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

Abstract

Cut marks on fossils from Plio‐Pleistocene faunal assemblages can elucidate the timing and nature of hominin procurement of animal tissues. Although butchery experiments have great potential to enhance our ability to understand hominin butchery behaviours, studies that model variation in the timing of access to carcasses and butcher expertise have either yielded conflicting results or have not yet been undertaken. We conducted butchery experiments on 8 pig limbs with replicated Oldowan flake tools that varied the amount of flesh removed prior to butchery (simulating early or late carcass access) and butcher expertise. These experiments investigated the effects of these variables on resultant cut mark count, length, and number of tool strokes. The relationship between the number of tool strokes as a measure of butchery intensity and the number of cut marks produced was also explored. We also compared the length of experimental cut marks with those on 1.5‐million‐year‐old fossil bones from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Although the bones that were partially defleshed prior to butchery had a higher number and longer cut marks on average than fleshed bones, and the expert butcher created fewer and shorter cut marks than the novice butcher, none of these relationships were statistically significant. We found no relationship between the number of tool strokes and the amount of flesh removed prior to butchery or the number of cut marks produced during butchery, although the expert butcher used fewer tool strokes. Although not statistically significant, the length of cut marks created by the novice butcher is much more variable than those created by the expert butcher and the fossil cut marks, and fossil cut marks are much shorter than those created by both modern butchers. More work needs to be undertaken to identify cut mark attributes that may be influenced by behavioural or ecological variables that can be measured and manipulated during butchery experiments.

The zooarchaeology and paleoecology of early hominin scavenging

“…One problem with the models outlined above is that several studies have found inconsistent relationships between the amount of flesh on bones prior to butchery (or the amount of flesh removed during butchery) and resulting cut mark frequencies . This is likely due to factors including variations in experimental protocols, the size and species of the carcass, butchery intensity, butchery activities (skinning, disarticulation, and defleshing), and stone tool raw material .…”

“…23,68 One problem with the models outlined above is that several studies have found inconsistent relationships between the amount of flesh on bones prior to butchery (or the amount of flesh removed during butchery) and resulting cut mark frequencies. 61,69,70 This is likely due to factors including variations in experimental protocols, the size and species of the carcass, butchery intensity, butchery activities (skinning, disarticulation, and defleshing), and stone tool raw material. 62 In order to deal with this issue, one approach is to separate limb bone fragments into upper (humerus/femur), intermediate (radius, ulna, tibia), and lower (metapodials) limbs, as they have decreasing amounts of flesh and marrow respectively; experimental butchery studies have found that when humans are have primary access to carcasses, cut mark frequencies are higher on upper versus intermediate and lower limb bones.…”

The impact of flake tool attributes and butcher experience on carcass processing time and efficiency during experimental butchery trials

“…The results of our experiments can be examined in light of trends suggested by other experimental butchery studies that investigate butchery performance and tool attributes. We note the diversity of experimental butchery model methodology including individual subjective observation (Jones, 1980;McCall, 2005;Toth, 1985), experiments that collect repeated observations of idiosyncratic performance during realistic butchery behaviours (Machin et al, 2007;Mitchell, 1996;Pobiner et al, 2018), and experiments that study cutting effectiveness of lithic implements in abstracted contexts outside of butchery or naturalistic tool-use behaviours (Key, Fisch, & Eren, 2018;Key & Lycett, 2015. Comparability between these diverse experiments is important, and archaeology has critically examined how to appropriately construct analogies between multiple models and build secure archaeological inferences (Domínguez-Rodrigo, 2012;Wylie, 2002).…”

“…Whether investigating tool utility or BSM creation, experimental butchery studies rarely examine whether individual butchers perform comparably or produce an equivalent material record of butchery (Egeland, Welch, & Nicholson, ). Certain experiments address this issue, focusing on the differences between expert and novice butchers (Machin, Hosfield, & Mithen, ; Pobiner et al, ), but to date, have not demonstrated the range of butchery variability that can be expected from one individual, which means idiosyncratic butchery behaviour might obscure how other factors like tool attributes or animal anatomy impact behaviour. That said, individual butchery performance or BSM creation may vary with skill level and change with experience, or individual variability might reflect a personal or cultural butchery style (Jones, ; Lyman, ).…”

“…Unfortunately, this direct comparison of results is not productive because defleshing time reflects different methodological protocol and experimental design. Goat limbs may have been larger than pig limbs, requiring greater time to deflesh.Our experiments included metapodial tendon removal during defleshing, butPobiner et al (2018) removed flesh from only the upper and intermediate limb elements. To correct for differences in animal size or the anatomical regions targeted during butchery, we measured defleshing time and the amount of tissue removed and expressed this as defleshing efficiency.…”