1973 Uerpmann Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology, A Critical Study of Osteoarchaeological Method

Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A Critical Study of 'Osteo-Archaeological'
Method
Author(s): Hans-Peter Uerpmann
Reviewed work(s):
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 4, No. 3, Theories and Assumptions (Feb., 1973), pp. 307-322
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124190 .
Accessed: 01/12/2012 06:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:57:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Animal
a critical
bone
study
finds
and
of
economic
archaeology:
method
'osteo-archaeological'
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
i Introduction
Prehistoric archaeology and Quaternary palaeontology were originally closely related, but
in time they diverged from their common origin and interest was lost by those working in
prehistoric archaeology in the results of palaeontological studies, and vice versa. This
situation has changed since I950: prehistorians have become interested in the background
to archaeological phenomena, and advances have been made in the methods and content
of palaeontology, with particular emphasis placed on the study of domesticated animals.
The first serious attempts to extract socio-economic information from archaeological
finds were made in Eastern Europe and most of the methodology of modern 'osteoarchaeology' stems from this initial period (e.g. Kubasiewicz 1956; Paaver 1958). Today,
the potential of these studies is appreciated in Western Europe too, and recent work on
domesticated animals deals with both cultural and economic history. In Britain in particular, specialised palaeo-economic studies have been published (e.g. Higham I967;
I969; Jarman I97I), but so far, these only cover some aspects of the subject's potential.
This paper will describe how the study of animal bones from archaeological sites may
contribute to our knowledge of cultural and economic history. The theory and methodology of 'osteo-archaeology' will be examined critically so that archaeologists can assess
the reliability of analyses of a material with which they are basically unfamiliar.
2 Reconstructing economic
theoretical basis
history from archaeological
bone finds: the
Although all animal bones recovered in excavation may be used for palaeontology, only
those found under certain conditions can be used for studies of palaeo-economy. The
obvious condition is that the material must be the result of human activity, i.e. not the
work of predators or simply the remains of dead animals. If the results of analysis are to
be meaningful the material must also meet the following requirements:
Context
It is vital that the bones should be from primary deposits. Bones which have been
redeposited or are found on the surface should not be included in the material to be
analysed. Another difficulty which all excavators must face is to distinguish between
'living floor' deposits and levels which accumulated over a long period of time. Clearly,
308
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
any palaeo-economic interpretation will only reflect the mean economic activities carried
out during the whole period of accumulation of a deposit.
Excavations
Since the material must be assignable to narrow time horizons, bones must be treated
with at least as much attention as other finds during excavation. Since palaeo-economic
studies are based on quantitative analysis, they will not be meaningful if the material
studied has been selected.
The nature of the excavation may also limit the usefulness of the bone material, for
example if excavation is restricted to those areas where a single complex of material is to
be expected. This applies to most sites. The partial excavation of a site does not provide,
in a statistical sense, a representative sample. However, such a sample may be approximated by including material from trenches laid out beyond the main excavation area.
The size of the sample must also be examined in order to decide whether a quantitative
analysis is worth while. The study of the extensive bone material from the Celtic
oppidum of Manching summarized by Boessneck et al. (I97I) showed that if the bone
material from each season's work was treated as a separate sample, differences in the
composition of their material were greater than would be expected for this sample size
on statistical grounds alone. This shows that absolute sample size by itself is of less
importance in osteo-archaeology than in some other statistical studies because of archaeological sampling procedures. Using statistical methods, several attempts have been made
to calculate the error likely in relating a sample of a given size to the total material, but
this is only applicable to representative samples. A simple example illustrates how difficult this calculation can be in osteo-archaeology: on a prehistoric site, the bone debris in
living areas will consist of small, inconspicuous fragments, whereas larger remains will
be found in refuse dumping areas. If, therefore, the excavation is limited to the living
area, bones of small animals will predominate, if limited to refuse areas, those of large
animals. These errors cannot be estimated by mathematical procedures. The calculation
of the 'statistical error' of a sample will confuse the reader into thinking that all economic
activities of the inhabitants of the site were carried out within the excavated area.
Excavators intending to study the animal bone material from their sites in terms of
economy must consider these factors when laying out the area to be excavated.
Zoological identification
This is the only stage of the osteologist's work which the archaeologist cannot control
(unless specially trained). Errors in identification - e.g. failing to distinguish between
deer and domesticated cattle - are found in the literature and have resulted in false
interpretations. After their initial analysis the bones should therefore be accessible for
re-examination by other specialists. This applies to pure palaeontological studies too, but
in palaeo-economy, there is far greater incentive to identify the maximum number of
bones. The portion of the material identified, which can be called its 'degree of identification', is an important indication of the likely accuracy of the results of any study. For
example, of the I2,000 pieces of bone recovered in excavation from the cave of Haua
Fteah, North Africa, 5,000 were identified according to species (Higgs i967). The degree
Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 309

of identification of the material is therefore about 42%. Should the composition of the
unidentified portion differ from that of the identified (Higg's fig. II, i does in fact suggest
this) the results of the analysis would differ greatly from the true composition of the
material. The otherwise well-constructed framework of Higg's ecological and climatological theories are therefore seen to have a rather shaky foundation. However, Higgs
published his work in a form that makes it possible for others to test his findings: many
other authors do not specify the unidentified portion of their material.
The state of preservation of the material may limit identification below that necessary
for obtaining reliable results. Even so, there has been a tendency to ignore many identifiable fragments because they would not contribute to the essentially qualitative aims of
pure palaeontological research. However, for palaeo-economy, more work, better
comparative collections and more detailed anatomical methods are required. In the older
literature, frequencies of individual species are usually based on numbers of jaw bones or
other easily identified bones, and the numerical reliability of these statements was not
considered. This means that results from different sites cannot be compared since their
respective accuracy cannot be controlled.
The complete qualitative analysis of bone material is sometimes prevented by bad
preservation of the bone, the lack of comparative material, or the lack of time. However,
these factors should not prevent the classification of unidentified bones according to
animal size. Most bones are fairly easily attributable to large animals (cattle, horse, large
deer etc.), medium (smaller ruminants, wolves, dogs etc.), and small (small dogs, cats,
hares etc.). Groups of very large (elephant, rhinoceros etc.), or very small animals
(rodents etc.) can be added if appropriate. These size groups can then be treated as
statistical units, each including the corresponding identified bones. The identified pieces
are then samples of each unit and may be accepted as representative samples since the
state of preservation of animal bones is largely determined by the initial size of the pieces.
This means that, for example, a wolf bone is as likely to remain identifiable as a sheep
bone; and that a cow bone can be broken down into many more retrievable - but atypical
- fragments. On a statistical basis, the quantitative findings from the identified bones
can be related to the entire group. Careful amalgamation of the various results can reveal
the overall composition of the material. Ducos has proposed a similar method for
quantifying animal bone finds (Ducos 1:968:6 ff.).
In summary, one can say that in addition to its actual quantity, animal bone material
which is to be used for a study of economic history must comply with certain conditions.
A critical examination is needed of all the factors which might have affected any of the
material: disturbance during burial, extent of the area excavated, care taken during
excavation and anatomical identification - none of these factors should have been allowed
to bias the composition of the material. Both pre-burial selection and the disintegration of
buried bone are serious problems in these studies: they will be dealt with below.
3 Osteo-archaeological
methods and interpretations
As described in the previous section, the analysis of animal bones for economic history
consists of dividing the material into inter-relatable parts. The first division, on the basis
3IO
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
of identified/non-identified bone pieces, has already been described. In some cases,

however, the relationship between identified and unidentified fragments can itself be an
indication of some economic aspect; for example, if the degree of identification is exceptional and is related to economic activities. From Switzerland (Schmid I964) and
Southern Germany we know of Mesolithic bone debris which is particularly shattered.
Schmid (I964: 93) attributes this to intensive marrow extraction; Stampfli (unpublished
manuscript) relates the similar condition of Neolithic bone debris to the use of bone as a
raw material in tool production. Both economic inferences are based on the unusually
low degree of identification of the bone material.
Further subdivision of the material will depend on the osteologist; it is usually made
on the basis of species, and is intended for a quantitative analysis. The various frames of
reference are as follows:
(a) The quantificationof animal bonefinds

This is a method for obtaining information on the economic importance of the different
species to the inhabitants of the site. Just how this is reflected in the bone debris is
controversial. Find frequency is often equated with economic importance, but this
ignores factors other than butchering that can affect the numbers of bones of different
species found. Further, the economic importance may not be great simply because the
number of animals butchered is high. For example, in the Mesolithic levels of the Grand
Abri at Chateauneuf-les-Martigues (Ducos 1958), rabbit bones are found in considerable
numbers and rabbit-hunting was surely a principal occupation of the inhabitants of the
cave. Yet the meat of ruminants contributed more to their diet even if the bones of these
animals are less frequently represented in the bone debris (Clason 197I). The value of a
count of bone pieces per species is limited by the different meat quantity represented by
each species and the nature of the fragmentation of its bones. Neither Ducos (i968) nor
Perkins (I97I) has overcome these difficulties; Perkins suggests that osteologists choose
for analysis only those bones which are not affected by cultural activities! But all analysable material is incorporated in a deposit as a result of cultural activities, and in the
absence of a uniform, methodological basis, this approach cannot be expected to produce
comparable results.
All the difficulty of determining the economic importance of different species might be
overcome if a better system of quantification, such as Kubasiewicz's weighing method,
were used. The principle of this method (Kubasiewicz 1956) is that the palaeo-arctic
mammals which played a part in prehistoric man's economy, all show a distinct correlation of bone to flesh weight. Therefore, weighing all the bones of one species should
provide quantitative results more directly related to meat weight than could be obtained
by counting the bones. The degree of fragmentation does not affect the accuracy of these
measurements. Kubasiewicz (I956) calculated the meat weights from the bone weights of
different species using empirical values for their relationship. The proportions of species
judged by the bone and the meat weights are virtually identical. In fact, since the meat
weights are hypothetical and only represent a part of the meat consumed on the site (see
below), it is possible to ignore their calculation and to use bone weight proportions directly
for determining the contribution of different species to the diet of the site occupants.

Some criticisms of this method of relevance to osteo-archaeology may be mentioned.
First, the biological assumptions of the method may be questioned. Modern domesticated animals show racial or individual variation in the ratio of bone to meat weight,
and some domesticated species have produced breeds with different relative bone
weight. But in pre- or proto-historic times, the variation in heavy and light boned breeds
was probably less marked than at present and at worst, such error is likely to be small.
Variation between individuals would not affect the weights since one is always dealing
with bones from many animals.
A second objection to the use of this method concerns burial conditions. It is known
that buried bones can change their specific weight; thus, if burial conditions are not
uniform throughout a site, incorrect results may be obtained by weighing the bones.
However, the average specific weight of bones of different species (or other portions of
the material) can be established by sampling, and the results then corrected. Alternatively,
the material from areas with distinct burial conditions can be treated separately; such
units will often correspond with archaeological units. At present, it is the careful
application of this method that can give most information on the importance of different
species in prehistoric economy and diet.
As mentioned above, the relative importance of an animal species in an economy or
diet is not the same as the frequency of its slaughter or butchering due to the different
meat quantities involved for different species. The slaughter frequencies are related to the
type of stockbreeding practised (see below) and can therefore be typical of a given culture.
Most osteologists use the so-called 'minimum number of individuals' to establish these
frequencies. The validity of this concept has already been criticized in detail (e.g. Paaver
I958; Ducos 1968; Ambros I969; Uerpmann I97Ia; Perkins I97I); its past and current
use will now be discussed briefly.
The calculation of the minimum number of individuals involves deciding which bones
could be from the same animal. Subjectivity in making this decision (especially when
dealing with different parts of the skeleton) can be eliminated by counting only the most
frequently represented bones and including others only when it is quite clear that the
animals they represent are not included in the first count (i.e. on objective criteria of age
etc.). In extensive collections, the most frequently occurring bone usually represents the
entire range of a species and the calculation of the minimum number of individuals will
be based on this bone alone. Such results will not be comparable with those from smaller
collections of material, since the smaller the number of finds the more closely this will
approach the 'minimum number of individuals', until ultimately, with a single find, both
the find number and the 'minimum number of individuals' for the species are i. The
difference between number of finds and 'minimum number of individuals' increases as
the size of the sample increases. Therefore, since almost all collections will include some
species represented by many, and others represented by few finds, the 'minimum
number' calculated for the various species will not be comparable. In many publications,
species represented by few finds are over-represented in the proportions of the minimum
numbers of individuals. It is important, therefore, that only the minimum numbers of
individuals calculated from similar sized bone samples are considered. It must be made
quite clear that the 'minimum number of individuals' is not the same as the 'number of
individuals'.
312
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
The use of the minimum number of individuals for calculating meat quantities is
permissible but every error will be cumulative. The relative meat quantities can be more
directly calculated by the weighing method previously discussed. It would be useful to
check one method against the other, but, because the units of measurement involved are
not the same, cross-checking is, in fact, difficult. A conversion could be calculated as
described above, using an empirical value for the meat quantity per individual of a
species. However, empirical values taken from modern domestic animals cannot accommodate variations in the size and meat yield of prehistoric animals which are often
considerable.
Recent attempts to determine the weight of an animal from its skeletal build are very
promising (Matolcsi 1970; Noddle 1971). Noddle's method - based on bone measurements - is more useful in osteo-archaeology than Matolcsi's. This is based on the
absolute weight of metapodia and so is sensitive to alterations in the weight of buried
bones. Studies carried out to date suggest that it will be possible to calculate the weight
of an animal, using only measurements of its bones, as soon as the necessary empirical
investigations of all species of interest are completed. It will then be possible to convert
the proportions of meat weights - obtained by using the weighing method - into proportions of individuals (Uerpmann I97ib).
(b) The age and sex determinationof animals chosenfor slaughter
Methods for determining the age of the animals represented by different bones are fully
described in the literature, both basic techniques (e.g. Habermehl 1961; Silver I969),
and special procedures (e.g. Klevesal and Kleinenberg 1967; Hatting 1969). Habermehl's
work is particularly important for palaeo-economic analyses since he deals with both
domesticated and wild animals.
Two methods of age determination are particularly relevant to osteo-archaeology. The
first is based on jaw-bones, the second, on the state of the epiphyses of certain bones. A
fairly accurate determination is only possible if the jaw-bones are well preserved, or if the
fusion of the epiphyses can be seen to be under way. In all other cases, the bones can
only be said to be from animals above or below a certain age. The problems of applying
quantitative analysis are illustrated by this example: Fusion of the epiphyses of extremity
bones of domesticated pigs occurs in three main stages at i, 2 and 32 years of age (e.g.
Silver I969: 285, table A), at i year: the shoulder and pelvic bones, distal extremity of
humerus, proximal extremity of radius and second phalange; at 2 years: distal extremity
of tibia and metapodia, proximal extremity of first phalanges; at 3-1 years: proximal
extremity of humerus, femur, ulna and tibia; distal extremity of radius, ulna and femur.
Extremity bones with these epiphyses therefore indicate whether the animal represented
had passed the above stages. In classifying the bones according to age the minimum
number of individuals is determined for each extremity bone with (A) open epiphyses or
(B) fused epiphyses. One can then relate A and B (the minimum number of individuals
below and above the age in consideration), e.g. A x I00: A + B. This equation gives the
percentage of animals slaughtered before reaching that particular age. The proportions
should be similar for bones at the same fusion stage from different parts of the skeleton:
for minor differences, an average can be calculated. Major differences, possibly due to
Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 3I3

different conditions of preservation or human interference, must be studied in more
detail since they can preclude the application of this method.
A simpler method is to count all bones relatable to each stage, both below and above
the age it represents (e.g. all tibia, metapodia and first phalanges on which the epiphyses
which fuse at two years are either fused or open). This gives the number of bones from
animals (a) under i year and (b) over i year for the first stage; similarly (c) and (d) for the
2-year stage; (e) and (f) for the 3k-year stage. If both epiphyses of a bone are recognized,
both must be counted. It is important to note that (c) will also include (a) and correspondingly (e) includes both (c) and (a), i.e. bones of animals aged less than 2 years and
i year respectively. Taking this into account, one can calculate the percentage of finds of
animals under i year, between i and 2 years, between 2 and 3? years and over 32 years
of age. Individuals represented by several bones will be counted several times in their
age groups. This will distort the results unless sufficient material is analysed so that overrepresentation of individual animals will not cause significant distortion. For small
samples, it is necessary to work with the minimum number of individuals.
With appropriate modifications, this method can be applied to the bones of other
animals (Uerpmann I97Ia: 76). The more gradual fusion of epiphyses occurring in many
stages in other species creates a major difficulty since the number of bones assigned to
each stage will be small and the errors inherent in working with small numbers will
reduce the credibility of the results. Usually, good quantitative results can only be
obtained by studying large bodies of material.
The quantification of jaw-bones of determinable age is easier than dealing with epiphyses since the age groups of animals represented by well-preserved jaw-bones are
clearly distinguishable. The minimum numbers of individuals calculated for each age
group can be related to each other.
In sexing animals from their bones, identification is a greater problem than quantification. Pig jaws are most easily identified since the development of the canine is sexually
determined. Thus, a combination of age and sex determination is possible with pig
bones. For ruminants, horn-cores, pelvic bones and metapodia may be sexed, but here
sex-determination is subject to different degrees of possible accuracy. The sex of sheep
and goats is clearly reflected in either the horn-cores or the frontal bones of hornless
animals but quantification is difficult because of differential preservation. For example,
female goat horn-cores are harder and more resistant than those of males and are better
preserved. They will consequently be overvalued. With sheep, females are often hornless
and surviving, identifiable female bones (frontals) are not really comparable with those of
males. Even if only frontal bones were counted, male sheep would be over-represented
due to the heavy structure of their skulls. Different problems are encountered in sexing
cattle bones: growth variability, the presence of young animals, and the practice of
castration obscure the sexually determined differences between horn-cores of adult
males and females. Knecht (X966) has shown how castration affects the sex-determination
of horn cores.
Pelvic bones are a better basis for the sex determination of ruminants. Boessneck,
Muiillerand Teichert (I964: 78 ff.) have described the relevant criteria for sheep and goat
bones and Lemppenau (i964) those for other central European ruminants. Although
castration complicates the sex determination of pelvic bones too, the advantage of using
314
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
these bones is that preservation is equal for both sexes. The minimum number of
individuals is then readily calculated for both sexes and can be related. The criteria for
the sex determination of the sacral bone of the smaller central European ruminants are
to be found in Boessneck and Meyer-Lemppenau (I966).
The differences between male and female horn-cores and pelvic bones are secondary
sexual characteristics but those recognized in the metapodia of ruminants are tertiary,
related to the greater body weight of male animals. The former develop with the reproductive functions of the animals, the latter appear later. It is therefore extremely difficult
to determine the sex of animals on the basis of metapodia. In domesticated ruminants
the distal epiphyses fuse between 2 and 2z years and no further objective age determination of metapodia is possible. Thus, sub-adults (i.e. animals of 2-4 years), are not distinguishable. This is the stage at which sexual dimorphism is not completely developed,
especially with prehistoric cattle which were slow to mature, so that broadening of the
metapodia of bulls occured mainly in the fourth year. There is therefore no adequate
basis for distinguishing between male and female metapodia even without the admixture
of bones of castrated animals (see Mennerich 1968). Higham and Message's successful
sex determination of metacarpals of cattle from Troldebjerg is an exceptional case
(Higham and Message I969). Their study was favoured by the small number of identified
bones, the uniformity of the isolated island cattle population (see Uerpmann 197Ia), and
the large size of the cattle. (It is known that considerable size reduction of domesticated
cattle involves a decrease in sexual dimorphism.) However, on many European mainland
sites, sex determination of many of the metapodia and consequently the quantification of
identified bones has presented problems. Studies of the metapodia of modern cattle (e.g.
Boessneck I956; Zalkin I960; Fock I966; Mennerich i968; Higham I969; Matolcsi
I970) have not solved this problem but have confirmed the feasibility of determining the
sex of the animals represented by metapodia. Similarly many sheep bones must remain
undetermined due to the overlapping variation of male and female metapodia. Zalkin
(196I) and Haak (I965) have published studies on modern sheep material. Clear sexual
dimorphism is seen in the metapodia of goats by the time the epiphyses fuse and identification is therefore usually possible. A study of modern material - with a different bias has been published by Schramm (I967). The metapodia of wild ruminants can usually be
identified according to sex: the basis of identification is the work of Bosold (i968).
(c) The correlationof archaeological bonefinds with prehistoric stock-breedingpractices
Osteo-archaeology is expected to contribute to economic history because animal bone
debris can indicate both the species of slaughtered animals and the stock-breeding
practices of prehistoric people. So far, the latter has received little attention.
There is definitely no absolutely direct relationship between stock-breeding practices
and bone remains. There are at least two processes by which herded animals become bone
debris: firstly, living, breeding populations are slaughtered; second, the skeletons become
debris (in several stages). As shown above, under favourable conditions the second
process can be followed; but is it possible to recognize the first? Higham, who has studied
prehistoric stock-breeding very thoroughly, apparently denies the existence of the
primary transition and relates the results of the second process (viz. bone debris) directly

to stock-breeding practice. He overlooks the fact that this is only true in very special
situations, i.e. where the entire animal population kept by the occupants of the site was
slaughtered and is represented by bone material on the site. The existence of this situation
will be difficult to prove because so many cultural factors operate against it. It would
have to be established for each site and for each level.
One cannot, therefore, expect the osteologist to decide whether the population of
slaughtered animals he is dealing with is in fact representative of the stock-breeding
practice of the site's inhabitants. An extreme example of the discrepancy which may
occur between the amount of meat consumed and the extent of cattle breeding is seen
with the Masai of East Africa: for them, the former is minimal, the latter highly developed. But by using all the techniques available to archaeology one may hope to
contribute towards an understanding of stock-breeding practices from the analysis of
bone remains of slaughtered stock. In so doing, two important questions must be
answered. First: what type of occupation is involved - was the site used only for certain
activities; if it was a settlement, was occupation seasonal, or all year round, or of varying
intensity at different times of the year? Second: what was the socio-economic status of the
community living there - does the site represent an independent economic unit, or part
of a unit, or part of a larger system?
If it is possible to say that the intensity of occupation was more or less constant
throughout the year and that the site was inhabited by an independent economic unit,
then it is permissible to infer the nature of the stock-breeding from an analysis of the
animal bones. If, however, intensity of occupation is known to have varied seasonally,
the animals slaughtered during periods of greatest occupation will be dominant, those
slaughtered at other times will not even be found at the site. Similarly, sites occupied by
groups which are part of a large economic system, where meat or animal exchange occurs,
will - depending on their function - either include bones of animals bred elsewhere and
consumed on the site, and/or lack of bones of animals bred there and consumed elsewhere. The results of Miiller's study of the exchange of animals between a medieval
village and its manor are of considerable interest (Miiller I97I), but it is seldom possible
to illuminate complex economic systems in this way. Most excavated sites are not easily
identified as independent units or as parts of larger, unknown systems. Similarly, decisions about the regularity of intense occupation are not easily made. Higham and Message
have claimed that the stock-breeding pattern of every prehistoric site can be established
(Higham and Message I969: 3 5); it would be more realistic to say that under favourable
conditions the pattern of slaughter can be established.
It is only possible to estimate the composition of the stock reared by a group if the
nature of the occupation and the economic status of the group do not affect the selection
of animals for slaughter. Determination of the age and sex of the bones can then indicate
the criteria for selecting animals for slaughter. This is an important aspect of the
economy, one which can, if used sensibly, reveal the background to economic behaviour.
The use made of domesticated animal species will be reflected by their age of slaughter
since each use is characterized by an optimal slaughter age. For example, with animals
bred for meat, this optimal age is at the transition from the juvenile to the sub-adult stage
when rapid growth has ceased and the meat output no longer increases relative to the
food input. This knowledge was basic to past as well as to modern stock-breeders.
316
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
In central and Western Europe, the optimal slaughter ages for animals reared for their
meat were approximately: pigs IX years, cattle 2-3? years, small ruminants I-2 years.
Thus if the bones representing these ages are dominant, the animals were probably bred
for meat. Any variation from the above slaughter ages indicates some other, more
obscure use to which the animals were put. The large-scale slaughter of young animals is
the most difficult to interpret: it could be due to the scarcity or over-abundance of meat,
or ignorance of stock-breeding principles, but most often it can be taken to indicate
variation in the nature or intensity of occupation. Should the major part of the material
represent a slaughter age above that quoted here, the living animals were probably used
for milk or wool production, for labour or as items of social or cult significance. The
determination of the sex of bones is important if these functions are to be considered.
Living animals are often exploited differentially according to their sex. Where use is
connected with reproduction, more females are needed than males, e.g. for milk production. Adult males are not needed since sub-adult males are at the best age for providing meat and can ensure continued breeding. When bred for milk production, females
will have a high slaughter age while most males of the same species will be slaughtered at
a lower age to provide meat. The value of male animals is often limited even for functions
independent of sex, e.g. wool production. This is due to the aggression shown by male
animals to each other and to humans; many males are consequently slaughtered or
castrated. Evidence of castration therefore indicates the use of living animals for purposes
not determined by their sex, for example for wool production, as prestige possessions or
as a measure of value. This does not apply to pig, since the meat of uncastrated males has
a poor flavour. Low numbers of young animals of both sexes and evidence of castration
characterize these uses. Theoretically it should be possible to recognize the use of animals
for labour from bone remains, since adult males (sometimes castrated) are more highly
valued than females. In practice, however, this age/sex composition rarely occurs, since
labour is often subsidiary to other uses. Bone material from highly developed military
installations would perhaps be of this composition.
(d) The meat value of bones and bone distributionin excavated areas
Osteo-archaeology has not made full use of the spatial distribution of bone material
within an excavated site. The analysis of the distribution would be in the form of maps,
on which all material can be located. A subdivision of the material according to the
quantity of meat that bones carry could be useful in this context.
The quantity and quality of meat on different bones will vary. In order to estimate their
meat value, bones can be classified in three grades:
A: the vertebral column (excluding the tail), upper leg bones, and bones of the shoulder
and pelvic girdle: these are muscular parts of the body with high value meat;
B: the lower leg bones and skull (with brain and jaw musculature) and mandible (jaw
musculature and tongue), ribs and sternum: medium value meat;
C: face bones, tail, feet (including ankle joints): lowest value meat.
In order to be able to compare grades the bones of each species are classified according
to this system within the excavated areas. Recognition is therefore possible of areas with

remains of the highest value meat, and those with bones of minimal value which were
probably discarded during butchering. Excavators can contribute towards this analysis
by giving the exact find-spot for every bone. The osteologist can then establish the
distribution of bones unaffected by the choice of areas excavated. The extra work this
involves for the excavator is certainly justified by the information obtained on economic
and culture history. This is shown by the work of both Soergel (1969) and Stampfli
(I966; I97I), although they do not include meat value classification.
Kubasiewicz (I956) has shown that differences in the distribution of meat values in
various areas of pre- or protohistoric sites can provide indices of cultural or social
diversity. The meat value determination per area unit is therefore important for a functional interpretation of an excavated site. A system of classification, e.g. as described in
this paper, is indispensable if objective results are to be had. The parts into which the
material is divided can be measured in weight or, if the degree of fragmentation is
constant throughout the excavated area, the bones may be counted.
(e) The methods of palaeo-zoology and their relevance to palaeo-economy
Work on animal bones has tended to develop in two directions: some studies follow an
archaeological approach where important palaeo-zoological methods are not applied; on
the other hand, some studies with a zoological bias fail to deal adequately with aspects of
archaeological interest. This polarization of palaeo-zoological studies is regrettable, but
of the two extremes, the former is least acceptable since in these studies, information on
the animal per se is thought to be uninteresting. This neglect of qualitative aspects by
archaeologists is particularly disturbing. On the other hand, the lists and tables of a good
palaeo-zoological publication will contain all the data necessary for an economic interpretation. Because domesticated animals are artefacts, the palaeontology of domesticated
animals is part of culture history and the investigation of early domesticated animals is as
much a part of archaeology as is the study of prehistoric man's pottery or stone tools.
Concrete statements on economic history can only be made on the basis of a complete
palaeo-zoological analysis of the relevant material.
Archaeologists often fail to give adequate detail of the size and form of prehistoric
domesticated or wild animals. It is thought that the publication of these details will either
dismay or appear meaningless to readers who are not familiar with such material. However, the factors affecting the size and development of animals should be brought to the
attention of the layman; the work will then be comprehensible to him. The main factors
involved are the hereditary constitution of animals and their nutrition. With domesticated
animals, these factors are virtually under human control. The stages of development
recognized on domesticated animal bones are therefore indications of human will and
are therefore cultural characteristics.
Some workers in this field object to the concept of man's role in determining animal
development and refer instead to ecological determinants. This is correct only to the
point that the environment is the main determinant of available food resources. However, the remarkable differences observed between the size of small La Tene cattle
(kept by Celtic La Tene people) in central Europe, and the large cattle kept by the
Romans, in the same region where no environmental change is known for the period, is an
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
indication of the considerable freedom for man to decide on the type of animals he kept.
Another argument against environmental determinism is the fact that stock-breeders
have voluntarily chosen most of the areas that they now occupy. It is true, therefore, that
their animals had to adapt time and again to the environmental conditions of new areas,
and if economic difficulties were to be avoided, the adaptation process would have had
to be completed before the move. Changes in prehistoric domesticated animals due to
environmental conditions should not be considered as direct results of environmental
influences but as responses to the new environments into which the animals were
introduced by man. The main influences on the development of domesticated animals are
therefore always cultural and economic. The changes which domesticated animals have
undergone in the past and the mechanisms of these changes have been studied by
palaeontologists and zoologists and are fairly well understood. Nevertheless, much more
basic palaeo-zoological work is still needed for the gaps in our picture of the economic
history of stock-breeding cultures to be filled. The techniques of palaeo-zoology should
also be applied to the study of the morphology of wild animals, which will have been
affected in the past by man's alteration of their environments. In the context of palaeoeconomy, however, this reflection of man's influence may be a disadvantage since, when
analysing wild animal bones with palaeo-zoological methods, one is trying to obtain
information on the nature and potential of the environment in which they and their
hunters lived.
4 Osteo-archaeological
perspectives
Any paper on the potential and limitations of osteo-archaeology must also deal with
unsolved methodological problems. These are found at both the beginning and the end of
the procedure (described above) for analysing animal bones in palaeo-economy.
The first problem is that it is never possible to recover all of the bone debris from a site:
no matter how careful and how extensive the excavation may be, there is always an
unknown missing quantity. Even in more or less completely excavated sites, the quantity
of animal bones which could be expected from the calculation of the minimum number of
individual animals is never found. For example, at Burgaschisee-Siid, about forty-five
bone fragments per animal were found. The original number of bones would have been
more than 200 (see table 2, p. I2 in Boessneck, Jequier and Stampfli 1963). The various
bones of the skeleton are consistently represented in different proportions to their natural
occurrence (see table i, p. io in Boessneck, Jequier and Stampfli I963). Some parts of
a particular bone are more frequently found than others, e.g. the distal extremity of the
humerus and tibia, the proximal extremity of the radius of ungulates. What has become
of the missing bones or parts of bones?
The usual answer is that they have 'disappeared into the earth'. This is not a satisfactory answer because it does not explain, for example, the occurrence within a uniform
deposit of only one extremity of a bone, or of some fragile bones, such as vertebrae,
which have not deteriorated more than others. Therefore in order to justify the study of
animal bones for economic history, a better answer to this question must be found.
It is preferable to concentrate on the disappearance of bone remains before rather than

after their inclusion in the deposit where they are later found. The loss of material occurs
between the butchering or consumption of the animal and the incorporation of the debris
in the deposit. Once covered by a sediment, not much selective alteration of the composition of the debris occurs (except for the cases described above in Section 2). In
unfavourable burial conditions, all the remains of a particular material will be equally
affected. The disappearance occurs immediately after the formation of the debris and is
not affected by the length of time between this and excavation. Factors affecting the
missing quantity are: consumption of fresh meat beyond the limits of the site; the
consumption and removal of bones by dogs; the use of bone as raw material; weathering
of exposed bone debris. The last is most important. Due to its laminar structure, the
weathering of a bone is not a uniform process. A bone exposed to weathering is at first
only slightly altered in form. Only when the inter-laminar bonds are broken do the
compacta peel off and then, depending on their thickness, bones will begin to crumble
rapidly. Bones of different structure will therefore reach this disintegration point at
different rates. If a piece of bone is covered by a sediment before reaching this point, it
will be preserved. Depending on the rate of sedimentation, this is more likely to occur
with bones which are resistant to weathering than those prone to it.
This somewhat simplified description of the hypothesis of bone disappearance is based
on archaeological material and a knowledge of bone structure and weathering. The details
are difficult to verify and it is hoped that others working in this field will test the hypothesis with their data. An interesting approach to this problem is made by Chaplin (I97I).
This discussion emphasizes that species with particularly resistant bones are more
likely to be represented in archaeological inventories. The major difference in bone
solidity, however, is that between mammal and bird or fish bones.
A quantitative analysis of the species represented in a complex of bones is therefore of
potential significance for economy in archaeology. However, the problem of the missing
quantity affects the various procedures of this analysis in several ways, e.g. the calculation of the minimum number of individuals will depend on the rate of disintegration of
only the most resistant, and not all, bonles of a species. This rate is known to vary for
different species. The validity of the results of quantitative studies based on slaughter age
will be in doubt since bones of young animals are certainly less resistant than those of
adult animals.
It may be possible to develop the model of bone disintegration further so that the
missing material can be determined and calculated scientifically. As seen above, the
extent of the disintegration depends on the interaction of two successive independent
processes. The first is the differential disintegration of the different parts of the skeleton.
The second process, which interrupts the first, is the incorporation of the remains in a
sediment; this occurs more or less simultaneously for all remains. There is no reason to
doubt that the occurrence of both processes conforms to certain laws which could be
understood by the application of statistical methods. One can therefore expect to be
able to calculate the missing quantity in due course. All statements about animal consumption must in fact be relative. Information on the quantity of meat consumed on a
site would be useful as a basis for estimating settlement duration or population density.
However osteo-archaeology is not yet able to make absolute statements about quantity
since all such estimates must include a subjective estimate of the missing material. Once
EA
320
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
this can be calculated, absolute quantities will be available for study. However, their
archaeological use will still be limited since the relative contribution of vegetable and
animal matter to human diet varies considerably. It is known that an adult relying on a
meat source for protein would require a minimum of o00 gm. of meat per day; the calorie
intake would have to come from vegetable matter. If meat were to provide the calorific
content of the diet, c. 2,000 gm. of lean meat would be required per adult per day. The
minimum and maximum requirements are thus seen to vary by a factor of 20. Any
estimations of length or density of settlement based on the quantity of meat consumed
would have to take this factor into account. One would therefore have to say that a
prehistoric village had 10-200 inhabitants or was occupied for 50-I,000 years: statements of very little value.
Nevertheless, the hope of achieving useful results should not be abandoned: the
investigation of plant remains for palaeo-economy has only just begun and its potential is
still unknown. Quite independently the chemical analysis of human remains may one
day provide us with information on the animal and plant content of prehistoric peoples'
diet. In fact the methodology for the entire field of palaeo-economic studies has still to be
developed. Computers will help to make accessible data from archaeology that is still
unused. Perhaps osteo-archaeology, with its easily coded data, will lead the way for
archaeology in general.
Acknowledgement
This paper was translated from the German by Susan Frankenstein.
30.v. 972
Institutfiir Urgeschichte,
University of Tiibingen
References
Ambros, C. 1969. Bemerkungenzur Auswertung der Tierknochen aus Siedlungsgrabungen.
DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft,
Forschungsberichte
(Wiesbaden)15:76-87.
Boessneck,J. I956. Ein Beitragzur Errechnungder Widerristh6henach Metapodienmassenbei
Rindern. Zeitschr.f. Tierziichtungund Ziichtungsbiol.68:75-90.
Boessneck, J., Jequier, J.-P. and Stampfli, H. R. 1963. Seeberg Burgaschisee-Siid,Die Tier"
reste. Acta Bernensia11/3. Bern.
Boessneck,J., Miiller, H.-H. and Teichert, M. 1964. OsteologischeUnterscheidungsmerkmale
zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries LINNE) und Ziege (Caprahircus LINNE). Kiihn-Archiv78:1-1I29.
Boessneck, J. and Meyer-Lemppenau, U. 1966. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiedeam
Kreuzbein der kleinerenmitteleuropaischenWiederkiuer. Sdugetierkundl.
Mitt. 14:28-36.
Boessneck,J., Driesch, A. von den, Meyer-Lemppenau,U. and Wechsler-vonOhlen, E. 1971.
Die Tierknochenfunde
aus dem Oppidumvon Manching.Ausgrabungenin Manching 6, Wiesbaden.
Bosold, K. 1968. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiedean Metapodien und Phalangen
mitteleuropaischerWildwiederkauer.Sdugetierkundl.Mitt. I6:93-153.
Chaplin, R. E. 1971. The study of animalbonesfrom archaeologicalsites. London, New York.
Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 32I

Clason, A. T. I97I. Some problems concerning stock-breedingand hunting after the Bandceramicnorth of the Alps. Ille CongresInternationaldesMusdesd'Agriculture,Risumes.(Budapest) :252-4.
Driesch, A. von den, Boessneck,J. 1969. Die Fauna des 'Cabezo Redondo' bei Villena (Prov.
von derIberischenHalbinsel. :43-95, ioi-6.
Alicante). StudieniiberfriiheTierknochenfunde
Ducos, P. 1958. Le gisement de Chateauneuf-lez-Martigues(B. du Rh.), Les mamifereset les
problemes de domestication.Bull. du Mus. d'Anthrop.Prehist. de Monaco.5:119-33.
en Palestine.Publ. de l'Inst. de Prehist. de
Ducos, P. I968. L'originedes animauxdomestiques
l'Univ. de Bordeaux,Memoire No 6. Bordeaux.
an Metapodieneinigereuropdischer
Rinderrassen.
Fock, J. I966. MetrischeUntersuchungen
Thesis,
Munich.
Haak, D. I965. Metrische Untersuchungen an R6hrenknochenbei Deutschen Merinolandschafen und Heidschnucken.Thesis, Munich.
bei Haustieren,Pelztierenund beimjagdbarenWild.
Habermehl, K.-H. I961. Altersbestimmung
Berlin and Hamburg.
Hatting, T. I969. Age determinationfor subfossil beavers (Castor fiber L.) on the Basis of
Radiographs of the Teeth. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren.
I32:115-28.
Higgs, E. S. I967. Environmentand Chronology- the evidence from mammalianfauna. In:

McBurney, C. B. M.: TheHaua Fteah (Cyrenaika)and the stoneage of the south-eastMediterranean.Cambridge.pp. I6-44.
Higham, C. I967. Stock rearingas a cultural factor in prehistoricEurope. Proc. Prehist. Soc.
33:84-107.
Higham,C. 1969. Towardsan economicprehistoryof Europe.CurrentAnthropology.Io: I39-45.
Higham, C. and Message, M. 1969. An assessment of a prehistorictechnique of bovine husbandry.In Sciencein archaeology.2nd edn,pp. 315-30, London (eds D. Brothwelland E. Higgs).
Jarman, M. I971. Culture and economy in the north Italian neolithic. World Archaeology.
2:255-65.
Klevesal, G. A. and Kleinenberg, S. E. I967. Altersbestimmungbei Saugetieren auf Grund
geschichteterStrukturenin Zahnen und Knochen (Russ.). Moscow.
Knecht, G. I966. Mittelalterlich-friihneuzeitlicheTierknochenfunde aus Ober6sterreich
(Linz und Enns). Naturkl.Jahrb. d. Stadt Linz. Linz.
Kubasiewicz, M. 1956. 0 metodyce badan wykopaliskowichszczatk6wkostynch zwierzecych.
MaterialyZachodnio-Pomorskie.
2:235-44.
Lemppenau, U. I964. Geschlechts- und Gattungsunterschiedeam Becken mitteleuropiischer
Wiederkiuer. Thesis. Munich.
Matolcsi, J. I970. Historische Erforschungder K6rpergr6ssedes Rindes auf Grund von un87:89-137.
garischemKnochenmaterial.Zeitschr.f. Tierziichtg.u. Ziichtungsbiol.
Mennerich, G. 1968. R6merzeitlicheTierknochenaus drei Fundortendes Niederrheingebietes.
Thesis, Munich.
322
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
Muller, H.-H. I97I. WiderspiegelunggesellschaftlicherVerhaltnisseim archaologischenTierknochenmaterial.IIIe CongresInternationaldes Musdesd'Agriculture,Resumes.(Budapest):264.

Noddle, B. I97I. Estimation of body weight from measurements on bones. IIIe Congres
Internationaldes Museesd'Agriculture,Resumes.(Budapest):232.
Paaver, K. L. I958. Zur Methodik der Bestimmung des relativen Anteils von Saugetierarten
und -gruppen im KnochenmaterialarchaologischerAusgrabungsstatten.(Russ.) Nachrichten
der Akademieder Wissenschaften
derESSR, 7, Biol. Ser. Nr. 4.
Perkins,D. jr. 197I. A new method of quantifyingfaunalremains.IIIe Congrs Internationaldes
Museesd'Agriculture,Resumes.(Budapest):228-9.
Schmid, E. I964. Die Tierknochen. Birsmatten- Basisgrotte.Acta BernensiaI:93-00o.
Schramm, Z. I967. Long bones and height in withers of goat. (Polish with English and
Russian summary).Roczniki Wyisej Szkoly Rolniczejw Poznanin. 36:89-105.
Silver, I. A. I969. The ageing of domestic animals. In Science in Archaeology.2nd edn, pp.
283-302, London (eds D. Brothwelland E. Higgs).
Soergel, E. I969. StratigraphischeUntersuchungenam Tierknochenmaterialvon Thayngen
Weier. Archaologie und Biologie. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Forschungsberichte15:
I57-7I'
Stampfli, H. R. I966. Die Tierreste aus der r6mischen Villa 'Ersingen-Murain'in Gegeniiberstellung zu anderen zeitgleichen Funden aus der Schweiz und dem Ausland. Jahrb. d.
Bern. His. Mus. 45/46:449-69.
Stampfli, H. R. I97I. Die Knochenfundeaus Auvernier.Unpublished manuscript.
aus der Talayot-Siedlungvon S'Illot (San
Uerpmann, H.-P. 197Ia. Die Tierknochenfunde
Studien
fiber
frihe
von der Iberischen Halbinsel 2.
Tierknochenfunde
Lorenzo/Mallorca).
Munich.
Uerpmann,H.-P. Ig97b. Ein Beitragzur Methodikder wirtschaftshistorischenAuswertungvon
Tierknochenfunden aus Siedlungen. IIIe Congres International des Musees d'Agriculture,
Resumes. (Budapest):230-2.
Zalkin,V. J. I960. Die Variationder Metapodienund ihre Bedeutungfiir die Erforschungder
Friihgeschichtedes Rindes. (Russ.) Bull. d. Mosk. Ges.d. Nat'forscher,Abt. Biol. 65 (I): 09-26.
Zalkin,V. J. 196I. Die Variabilitatder Metapodienbei Schafen. (Russ.) Bull. d. Mosk. Ges. d.
Nat'forscher, Abt. Biol. 66 (5):115-32.
Abstract
Uerpmann, H.-P.
Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a critical review of 'osteoarchaeological' method
This paper describes how the study of animal bones from archaeological sites ('osteoarchaeology')may contributeto our reconstructionof culturaland economichistory. Methods of
identification,quantificationand sex and age determinationare critically reviewed. The basic
problem of relating bone debris at archaeologicalsites to a prehistoric animal population is
discussed.

1973 Uerpmann Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology, A Critical Study of Osteoarchaeological Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1973 Uerpmann Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology, A Critical Study of Osteoarchaeological Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A Critical Study of 'Osteo-Archaeological'

history from archaeological

bone finds: the

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 309

methods and interpretations

of identified/non-identified bone pieces, has already been described. In some cases,

(a) The quantificationof animal bonefinds

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 31

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 3I3

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 315

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 317

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 319

Animal bonefinds and economicarchaeology: a study of 'osteo-archaeological'method 32I

Higgs, E. S. I967. Environmentand Chronology- the evidence from mammalianfauna. In:

Muller, H.-H. I97I. WiderspiegelunggesellschaftlicherVerhaltnisseim archaologischenTierknochenmaterial.IIIe CongresInternationaldes Musdesd'Agriculture,Resumes.(Budapest):264.

You might also like