The Analysis of Cutmarks on Archaeofauna: A Review and Critique of Quantification Procedures, and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach

Abstract

Zooarchaeologists utilize a diverse set of approaches for quantifying cutmark frequencies. The least quantitative method for cutmark analysis relies on composite diagrams of cutmarks overlain on drawings of skeletal elements (diagramatic methods). To date, interpretations of these data have generally relied on qualitative and subjective assessments of cutmark frequency and placement. Many analysts count the number of fragments that have a cutmark, regardless of the number of cutmarks on the fragments (fragment-count data). Others count the number of cutmarks (cutmark-count data). Both can be expressed as simple counts (NISP data), or as a count of some more-derived measure of skeletal element abundance (MNE data). All of these approaches provide different types of data and are not intercomparable. Several researchers have shown that fragmentation of specimens impacts the frequency of cuts, and we show here that fragmentation impacts all these current approaches in ways that compromise comparative analysis when fragmentation differs between assemblages. We argue that cutmark frequencies from assemblages with differing levels of fragmentation are most effectively made comparable by correcting the frequency of cutmarks by the observed surface area. We present a new method that allows this surface area correction by using the image analysis abilities of GIS. This approach overcomes the fragmentation problem. We illustrate the power of this technique by comparing a highly fragmented archaeological assemblage to an unfragmented experimental collection.

An experimental investigation of cut mark production and stone tool attrition

“…Different butchery activities will often produce cut marks that are location-specific (Abe et al, 2002;Nilssen, 2000). Many of the traces of disarticulation are focused on or near long bone ends, while traces of defleshing can occur anywhere along the length of the shaft or on other elements such as the ribs and vertebrae.…”

Analyzing cut marks: lessons from artiodactyl remains in the northwestern United States

“…This might be considered a misnomer because what I tallied during analysis was the number of anatomical zones represented in a collection, and how many of those zones display cut marks [31]. The tallying procedure used here is different than that proposed by Abe et al [1]. They suggest that those interested in measuring butchering intensity (see below) should (i) tally individual striae (each representing a distinct arm stroke) and (ii) measure precisely the amount of examined surface area for each of several analytically defined skeletal regions.…”

“…Abe et al [1] also advocate precise measurement of represented surface area so that the analyst can weigh observed frequencies of individual cut marks based on the proportion of surface area preserved per anatomical region. I do not use this protocol because it presumes that the nonpreserved surface area would (were it preserved) display cut marks in the same ratio of cut marks per unit of surface area as the preserved surface area.…”

“…These analyses have focused (in approximate chronological order) on developing ways to infer butchering behaviors [19,20,22,25,26,28,41], especially so-called ''butchering patterns'' or ''the results of the butchering process'' [30, p. 252], establishing criteria for the reliable identification of butchering marks [11,12,40,42], and producing accurate tallies of butchering marks [1,31,32]. The second topic seems to have been resolved to the satisfaction of many [10,18]; the third topic continues to be a subject of discussion (e.g., compare the methods used in [1,13,36], and below). My major concern here is with the first topic, arguably the ultimate goal of analysis of butchering marks once the second and third topics have been dealt with.…”

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

“…Recent research has examined the preservation, taphonomy, and attributes of artifacts (Abe et al 2002;Bird et al 2007;Chapman and Cheetham 2002;Cooper and Qiu 2006;D'Andrea et al 2002;Marean et al 2001;Matthiesen et al 2004;Nigro et al 2003). In addition, as a consequence of advances in spatial technology, there is greater theoretical concern for intrasite spatial patterning on par with the concern for site-level patterns in the spatial archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s (Wheatley and Gillings 2002, p. 236).…”