Introduction
The sample of animal bones from both early and late Neolithic have increased with more sites being excavated. Some sites have smaller samples due to poor preservation and/or poor recovery. In this report, data from a Neolithic site in England will be analyzed and visualized in graphs. These graphs will then be interpreted, as an interim analyses of the findings at this Neolithic site. The site holds great importance because the data found here provides a sample that can be analyzed in conjuncture with knowledge developed over time. Domesticated cattle first appeared in England during the Neolithic and have remained a common element found in archaeological sites, especially in the context of food processing (Legge, A.J. 1984, 169-181) Changes in the human and animal relationships appear to have been sudden and dramatic with the appearance of domestic animals and Neolithic pottery (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). By studying the fauna at this site we will have insight into the regional and local variability in secondary products exploitation (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039).
Methods
For this data set the methods used to analyze the elements will be the calculation of the percentage alive at each fusion stage, so as to create a kill off pattern as well as osteometric analyses of the measurements of the cattle metacarpal.
The database Animal Bone Metrical Analyses Project (ABMAP) has been used to compare the data of this site to those of other sites discovered in England and Europe. It has similarly been used in the literature “An osteometrical method for sexing cattle bones: the metacarpals from 17th century Carnide, Lisbon, Portugal” (Davis et al.. 2018, 367-387).
Results
Quantitative Data
Table 1. Skeletal part abundances (of selected elements) expressed in MNE for cattle
Element
Total
No. Fused
Scapula
27
21
P. Humerus
36
10
D. Humerus
42
17
P. Radius
48
18
D. Radius
42
12
Ulna
50
15
D. Metacarpal
51
15
Pelvis
54
27
P. Femur
45
10
D. Femur
40
7
P. Tibia
38
6
D. Tibia
45
18
Calcaneum
57
20
D. Metatarsal
42
15
1st Phalanges
66
31
2nd Phalanges
75
36
Table 2. %Unfused in Each Fusion Stage
Stages
%Unfused
1 (7-10 months): Scapua, Pelvis
40.74
2 (12-18 months): d. humerus, p. radius, 1st phalange, 2nd phalange
55.84
3 (24-36 months): d. metacarpal, d. tibia, d. metatarsal
65.22
4 (36-48 months): p. humerus, d. radius, ulna, p. femur, d. femur, p. tibia, calcaneum
74.03
Example of Calculations completed to create Table 2.
Stage 1:
Total : 27+54=81
Total–Total Fused:81–48=33
(% unfused) = (total unfused/total in stage) x 100
3381× 100=40.74%
Table 3. Measurements of 15 fused distal metacarpals
Bd (breadth of distal end)
Dd (depth of distal end)
52
31
57
32
55
31
52
29
69
37
48
27
50
27
60
32
53
30
52
31
56
30
74
36
54
30
59
32
58
32
Table 4. Cattle bones from the ABMAP database, including measurements and site locations.
Graph 1. Kill Off Pattern formulated from calculations relating to Table 1.
Graph 2. Relationship between the Dd and Bd (mm) of the distal end of 15 cattle metacarpals.
Interpretation
When interpreting the data from this site sex and size are both important and closely linked variables that must be considered (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387). However, it is often difficult to distinguish where they differ. The ratio of males to females can provide insight about hunting or husbandry strategies practiced by humans during the Neolithic period (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387).
Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our services
Kill Off Pattern
When considering the use of cattle at this particular site, analyses must be broadened to consider seasonality, and use of the cattle. Cattle at this time would have to graze during the spring summer and autumn, but the cattle would have no food source during the winter and thus, areas in the northern latitudes were very restricted in their exploitation of animals. (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). During the early and middle of Neolithic time periods milk and cheese is thought to have been a symbolic currency for our ancestors (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). However, during the Late Neolithic the importance of cattle came from their meat, especially in large animals such as cattle or hunted wild game such as aurochs. (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94) .
As seen in Table 1. the % unfused increased in the latest fusion stages, indicating that the cattle were killed as they were older but before complete fusion (adulthood) had been reached during the Late Neolithic at Pupi´cina all of the major domestic animals were being herded primarily for meat (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). Cattle appear to have been culled primarily for their meat towards the Late Neolithic time period (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). However, Graph 1. indicated a kill of pattern of cattle as they got older. Looking at the age at deathL slaughter in infancy maximises availability of milk and cheese. Slaughter of juveniles or subadults maximises meat production and slater of adults indicates cattle beings used for labour (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). Serjeantson mentions that there is evidence of this in the analysis of sherds from several Neolithic sites. The have shown “that dairy products were cooked or processed in some of the vessels” (Serjeantson, D. 2006, pp. 113-134).
The productive potential of an animal is influenced partly by its age and sex (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112) Use of domestic cattle for primary carcass products was broadened to include the exploitation of secondary products in from the 4th-3rd millennia BC (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). If you consider the evidence from Graph 1. Age classes that are evident in the cull need to be considered with the ratio of sexes surviving into adulthood. The surviving cattle and their uses are thus reflected in the proportions of male and females (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181). Males are known to have larger measurements than females. In Graph 2. Two groups can be identified, the first (in blue) with a smaller sixe measurement but quite numerous and the other group with a larger size and fewer cattle. This indicates a larger presence of female cattle and could indicate that the cattle at the site were indeed used for secondary products.
A note on Aurochs
What is important to consider when analyzing the second set of data (Table 3.) is that within the distribution of cattle dimensions from the Neolithic sites, the relation to the possible presence of large wild cattle must be considered (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181) This can included species such as Aurochs or the Urus. The aurochs were the largest of the wild game species present during the sixth millennium (Boyle, K.V. 2006, pp. 10-23) When looking at data from the database ABMAP wild animals such as the aurochsen are rare in Neolithic faunal assemblages. Occasionally, domestic cattle can be misidentified as aurochs (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039) Female aurochs and male domestic cattle show considerably similar osteometric values (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039). So when looking at Graph 2. one has to look at the second group (in red) critically. This group could be domestic male bulls or wild female aurochs. However, it is most probable that the second group represents the bulls kept to sow the females and to keep the herd structure. As well as the fact that wild and domesticated species have similar dietary preferences but the occupy different ecological niches (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039).
Further Work
For further work on the present data, it could be valuable to explore the mitochondrial DNA in the elements of the assemblages and to also review the isotopic values of these. The reason for this is because with the analyses of the mitochondrial DNA and isotopic values an understanding can be taken from the data that reveals early domestication practices and can show the interaction between wild cattle and domesticated cattle. This would be especially useful for the data in Table 3. And Graph 2. It would confirm whether or not the second group is in fact domesticated bulls or wild female aurochs. Furthermore, the analyses of the contexts in which the elements were found could give great insight into the value humans at the site placed on the cattle. For example, if they were all buried in a particular area or in a particular context, evidence can be cross examined with social and cultural knowledge of the time to construct a value on the herd as a whole and the geographical area.
References
Boyle, K.V. 2006. Neolithic Wild Game Animals in Western Europe: the Question of Hunting. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 10-23
Cotton, J, Elsden, N, Pipe, A & Rayner L. 2006. Taming the Wild: A Final Neolithic/Earlier Bronze Age Aurochs Deposit from West London. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 149-167
Davis et al.. 2018. An osteometrical method for sexing cattle bones: the metacarpals from 17th century Carnide, Lisbon, Portugal. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. 120 (1), pp. 367–387.
Dineley, M. 2006. The Use of Spent Grain as Cattle Feed in the Neolithic. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 56-62
Isaakidou, V. 2006. Ploughing with Cows: Knossos and the Secondary Products Revolution. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 95-112
Legge, A.J. 1984. Aspects of Animal Husbandry. In: Mercer, R. Farming Practice in British Prehistory. : University Press, pp. 169-181
Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008. Where the wild things are: aurochs and cattle in England. Antiquity. 82 (1), pp. 1025–1039.
Miracle, P. 2006. Neolithic Shepherds and their Herds in the Northern Adriatic Basin. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 63-94
Serjeantson, D. 2005. ’Science is Measurement’; ABMAP, a Database of Domestic Animal Bone Measurements. Environmental Archaeology.10(1), pp. 97-103
Serjeantson, D. 2006. Food or Feast at Neolithic Runnymede?. In: Serjeantson, D & Field, D eds. Animals in the Neolithic Britain and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 113-134
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download