Willis, L. M., Eren, M. I. and Rick, T. C. (2008). Does butchering fish leave cut marks?. J Archaeol Sci 35 (5). Vol 35(5), pp. 1438-1444.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Does butchering fish leave cut marks? | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
J Archaeol Sci 35 (5) | ||||||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Journal of Archaeological Science | ||||||
Volume Volume number and part |
35 (5) | ||||||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
1438 - 1444 | ||||||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
The ADS have no files for download on this page but further information is available online, normally as an electronic version maintained by the Publisher, or held in a larger collection such as an ADS Archive. Please refer to the DOI or URI listed in the Relations section of this record to locate the information you require. In the case of non-ADS resources, please be aware that we cannot advise further on availability. | ||||||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||||||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
Despite the fact that fish are a common component of coastal and other aquatic archaeological sites, cut marks are rarely reported on archaeological fish remains. To assess whether butchering practices leave cut marks on fish bones, the authors butchered thirty-seven fish using stone tools and a metal knife following methods provided in ethnographic accounts and by modern fish processors. Their research demonstrates that butchering commonly produces cut marks on fish bones, with 4019 cut marks and 2167 cut mark clusters identified on the bones of thirty fish. Cut marks occurred frequently on vertebral neural and haemal spines, vertebral transverse processes, pterygiophores, ribs, and other bones not generally identified to low taxonomic categories by zooarchaeologists (e.g., family, genus, or species). To test their experimental data, they also analysed 9391 archaeological fish remains from a Late Holocene shell midden on the California coast, noting thirty-three previously undocumented cut marks. They hypothesize that the scarcity of cut marks reported on archaeological fish bones is the result of researchers overlooking cut marks because they occur primarily on undiagnostic bones, taphonomic factors such as root etching that may destroy or obscure cut marks, differences between fish, mammal, and bird anatomy, or ancient butchering strategies that relied on limited cutting of fishes. | ||||||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2008 | ||||||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||||||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
||||||
Relations Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report |
|
||||||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
23 Jul 2008 |
