on upper limb bones (humerus and femur) than intermediate limb bones (radio‐ulna and tibia) and that the number of transverse cut marks decreased and the number of longitudinal cut marks increased through time, regardless of skeletal element or species.…”

“…The length of cut marks has received little theoretical or experimental focus (but see Merritt, 2016 andMorin, 2016).…”

“…Recently, Soulier and Morin (2016) found that cut marks on long (Table 6) to determine which skeletal element(s) was driving the statistically significant ANOVA result for cut mark number. We found a statistically significant difference between means of cut mark numbers on different skeletal elements as determined by ANOVA, F(4, 12) = 5.318, p = .011, with the humerus having more cut marks than any of the other skeletal elements (Table 6); there was no difference between the mean lengths of cut marks on any of the skeletal elements as determined by ANOVA, F(4, 12) = 1.128, p = .389.…”