Humans, animals, and the craft of slaughter in archaeo-historic societies

230 Pages·2019·30.96 MB·English

by  Krish Seetah.

INDEX
Abattoir(s),70.SeealsoLee,PaulaYoung Bonetools,108
Britain,58 Boneworking,142
France,72 Botswana,78
historicdevelopment,70 BournemouthFaunalDatabase,155
Kenya,31 Bovinespongiformencephalopathy,68
Roman,119 Britain(medieval),97,166,193.Seealsonamesof
US,4 specificcities
Actor–NetworkTheory(ANT),29–31,47 feasting,74
Actualisticstudies,128 Britain(Roman),9,62,117,160–1.SeealsoRoman
Aesthetics,71,74–6,111,115 Empire;namesofspecificcities
andstandardisation,75 meatmarketsystem,120
Agency,120 Buddhism/Buddhist(s),52–4
Agriculture,3,5,81,90,208,224 Bullbaiting,217
Alimentation,45 Burakumin,54
Analogy,40,42,47 Butcher(s),41,66
Animal agencyof,65,90
commercialisation,117 changingrolethroughtime,64
cruelty,57 definition,13
domestic,117 ethnographiccontext,102
hunted,44 asexecutioner,54
sacrifice,116–17 asgenderedprofession,4,215
sentience,42 andidentity,59
assymbol,107 ostracisedprofession,53
utility,108 aspartofcraftnetwork,4
viewof,117 professional,128
ANT.SeeActor–NetworkTheory Roman,131,138
Anti-Semitism,57 andspecialistdogbreeds,217
Apprenticeship,36,41,219 Butchers’blocks,89
shochet,99 Butchers’Guild(s),162,165
Archaeometallurgy,98,118 London,205
Autoethnography,66 Seoul,221
York,206
Bakwena,Botswana,78 Butchery/butchering
Barolong,Botswana,78 associatedparaphernalia,4,79,85
BattlesburyBowl,Wiltshire,139 behaviours,108
Beef,199 ofdeer,164
marbling,75 definition,13–15
salted,200 drivers,144
Binford,Lewis,13–15,18.Seealso asanecosystem,27,43,218
Uniformitarianism industrialization,57
middle-rangetheory,27 mechanisation,77
utilityindex,26 patterning,122
Blacksmith(s),4,30 primary,secondary,andtertiary,114
Boneindustries,112 asprocess,22,40,111
Bonemarrow,69 professionalisation,66
255
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
256
INDEX
Butchery/butchering(cont.) definition,13
Roman,163,194,223 geometricclustering,80
routestospecialisation,66 geometry,123,145
asskilledcraft,39 typologies,128
specialisation,77–8
standardisation,66 Directionality,146
studies,15 Disarticulation,111
technology,118–19 Disease,215
terminology,145 bovinespongiformencephalopathy,68
units,167,173–4 miasma,70,215
Disembowelment,70
CanaryIslands,Spain,51 Domestication,3,224
Carcass
dismemberment,14 Efficiency,101
manipulation,67 Efremov,IvanAntonovich,16
Caste,47 Ely(medieval),169,172
Catterick(Roman),169–70 Endogamy,48–9
Cattle,132 Enskilment,35,48,89
inthemoderntrade,205 Equifinality,40,128
translocation,207 Eta,53
C(cid:1)esis,Latvia,156 Ethiopia,55
Chadwick,Edwin,58 Ethnoarchaeology,38,42,47–8,215
Chaîneopératoire,19,33–8,47,78–80,112,123 Ethnography,215
Chalaf,99 Evisceration,50,67,203
Chianin,55 Exeter(Roman),114,162–3
China,55,216 Experimentalarchaeology,28,220
Chopping,98 Experimentalreplication,66
Christianity/Christian(s),51,53,215 Exsanguination,50,67,79
Cirencester(Roman),158,162,164,169–70
InsulaII,164 Farmer,90
Class,47 Fiddes,Nick,46
Cleaver(s),14,96,137 Filleting,111
ascharacteristicofRomanbutchery,162 Flintknapping/flintknapper(s),218,220
medieval,97,166,193 Foodsharing,115
reproduction,187 Fragmentation,15,109
Roman,97,193,201 France,57
Codingsystem,124 Fuga,Ethiopia,56
Cognition,15–17,86 Functionality,41
Commodification,82
Confucianism,54 Gallicisation,160
Coppergate Gamo,Ethiopia,48
medieval,169,171 Germany/Germanisation,160,217
Viking,113 Gestures,89
Crabtree,Pamela,165 Gloucester(Roman),163,223
Craft Gluemanufacture,113
asaframingdevice,29 GoodrichCastle,165
groups,48 Gould,Richard,18
Craftspeople,30,36,40 Grant,Annie,120
India,48 Grease,69,194
knowledge,7 Greenfield,Haskel,100
withinatradenetwork,90 Guilds,57.SeealsoButchers’Guild(s)
Cuisine,115,190,194 Gurage,Ethiopia,56
Curing,182
Cutmark(s),122–3.SeealsoRecordingsystem; Habitus,37,108
Scoopmarks Halal,62,79
asbiographicaltrait,37 Hambukusha,Botswana,79
biography,36,78 Hausa,CentralAfricanRepublic,56
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
INDEX 257
Hideworking,113 Lauwerier,Roel,123
Hides,194 Leather,194
Hinduism/Hindu(s),52,55,63 Leathertrade,165
castesystem,52 Leatherworker,53–5
Hinin,54 Lee,PaulaYoung,70
Hornworking,113 Leroi-Gourhan,André,33
Huaulu,Indonesia,69 Levant,90
Husbandry,77,81 Lévi-Strauss,Claude,45
intensification,82,160 Lincoln(Roman),120,162,194,202
formeatproduction,133 Lithictools,14,33,47,126
Roman,160 andcognition,17
Hygiene,69 anddirectionality,146
asfunctionalobjects,16
Identity,194 influenceonrecordingsystems,6
Improvement,morphological,75,77,82,117,132 instudiesofcognition,16
India,51–2,216 transitiontometal,5,90
Ingold,Tim,30 versusmetaltools,6
Intentionality,15,35,44,103,213–14 Livormortis,119
reasoning,17 LuttrellPsalter,166
Iron Lyman,Lee,13,15,22
cast,92
steel,93 Maasai,74
wrought,92 cattle,208
IronAgeBritain,67,117 pastoralism,133
Islam/Muslim(s),50–1,57,60,100,116 Macelli,119
fêtedumouton,57 Maker’smark,92
Qibla,116 Maltby,Mark,137,147,159
ShariaLaw,116 Manga,CentralAfricanRepublic,56
Marchand,Trevor,220
Japan,33,51–4,75,103 MasaGuisey,Cameroon,49
Judaism/Jew(s),79,100.SeealsoKosher Materiality,30,63
Jointing,80 ofgestures,38
Jungle,The,book(1906),222 Mauss,Marcel,8,37
techniquesofthebody,37–8,89
Keller,Charles,220 Meat.SeealsoBeef
Keller,JanetDixon,220 andclimatechange,224
Kenya,30,71,101,207,215 cuts,133
cattlemarket,72 andgoodhealth,215
Emali,72 industry,200
Kimana,67,204 noblecuts,68
Mbirikiri,72 removal,80
Kikuyu,74 suspending/hanging,200
Knives MedievalBritain,9,161–2,215.SeeBritain
blade,92,96–8 (medieval)
filleting,137 Metal,92.SeealsoIron
specialisation,119 knives,5,90–1
steeling,93–4 tools,5,17,77
work-hardening,93 Metallurgy,91,112,119
Koline,7,26,29 Middle-rangetheory,42
Korea,51–2,54,221 Miracle,Preston,35
Koryoperiod,54 Modernity,57,224.SeealsoAnalogy
Kosher,57,79,99,116 Mooketsi,Cynthia,46
Muscleboning,180
Laminae,119
Lartet,Édouard,107 NearEast,90
Latour,Bruno,29 Neatham(Roman),138
LaugharneCastle(medieval),169,172 Neolithicperiod,90,114
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
258
INDEX
Ngatatjara,18 Sinclair,Upton,46
Nikur,100 Skill,35–7
Novgorod(medieval),125 Skinning,50,80,85,95,97,111,129,139,149,151,
Nunamiut,7,18,29,147 156,162,196,203
Slaughter/slaughtering,42,49
O’Connor,Terry,87 Slaughterhouse(s),31
Osteoarchaeology,118 Slovenia,7,25–6
Outcaste,51.SeealsoHinin Smallholderhusbandry,69
SmithfieldMeatMarket,London,57
Paekchŏng,55 Socialdifferentiation,47
Pastoralism,90,207 Socialstratification,47,51
Performance,40,89 SouthShields(Roman),130
Phenomenology,42,65 Specialisation,101
Pictish,60 Speth,John,18,42,109,115
Pollution Spiralfracture,109
environmental,58,63 Spoilage,67
spiritual,50,52 Steak(R)evolutions,film(2014),67
Portchester(Roman),162 Storage,200
Post-processualarchaeology,39,107 Suggillation,67
Practice Suspending/hanging,200
asaframingdevice,29 Symmetricalarchaeology,29
virtuosity,66
Praxis,27 Tabernae,164
Primalcuts,69 Tanning/tanner(s),4,53–6,59,70
Processualarchaeology,107,113 Taphonomy,16,109–11
Tarbat,Portmahomack,Scotland.,60
Ragyappa,55 Taskscape(s),30,41,131,206
Recordingsystem,124–5 Technology,mediatingconsumption
database,147 through,42
limitations,125 Tibet,55
templatemodels,128–9,145 Tokugawaperiod,53
usingGIS,129,142 Tools
Refrigeration,67 asadefiningcharacteristicofbutchery,14
RiftValleyFevervirus,215 diversification,156
Rixson,Derrick,113 ToruńTown,Poland,60,111–12
RomanEmpire,164,217.SeealsoBritain Trade
(Roman) animalbody-part,64,90
NorthWestProvince,194 Trampling,109
Romanisation,160 Trigger,Bruce,39
Ronda,Spain,98
Uniformitarianism,28
Sanitation,69.SeealsoWaste UnitedStates,4
Scapula,trimmed,163 impactsofmeatconsumption,220
Schiffer,MichaelBrian,29 meatindustry,54
Schleppeffect,86 Untouchability,51.SeealsoOutcaste
Scoopmarks,138 Urals,Russia,90
Secondaryproducts,112 Utilityindex,28
Selectivebreeding,77
Serer,Senegal,56 Veganism,49
Serjeantson,Dale,138 Vegetarianism,49,52
Sharing,4 Vindolanda(Roman),164
amongMaasai,133
Shechita,57 Walbrook(Roman),164
Shinto(cid:1),53 Wantage(Roman),137
Shipman,Pat,110 Waste,67
Shochet,99 blood,69
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
INDEX 259
bone,69 WortleyVilla(Roman),169,171
carcassby-products,69 Wroxeter(Roman),164
effluent,68
internalorgans,69 York
wastefulness,68 Anglo-Scandinavian,165
WestStow(Anglo-Saxon),165 medieval,165
White,Theodore,107 Roman,163
Wolof,Senegal,56 Viking,125
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. National University of Singapore (NUS), on 18 Mar 2020 at 09:08:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.015
CHAPTER ONE
ANIMAL BODIES, HUMAN TECHNOLOGY
FROM FLESH TO MEAT
Some 2.5 million years ago, the evidence points to a radical departure in how
our early ancestors acquired flesh from the carcasses of animals. Archaic
hominids began to mediate their consumption of meat through technology.
By using lithic implements to butcher, a small step for these proto-humans
initiated a gradual cascade of new ideas and practices, becoming a crescendo
thatwoulddrasticallyalterhowhumansinteractedwitheachother,withother
animals,andwiththeirenvironment.Inonewayoranother,manyoftheways
in whichhumansinteracted withanimals endedattheedge ofaknife,aknife
driven by knowledge of butchery.
Butchering is a uniquely human characteristic. Butchery is a concept that
does not find expression in the natural world, despite the fact that other
animals ‘dismember carcasses’ (Lyman 1994: 294). Initially, at an early stage
in evolution, humans employed simple techniques and basic technology. For
an immense time span, it seems, relatively little changed. Skipping many
millennia, as humans move beyond the initial stages of domestication and
husbandry intensifies, the implications of butchery for wider social practice
become more evident. From the mid-Holocene, perhaps as a consequence of
the influence of agriculture, we start to see steady, and at times explosive,
modificationinboththetechnologiesofbutcheryandinthewaystheanimals
are processed. One of these explosive moments coincides with the advent of
3
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.159.100.111, on 16 Mar 2020 at 18:09:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.002
4
HUMANS, ANIMALS & SLAUGHTER IN ARCHAEO-HISTORIC SOCIETIES
metal:thetechniquesandtoolsthatare developedmakeiteasiertoovercome
the constraints of the animal’s skeletal structure. More complex and varied
knives are forged and utilised. New paraphernalia, like butcher’s blocks and
meathooks,arecreatedtofacilitateprocessing.Thescaleofactivityintensifies
such that this additional equipment becomes a necessity. The practitioners
themselves become specialised, branching out and diversifying into slaughter-
ers, butchers, tanners, and horn workers. The networks around those who
process animal bodies expand and include farmers, drovers, blacksmiths, and
blade smiths. Roles within each craft profession are gendered, hierarchically
structured, and diverse, with some working part time, others full time, and
some seasonally.
A host of supplemental activity flows as a consequence of feedback mech-
anisms but also as a result of the diversification of the socioeconomic contexts
of meat consumption. Butchery facilitates the scales of sharing and exchange,
frominterpersonaltolong-distancetransportofmeatandby-products.Animal
bodies are modified to accommodate the resources extracted from them.
Initially, they are improved to increase their capacity for work, for traction
infieldsandfortransport(Albarellaetal.2008).Later,changesinmorphology
become attuned to producing better-quality meat in greater quantity
(MacGregor 2012: 426). With augmented production for flesh and amplified
consumption, processing also intensifies, leading to special requirements to
deal with waste, which has environmental ramifications. Originally, this is
managed by simply siting carcass processors close to water (Goldberg 1992:
64–6; Yeomans 2007: 104–5). By the post-medieval period, in many large
cities in Europe and America, processing is centralised and localised in the
abattoir: geographies of slaughter become institutionalised (Lee 2008: 4).
The above describes the path of what is perhaps the earliest example of
production and consumption, two perennial research topics in archaeology.
Butchery complicates the connection between making and consuming. The
butcher deconstructs a product of hunting or farming, the animal, and pro-
duces another, meat for cuisine. Thus, the activity of butchery occupies an
interesting conceptual and intellectual space between production and con-
sumption; it also mediates between animal body, food, and symbols.
Anumberof important questions –and concomitant hypotheses–emerge.
For the prehistoric context, did changes in butchery also depend on a
deepening understanding of animal morphology and ethology, at the point
of transition from carcass disarticulation to true butchery? When did the
division of flesh at a kill become sharing of meat in a settlement? For later
periods, how do peoples’ perceptions of animals change, for example, if we
compare exploitation of wild versus domestic fauna, or with intensification in
animal husbandry? Interpersonal relationships, within and between commu-
nities, affect how animals are perceived, hunted, and processed. What can
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.159.100.111, on 16 Mar 2020 at 18:09:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.002
ANIMAL BODIES, HUMAN TECHNOLOGY 5
butchery reveal about differences between categories of animals, systems of
management, and the roles in society of those who slaughter, butcher, and
process animal bodies?
The primary aim of this book is to examine butchery, butchering, and cut
marks (an outcome of butchering) in layered, intertwined, and yet distinct
relationships to one another. To do this, the book poses a key question: how
do the operational sequences – the gestures, steps, and unfolding component
parts–ofabutcheryeventbothreflectandshapewidereconomicandcultural
drivers? Whatcanthesigns ofbutcheryrevealaboutthese broaderconceptual
and practical worlds in which the butchery took place?
The book picks up the story of butchery at the point when metal tools,
specifically iron implements, become the mainstay of the craft, from late
prehistory. Bone from this and later periods capture the dependence on
agricultureandintensifiedanimalhusbandry,aswellasincreasedcentralisation
of the population and burgeoning urbanisation. My emphasis on metal tools
does not exclude those researchers working on lithic-tool butchery from this
callforafar-reaching,root-and-branchrevisionofourcollectiveprotocolsand
methodology.Thepointistoobserveandrespondtothedifferencesbetween
assemblagescreatedwithstoneversusmetaltoolsinordertobetterunderstand
howbesttostudyeachdataset.Theapproachandconceptualisationdeveloped
in the book applies to the spectrum of butchery studies. The introduction of
metalisitselfanimportantfeatureofchangeshappeningatasocietallevel.The
shift from lithics to metal knives for carcass processing represents the single
most important development to have taken place in ‘butchery’ – as a concept
and activity – until the advent of mechanisation.
The book also provides a methodological treatment of butchery. Studying
archaeological butchery invariably involves the analysis of cut marks. These
might be thought of as an indication of a specific activity, namely, the
disarticulationoflimbsandcuttingofmeat.But,astheargumentsinthisbook
willmakeclear,suchadefinitionistoosimplistictodescribebutchery.Butchery
involvescuttingupanimalbodiesusingtoolsaccordingtoapreconceivedplan.
Consider the physicality that exemplifies butchery (the activity), the intangi-
bility of butchering (the cognition), and the progressive nature of the act of
carcass processing. Butchery includes all of these components; as such, butch-
erydatarepresentcomplexsystemsofinteractionsinvolvingtool,practitioner,
andcarcass(Seetah2008),andsocialandeconomicdrivers(Seetah2004,2007).
That such a complex constellation of interrelated factors would necessarily
involve significant empirical variability should be clear, as should the utility of
this variability for hypothesis building and interpretational breadth. However,
in much of the literature so far, the tendency has been to focus on relatively
narrow and specific aspects of the butchery record, which has hampered the
scope of inference.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.159.100.111, on 16 Mar 2020 at 18:09:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.002
6
HUMANS, ANIMALS & SLAUGHTER IN ARCHAEO-HISTORIC SOCIETIES
Gaps in our current approach exist for various reasons and stem from basic
principlestodowithhowanalystsapproachthedata.Butcheryandbutchering
aresituatedattheintersectionbetweenthebiologyoftheanimal,theproduc-
tion and use of tools, and the cognitive expression of human intelligence and
resourceextraction.Zooarchaeologists,whoareideallysituatedtoserveasthe
point of intersection, approach the topic from the perspective of one data
source, bone. Though essential, by definition this is limiting. Cut marks are
found on animal bone but are not part of the animal’s biology. A conceptual
incompatibility exists as the actual situation in life deals with flesh, with meat.
Fromamethodologicalperspective,analystshaveyettosatisfactorilyresolve
a problem identified over three decades ago: ‘an over emphasis on the minu-
tiae of the cut mark’ that derives from a focus dominated by bone (Dobney
et al. 1996). To further complicate matters, methods to study cut marks have
typically been developed from assemblages created with lithic tools, and then
generalisedforapplicationacrossregionsandtimeperiods.Despitethefactthat
thereareconsiderablylarger,better-preservedfaunalassemblagesfromhistoric
periods, we still lack a dedicated recording system for metal-tool butchery.
Where theory is concerned, we have not yet conceptualised, indeed intellec-
tualised,whatbutcheryrepresentsbeyond‘theremovalofmeat’(Russell1987:
386), and the multifaceted role of the practice in society.
This book argues that it is now time to consider the limitations of these
approaches and to begin to take up the task of improving on them. It does so
byraising andexamininganumberof keypoints. First, there are fundamental
differences between butchery using lithics versus metal implements (Maltby
1985a, 1989). Assemblages created with metal versus lithic tools are different
in a number of significant ways. At the very least, we need to consider the
utility of the more diverse cut marks that derive from historic periods,
and how these might inform our methods. Invariably, distinctions also exist
in how we interpret: meat is part of the process of ‘calorification’ or
of ‘commodification’, depending on whether we are discussing prehistory
or later periods, respectively. Finally, our recording systems do not easily
accommodatetheunderlyingfactthatbutchery,asactivity,representsatrinity
ofevidence:thelocationalandtypologicalcharacteristicsofthemark,detailsof
the tool used, and function. By recording only a portion of the data from the
butchery record, it is difficult for analysts to infer on knowledge, intent, or
cultural traditions.
However, perhaps the main barrier to overcome is that academic studies
are absorbed with the products and outcomes of butchery. Anthropologists,
historians, sociologists, and ethnographers discuss meat, the meat trade, and
meat sharing and consumption. Zooarchaeologists study cut marks. There-
fore, scholars interested in topics such as food assembly and consumption, and
the place of animals in society, would benefit from a more nuanced
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.159.100.111, on 16 Mar 2020 at 18:09:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553544.002