El Mirón Cave, Cantabrian Spain: The Site and Its Holocene Archaeological Record

15: Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals from the Post-Paleolithic Occupations in El Mirón Cave

| 262 | T aphonomicstudyofthefaunalsamplefromtheMesolithic,Neolithic,Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age levels in El Mirón Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, Spain) has yielded valuable information and served to highlight the differential destruction of the various skeletal elements and their respective parts, among bones of both adult animals and juveniles. Three principal causes that seem to have led to the degradation of the original bone assemblages: human breakage for marrow extraction, human (and livestock) trampling, and breakage by carnivores, notably dog. The study of marks on the bones permits us to characterize the butchering processes that were carried out through time at the site. It also suggests the possibility of intrusions of earlier faunal materials into Bronze Age and late Chalcolithic levels. Finally, this analysis has resulted in a greater, more detailed understanding of the economic transition between the Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Cantabrian region. The sample of bones studied totals 47,234 items, of which 43,024 are taxonomically unidentifiable (table 15.1) and 4,220 are identifiable (table 15.2). Loose teeth are excluded. We inspected all the bones for marks, which can be separated into those produced by humans during marrow-cracking; tool marks; carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; rodent gnaw marks; and burning traces. We measured the lengths of both identifiable and unidentifiable bone fragments. We did not include whole bones (such as carpals and tarsals, unbroken phalanges, etc.), since they are not fragments, which are the objects of interest in this chapter. The sample of identified and measured bones reached a total of 2,813 items (table 15.2). degree of Fragmentation in the sample The lengths of bone fragments have been grouped by 1 cm intervals. Among the taxonomically unidentified bones, maximum length attains 8 cm (table 15.3); however, the majority (71 percent, or 30,540 out of a total of 43,024) of these fragments fall into the first length ChAPter FiFteen taphonomic study of the large and medium mammals from the PostPaleolithic occupations in el mirón Cave Manuel Pérez Ripoll and María Dolores López Gila Translated by Lawrence Guy Straus Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 263 | trampling, given the repeated concentration of activities within the enclosed space defined by the cave walls. The intensity of human activities is obviously another fundamental factor in the high degree of bone fragmentation. The distribution of fragments by size is different among the taxonomically identified remains. The interval,thatis,<1cm.Inallthelevelsthesetinyfragments exceed 70 percent of the total, except in Level 10, where they make up only 50 percent of the unidentified items. Starting at 2 cm, the number of bone fragments drops off sharply in all levels (figure 15.1). The overwhelming predominance of these small splinters is mainly the result of Fig. 15.1. unidentifiable bone fragments by length. note that majority are < 1 cm. graph by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. Fig. 15.2. Lengths of identified vs. unidentified bones from Level 8. note the extreme size difference between the two groups: identifiable fragments generally 3–7 cm long; unidentifiable fragments usually splinters < 1 cm. graph by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. | 264 | Chapter Fifteen 12 percent in Levels 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 and are rather more frequent (24–30 percent) in Levels 6 and 8 (table 15.5). This suggests that dog agency in bone breakage was relatively rare compared with trampling, which was much more significant. On the other hand, bones with traces of burning are variably represented: there are few in Levels 3, 7, 8 , 9, and 10 (5–10 percent) and more in Levels 4, 5, and 6 (20–40 percent). The scarce Mesolithic bone fragments include few or no burned items: there are four (13 percent) from Cabin Level 10.1 but none from Mid-Vestibule Level 304. The scarcity of bones and of burning in the Mesolithic layers is in sharp contrast with the situation in the underlying Magdalenian sequence. Dog and Rodent Gnaw Marks Not only are the identifiable bones larger than the unidentifiable ones, but they also include more bones with gnaw marks. The percentage of cattle bones with gnaw marks, relative to the total number of identifiable bones, rangesfrom33to46percent(earlyNeolithic:38percent; later Neolithic: 46 percent; Chalcolithic: 33 percent; Bronze Age: 46 percent). The bones of goat and sheep maximum lengths attain 18 cm, but we have simplified the tables by grouping all values of 15 cm or above (table 15.4). On average, the lengths of the identified bones are clearly greater than those of the indeterminate ones (figure 15.2). The bone fragments of cattle (Bos) are concentrated in the interval of 3–7 cm, but there are also many that measure 7–14 cm. The bones of goat, sheep, and pig are concentrated between 2 and 6 cm and decrease in number in the interval between 7 and 11 cm (figure 15.3). The size of the identified fragments can be explained by two main causes: first, human breakage for carcass dismemberment and, in the case of Bos, for marrow extraction; and second, breakage done by dogs to the bone residues, both from cattle and from the medium-size ungulates (goat, sheep, and pig). These conclusions are corroborated by study of the marks on the bones. study of the marks on the bones The distribution of marks on the unidentified bones is quite variable. Cut marks from tools are rare, as are dog bite marks on the bones: the latter range from 0.7 to Fig. 15.3. Lengths of unidentifiable Bos bones compared to those of Ovis, Capra, and Sus: the former are 1–6 cm, the latter are 3–8 cm long. graph by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 265 | bones, such as vertebrae or ribs to expose their spongy inner structure. In the bones of bovines, defleshing marks are more abundant than those related to disarticulation, indicating that filleting was a common practice in the butchering of cows (table 15.8). On the contrary, among the bones of goats, sheep, and pigs disarticulation marks outnumber defleshing marks. Many of their anatomical parts—with the exception of the axial skeleton—were not usually defleshed. It is the bones of the axial skeleton that display the highest concentration of cut marks related to meat removal (table 15.9). The stone tool cut marks are morphologically different from the metal ones. They are not as deep or as straight, but they are wider, their V profile is not as marked, and along the edges of the cuts one can see micro-striations made by micro-wear irregularities on the stone cutting edges (Pérez Ripoll 1992). The process of butchery was not much different from that conducted display higher relative frequencies of gnaw marks, between 38 and 53 percent (early Neolithic: 53 percent; later Neolithic: 53 percent; Chalcolithic: 50 percent; Bronze Age: 38 percent). Pig bones, in contrast, generally have lower values (early Neolithic: 14 percent; later Neolithic: 20 percent; Chalcolithic: 26 percent; Bronze Age: 46 percent) (tables 15.6a–d). The explanation for this difference is so far elusive. In general, the high number of gnaw marks indicates that dogs were important agents of bone breakage. Such marks are found on all major anatomical elements (tables 15.7a–d). Among the bones altered by dogs some have traces of corrosion that was probably produced by gastric juices. These are bones that habitually correspond to regurgitated food remains. However, they are quantitatively few (tables 15.6a–d). There are also a few bones with rodent gnaw marks (tables15.6a–d).Itisfrequenttofindcommensalrodents living alongside humans within food-producing economies . They use bones to sharpen their teeth, often leaving marks. Anthropic Marks on Bones There are three types of man-made marks on bones: tool cuts, fractures for marrow extraction, and burning traces. Butchery Marks on Bones of Domesticated Animals The tool cut marks can be metallic or lithic. The first are found in the Bronze Age and late Chalcolithic levels (4 and 5). The second are found in the early Chalcolithic and Neolithic levels (6 and 7). The morphology of the cut marks made with metal tools is very different from that of marks made by stone tools. Metal cut marks are deep, long, and rectilinear, with angular edges and very marked, narrow V-shaped cross-sections (figure 15.4). There are three types of such marks: (1) those found at joints that are transversal , similar to lithic cut marks, having to do with carcass disarticulation; (2) those located on diaphyses, pelves, ribs, and vertebral spines, which are elongated, oblique, or longitudinal, having to do with defleshing; and (3) those that result from a combination of cutting and chopping, caused by blows dealt with a cutting edge to section long bones at the articular area or to split certain Fig. 15.4. Photo of bronze age Bos rib with cut marks from the use of a metal tool. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. | 266 | Chapter Fifteen elements of goat, sheep, and pig—especially young and very young animals, as is the case at El Mirón—along with cereal grains and legumes. It would have been necessaryonlytosectionanddisarticulateeachskeletonele ment into a size that could be accommodated by the pot and therein cooked. Once the meat was eaten, the bones could be fed to the dogs, and dogs then become the mostimportantagentforbonebreakageandalternation, hence the large number of gnaw marks. The anatomical elements of cattle, because of this animal’s size, were filleted and the meat then used in stews or preserved by drying or smoking. With respect to bone breakage, the process of defleshing is connected to the consumption of marrow. The bones of goat, sheep, and pig have few breaks; in addition, the majority of these are concentrated on metapodials and the tibia, especially among remains from the Neolithic, since these bones were chosen to make awls and their breakage does not have to do with marrow or grease extraction (table 15.10). The extraction of marrow is part of a more general process that starts with the dismemberment of carcasses by anatomical units, followed by the defleshing of each of these, the disarticulation and cleaning of the bones, and finally with metal tools. defleshing marks are the only ones that have been seen on the cattle bones (table 15.8), while on the bones of goat, sheep, and pig disarticulation marks again predominate (table 15.9). The latter are localized at and near joints, are usually transversal, and are sometimes quite deep, no doubt because of the need to sever tendons and articular ligaments. The defleshing marks are oblique and elongated, being more longitudinal on long bones; their morphology is usually in the form of slight cuts and not in the form of scrape marks. This characteristic differentiates them from bones of the Paleolithic or Mesolithic, since the pre-agricultural (hunted) animal bones have abundant defleshing marks that are often in the form of scraping traces. We deduce from the study of the butchery cut marks that there were two different processes involved. defleshingwasdonetoBos ,whileonlytheaxialskeletonsof goat, sheep, and pig were systematically defleshed. Other skeletal elements of the medium-size ungulates were only occasionally defleshed, notably some humeri, radii, pelves, and femora. Possibly the very different body sizes of these animals can explain the differences in butchery practices. The availability of ceramic vessels allowed for cooking the various parts of the different anatomical Fig. 15.5. Photo of Bos vertebrae split open with metal tools, possibly axes, from bronze age Level 3 (with lenses) and Chalcolithic Levels 4 and 5. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 267 | articulation, something that is normally produced with old age and by continual application of force throughout the animal’s long life (figure 15.6). This pathology indicates that the individual was used as a draft animal . Such deformations have been identified at various sites throughout the Iberian Peninsula beginning in the Chalcolithic, linked to the introduction of the plow (Pérez Ripoll 1999). In ethnoarchaeological studies we conducted in the village of Pomakos, Greece, we observed this type of deformity among bones of cattle that during their lives had been used to pull a plow (Pérez Ripoll, unpublished data). Butchery Marks on the Bones of Wild Animals Bones of wild animals are analyzed here separately because of the special information that they can yield. The cut marks on bones of red deer and ibex from Bronze Age levels are more numerous than the marks on the bovine and sheep/goat bones (7 percent for red deer and 9 percent for ibex versus 2 percent for cattle and 5 percent for sheep/goat) (table 15.12). To these differences of frequency we can add information on the morphology of the marks. The cut marks on the red deer and ibex were made by lithic tools—not metal tools, as is the case among the bones of domesticated animals from the same levels. In addition, most of the marks on the wild animals are longitudinal scrapes. The the breaking of the bones. Consequently, the scarcity of breaks on goat, sheep, and pig bones makes sense in terms of the low number of defleshing marks, and both kinds of traces relate to the same pattern of butchering for these three midsize, domesticated ungulates. Among pig bones from the Bronze Age there are two ribs that had been broken by blows with a metal tool, which caused cuts and fractures. These marks indicate that the ribs were split into portions. Among cattle bones, fractures for marrow extraction are numerous. They are located both at the articular ends and on the diaphyses (table 15.11). Their existence is related to the high number of defleshing marks, which indicate the use of both meat and marrow, even among bones containing relatively little marrow, such as the first and second phalanges. In the Bronze Age and late Chalcolithic levels (4 and 5) we studied vertebrae, ribs, and the distal end of a humerus that had been split by blows from a hard metal tool, probably an axe; the objective of these fractures is the extraction of marrow from the spongy, cancellous core of these bones (figure 15.5). The unequal representation of butchery marks between the large cattle on the one hand and the mediumsize ungulates on the other is not unique to El Mirón. In the Neolithic site of Cova de l’Or (Valencia, Mediterranean Spain) we have observed that the bones of goats, sheep, and pigs have few defleshing marks but many from disarticulation; the fractures are few, but animal gnaw marks numerous (Pérez Ripoll 1992). In the Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels of Nerja Cave (Málaga, Andalucía) we observe the same distribution (Bernabeu, Barton, and Pérez Ripoll 2001; Bernabeu, Pérez Ripoll, and Valle 1999). This is true even in the Neolithic levels of the settlement at Knossos in Crete (Pérez Ripoll 2002). Bone Deformation Some deformations of bones are not the direct consequence of human intervention. Protection measures taken by humans for their livestock to avoid losses to predators such as wolves have as a consequence the survival of old animals and those with deformities (i.e., handicapped animals), which under natural conditions would have been easy prey for carnivores (Pérez Ripoll 2001). In Level 3.5 (Bronze Age or later) there is a first phalange of Bos with an exostosis on the proximal Fig. 15.6. Photo of bronze age and Chalcolithic first phalanges of Bos. The phalanx on the left has an osseous deformation in the proximal, articular zone, while the rest were split for marrow extraction. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. | 268 | Chapter Fifteen percentage of marked bones in Chalcolithic Level 5 is high(40percentofthereddeerbones),incontrasttothe low percentages for Levels 6 and 7. In the later Neolithic the cut marks are few, but in the early Neolithic they are relatively numerous, especially on bones of wild animals (5 percent of the red deer bones and 18 percent of the ibex bones, versus 2 percent of the sheep/goat bones and 1.5 percent of the cattle bones). defleshing marks—particularly from scraping—are predominant, especially in the early Neolithic (table 15.12). Something similar is found among bone fractures. In the Bronze Age and combined late Chalcolithic Levels 4 and 5, fractures are common among ibex bones (21 percent and 35 percent, respectively) and for red deer (24 percent and 38 percent, respectively). In contrast to these high values for wild animals, fractured cattle bones are relatively few (9 percent in the Bronze Age and 7.6 percent in the late Chalcolithic) and even rarer among the combined group of sheep, goats, and pigs, for which they never exceed 0.5 percent (table 15.13). The majority of the fractures occur on foot bones: metapodials, phalanges, and even a calcaneus. The latter elements contain very little marrow, yet they were split. Thiskindofexhaustiveuseofbonesformarrowdoesnot seem to make sense in the heavily pastoral/agricultural context of these levels. Because of this disconnect, we wonder whether the original provenance of the wild and domesticated animal bones was the same or whether the wild animal bones might somehow be intrusive. In this regard, we note the discovery among the bone splinters of an antler sagaie base in Level 3.5 (a large trench that cuts into—and thus postdates—Bronze Age Level 3). In Level 3 we found part of a red deer metatarsal with deep grooves no doubt gouged for the extraction of bone tool blanks (“groove-and-splinter” technique). The color and texture of the sedimentary matrix still adhering to the wild animal bones with scrape marks and fractures are the same as the dirt adhering to the sagaie, which also suggests that some of the red deer and ibex bones may have been intrusive in these late levels. (A few other sagaie fragments and a straight-backed, stiletto-like stone point, classifiable as a Gravette, were also found in situ in the Chalcolithic levels. The presumption is that Magdalenian levels, once existing near the surface of the slope at the rear of the vestibule, had been disturbed and some of their contents eroded downward and westward Fig. 15.7. red deer bones from bronze age levels: rib (top), fragments of a vertebra and scapula (right), all bitten by dogs. red deer phalanx fragments and ibex metapodial fragments that were fractured for marrow extraction (center and left); the structural condition and color of these bones differ from those of the gnawed bones. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 269 | by people and livestock during the Metal Ages. Some of these old bones and artifacts then became incorporated in the recent deposits and features.—LGS and MGM) The remainder of the remains of red deer and ibex really do seem to have come from the Bronze Age and Chalcolithic levels, since they also have high numbers of (presumed) dog gnaw marks and their coloration is the same as that of the domesticated animal bones (figure 15.7). Levels 6, 7, 8, and 9 (early Chalcolithic and late Neolithic ) are characterized by high numbers of gnawed bones of red deer and ibex. These have either no or very few cut marks or fractures. Their coloration is homogeneous with that of the domesticated animal bones. However, in the early Neolithic levels (9.6, 9.7, and 9.8) of the Cabin area one observes a slight increase in fractured and cut-marked bones. Levels 303.1, 303.2, and 303.3intheadjacentMid-VestibuleTrenchhavefewwild animalbones.Level303hastworeddeerbones:amedial proximal fragment of humerus with several scrape marks from defleshing and a lateral proximal fragment of a tibia with many cut and scrape marks from defleshing and a fracture on its lateral/caudal edge. These bones fit in well with those from the earliest Neolithic level in the Cabin (Level 10), all of which are from red deer, with many fractures, especially of metapodials and phalanges (figure 15.8). There are also many (21) red deer bones with gnaw marks. All the broken wild animal bones— both those with cut and defleshing scrape marks and thosewithgnawmarks—havethesamecolorationasthe bones of domesticated animals from the early Neolithic levels. In addition, it is noteworthy that the bones from Level10.1,whichlacksdomesticatedanimalsandceramics and is Mesolithic, have fractures and cut marks that are very similar to those found in the early Neolithic (table 15.14). This could suggest two alternate hypotheses to explain the marks on the wild animal bones from Neolithic Levels 10 and 303.3–303: 1. That part of the red deer bones actually came from underlying Levels 10.1 and 304–305 (although the latter are virtually devoid of finds in the Mid-Vestibule Trench); or 2. That in the early Neolithic levels we are observing the interrelationship of different cultural and economicinfluences :some“foreign”(orallochthonous) customs relating to the treatment of domesticated animals, including the dog, which is a significant agent of bone alteration, and others “native” (or autochthonous), linked to a hunting-based economy focused on red deer and accompanied by traditional practices for the full utilization of wild food resources, as based on the defleshing of anatomical units by ancestral methods (such as longitudinal scraping and filleting) and also marrow cracking of both large bones (humerus, tibia, metapodials) and even small ones (first and second phalanges). Perhaps the existence and survival of these patterns Fig. 15.8. fragments of first and second phalanges from early neolithic–age red deer, all of which were fractured for marrow extraction. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. | 270 | Chapter Fifteen of meat and marrow exploitation are proof of the persistenceoftheactivitiesandbehaviorsofforaging peoples undergoing a process of acculturation into the Neolithic way of life (albeit tardily in Cantabrian Spain vis-à-vis the Mediterranean zone and even the nearby upper Ebro Basin). In purely foraging contexts in Spanish Mediterranean sites, defleshing marks are very numerous on bones of ibex and red deer. Almost all the bones are broken for marrow extraction, even the phalanges (Aura et al. 2002; Nadal 1998; Pérez Ripoll and Martinez Valle 2001). The types of stone tool marks (especially scraping ) and the types of fractures (Pérez Ripoll 1992) are the same as those that we observe on the bones from the Bronze Age (intrusive?) and from the early Neolithic levels (non-intrusive?) at El Mirón, indicative of butchering practices different from those that are characteristic of food production economies in Spain. Traces of Burning Traces of burning on the bones from the Holocene levels at El Mirón are generally rare. They are very scarce in the Bronze Age levels (1–2 percent of the taxonomically identified bones), more numerous in the Chalcolithic (11–25 percent), again very scarce in the late Neolithic (1–2percent),andrelativelyscarceintheearlierNeolithic (4–10 percent). The explanation must lie in the mode of food preparation. In Spanish Mediterranean sites the direct action of fire is quite manifest in the remains from foraging societies: meat roasting on coals, placement of bones directly on the coals to facilitate breakage, smoking of meat, and so on. However, in the context of food productioneconomiesthecookingoffoodsismoreoften doneinceramicreceptacles,whicheliminatesdirectcontact of meat and bones with the fire. This could explain the low levels of burning on the bones from the postMesolithic occupations at El Mirón. Unfortunately, the numberofbonesfromtheMesolithiclevelsinthiscaveis sosmallastoobviateanymeaningfuldirectcomparisons. representation of long bone Parts The study of the preserved bone parts is of great importance in trying to understand the differential destruction of bones. We group the long bones (humerus, radius, femur, tibia, and metapodials) of goat, sheep, and pig on the one hand and those of cattle on the other, in order to study the preservation of each body part in relation to animal age, expressed simply as juvenile versus adult (or indeterminate). We distinguish among whole bones, proximal ends, fragments of proximal parts, diaphyses, fragments of diaphysis (splinters), distal ends, and fragments of distal parts (table 15.14). Whole bones of the three medium-size ungulates are relatively abundant: in all the levels they are of young sheep, goats, and pigs—mostly fetal or neonatal and not chewed by dogs. In the Chalcolithic levels there are three whole adult bones, all pig metapodials. The whole long bones of cattle are all from young animals. The proximal ends of long bones from the three medium-size ungulates are less abundant than are fragments of proximal parts of the same elements, except in the Chalcolithic levels. For cattle they are less abundant in all the levels. This disproportion is explained by the low bone density of those proximal parts whose articular area is spongy (as is true of the proximal humerus, femur, and tibia) relative to the denser, more compact structure in other bones (proximal radius and metapodials). In the former articular areas one finds red marrow, which is an attractive food for dogs; because of their low density, these areas are not difficult to bite and break, thereby producing proximal fragments. In addition, in all these cases bones of young animals predominate, except for the Chalcolithic , where bones of adult, midsize ungulates dominate and where complete proximal heads outnumber proximal fragments. The presence of whole, “headless” diaphyses (bone tubes) is a peculiarly characteristic result of the agency of carnivores, notably dogs (figure 15.9). These develop when carnivores chew and destroy both articular ends (epiphyses) of a bone, leaving only the diaphysis. The majority of the bone tubes came from young animals in the early Neolithic (74 percent of the total number of diaphyses) and in the later Neolithic (63 percent). The number of whole diaphyses is more balanced in the Chalcolithic (50 percent), and there are fewer in the BronzeAge(44percent).Theabundanceofdiaphysesof young animals in the Neolithic is indicative of a pattern of selection of young animals for slaughter for meat in Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 271 | this period. The decrease in numbers of young animal bones in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age is indicative of the so-called secondary products revolution—an increase in the relative importance of products besides meat, namely milk, wool, and in the case of cattle, traction power, as has also been demonstrated at other sites in Mediterranean Spain as early as the late Neolithic as well as in the Chalcolithic (Pérez Ripoll 1999). All the cattle remains at El Mirón are of young animals, except in the Chalcolithic levels. Whole distal ends of the three medium-size ungulate taxa always outnumber fragments of distal parts. This is because of the importance of the distal epiphyses of humerus and tibia, which are very dense and resistant to fragmentation. dogs generally do not break these parts or, for that matter, distal radii. Consequently, once again it is the agency of the dog that explains the differential preservation of distal epiphyses. Among the cattle bones, however, there is greater equilibrium between proximal and distal epiphyses, a fact explained in part by human fracture, which tends to be done near the articular ends but without actually breaking the ends per se. The taxonomically unidentified bone fragments are very abundant in El Mirón. Their small sizes are evidence of the intensity of repeated human occupations in the cave. This is different from the situation in villages, where activities were much more dispersed through space. The marks we have observed demonstrate the important role of dogs in breakage and alteration of the identifiable bones. Nonetheless, human responsibility for the final state of the faunal assemblages is also clearly attested, especially in the case of the bovine bones. The cut marks have revealed the existence of different butchering processes: one for Bos and the other for goat, sheep, and pig. Among the cattle bones, defleshing marks predominate and marrowcracking evidence is also abundant. This means that fileting was a common practice in meat consumption , as was marrow exploitation—including both white marrow, which is found within the diaphyses, and red marrow, which is located in the spongy structure of certain articulations and other areas of bone. In contrast, the processing of goats, sheep, and pigs is based on the segmenting of anatomical units by Fig. 15.9. sheep and goat long bone diaphyses gnawed by dogs. Photo by M. Pérez ripoll and M. D. gila. | 272 | Chapter Fifteen T. Orozco, pp. 589–596. departament d’Arqueología i Prehistoria, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Davis, S. J. M. 1985 A preliminary report of the fauna from Hatoula: a Natufian-Khiamian (PPNA) site near Latroun, Israel. In Le site Natufian-Khiamien de Hatoula, près de Latroun, Israel, edited by M. Lechevalier and A. Ronen, pp. 71–98. Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem, Jerusalem. 1991 When and why did prehistoric people domesticate animals? Some evidence from Israel and Cyprus. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Baryosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 101–390. Archaeological series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. references Cited Aura, J. E., V. Villaverde, M. Pérez Ripoll, R. Martinez Valle, and P. Guillem 2002 Big game and small prey. Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic economy from Valencia (Spain). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9:215–268. Bernabeu, J., C. M. Barton, and M. Pérez Ripoll 2001 A taphonomic perspective on Neolithic beginnings: theory, interpretation, and empirical data in the western Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:597–612. Bernabeu, J., M. Pérez Ripoll, and R. Martínez Valle 1999 Huesos, neolitización y contextos arqueológicos aparentes. In Actes del II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica, edited by J. Bernabeu and means of disarticulation, preliminary to the cooking of joints (i.e., meat still on the bones). The dogs ate bone remains both of the three medium-size ungulates and of cattle. The high number of gnawed bones underlines the important role that dog had throughout the whole postMesolithic sequence, even though actual remains of this carnivore are quite few in the complete assemblages analyzed by Altuna and Mariezkurrena (chap. 16, this volume). The probable role of dogs in these societies was to guard and control livestock. Gnawed bones are constants within the debris of food-producing economies and are found, for example, both in Near Eastern sites (e.g., davis 1985, 1991; Helmer 1991; Sana 1999) and in Spanish Mediterranean-zone sites—both in caves (such as Santa Maira, Cendres, Or) and in open-air villages (such as Arenal de la Costa, Jovades) (Bernabeu, Barton, and Pérez Ripoll 2001; Bernabeu, Pérez Ripoll, and Martínez Valle 1999). The preservation of the various bone parts is the result of differential destruction by dogs and by human actions. In this regard, the distribution of diaphyses is peculiarly characteristic of the agency of dogs when they chew articular parts, leaving behind bone tubes. The survival of bones of young animals is quite high, both among whole bones and among skeletal parts, a fact that serves to evaluate representativeness and differential destruction by age class among the bones of the overall sample. The butchery marks on red deer and ibex suggest the intrusive character of some of the wild animal bones in the Bronze Age and late Chalcolithic levels (4 and 5)—a possibility that is supported by the discovery of a few antler points (not characteristic artifacts in those periods, but definitely suggestive of a late Upper Paleolithic origin) in these heavily pitted levels within the El Mirón Cabin area. In Levels 6–9 of the Cabin area (early Chalcolithic and late Neolithic), in contrast, wild animal bones are few, but gnaw marks on them are abundant, a fact that is coherent with the domesticated animal bones from the same levels. In early Neolithic Levels10and303.3–303(intheCabinandMid-Vestibule Trench) there are major series of red deer bones with cut and scrape marks and fractures that are not typical of the butchering practices of fully agricultural societies. These bones could be items that were derived from contact with underlying Mesolithic Level 10.1, or they could be due to survival of practices characteristic of forager butchery during a time of contact or acculturation with food-producing systems. It is also possible that the early Neolithic sample from Level 10 was contaminated by a few Mesolithic bones, since, in the first test excavation of 1996, the distinction between Levels 10 and 10.1 was not recognized. On the other hand, the absolute scarcity of bones in Level 10.1 and especially Levels 304–305 makes these Mesolithic-age layers unlikely sources for massive “contamination” of the overlying and faunally richer early Neolithic levels. Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 273 | Helmer, D. 1991 Étude de la faune de la phase IA (Natoufien final) de Tell Mureybet (Syrie), fouilles Cauvin. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 359–370. Archaeological series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Nadal, J. 1998 Les faunes del Pleistocè Final-Holocène a la Catalunya meridional i de ponent. interpretacions tafonòmiques i paleoculturals. doctoral thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Pérez Ripoll, M. 1992 Marcas de carnicería, fracturas intencionadas y mordeduras de carnívoros en huesos Prehistóricos del Mediterráneo español. Instituto de Cultura Juan GilAlbert , Alicante, Spain. 1999 La explotación ganadera durante el III milenio a.C. en la Península Ibérica. In Actes del II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica, edited by J. Bernabeu and T. Orozco, pp. 95–103. departament d’Arqueología i Prehistoria, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 2001 El proceso de domesticación animal en el Próximo Oriente. Planteamiento y evolución. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 24:65–96. 2002 Extinción de la fauna endémica y colonización humana de las grandes islas del Mediterráneo. Saguntum PLAV Extra 5:147–163. Pérez Ripoll, M., and R. Martinez Valle 2001 La caza, el aprovechamiento de las presas y el comportamiento de las comunidades cazadoras prehistóricas. In De Neandertales a Cromañones. El inicio del poblamiento humano en las tierras valencianas, edited by V. Villaverde, pp. 73–98. departament ´ d’Arqueología i Prehistoria, Universitat de Valencia., Valencia, Spain. Sana, M. 1999 Arqueología de la domesticación animal. La gestión de los recursos animales en Tell Halula (Valle del EufratesSiria ) del 8.800 al 7.000 BP. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. Table 15.1. unidentified specimens by level level 3 level 4 level 5 level 6 level 7 level 8 level 9 level 10 total Burns 839 1,596 2,093 730 292 260 342 246 6,398 Burns + cuts 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 Burns + gnawing 6 2 12 0 12 0 0 2 34 Gnawing 98 716 120 1,076 494 776 508 103 3,891 Gnawing + cuts 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 Cuts 46 25 4 2 2 2 1 0 82 No marks 12,022 2,904 2,958 1,751 3,148 2,085 5,843 1,897 32,608 TOTAl 13,016 5,243 5,189 3,559 3,952 3,123 6,694 2,248 43,024 | 274 | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.2. identified number of individual species (nisP) (teeth not included) bronze Age Chalcolithic later neolithic early neolithic levels 3 3.5 301 total 4 5 6 7 total 8 9 9.6– 9.8 total 10 303 303.1– 303.3 total Bos taurus 134 49 3 186 165 173 91 57 486 69 58 117 244 7 44 15 66 Ovis/Capra 90 20 62 172 76 162 60 242 540 245 319 488 1,052 123 199 285 607 Capra hircus 30 2 6 38 8 2 0 1 11 0 0 Ovis aries 12 0 3 15 15 3 5 20 30 9 33 69 111 8 16 24 48 Sus domesticus 28 14 8 50 18 74 29 43 164 24 26 49 99 9 9 11 29 Canis familiaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total domesticated 294 85 82 461 282 414 185 363 1,231 348 436 724 1,508 147 268 335 750 Capra pyrenaica 29 17 14 60 6 11 17 3 7 1 11 Rupicapra ru. 1 1 1 1 Cervus elaphus 8 7 18 33 3 10 13 9 46 59 114 85 2 9 94 Capreolus capreolus 1 1 Sus scrofa 1 1 2 4 4 Equus sp 1 2 3 Ursus arctos 1 Felis silvestris 1 1 3 3 Martes sp. 1 1 Total wild 37 25 36 98 9 23 1 34 18 46 59 123 88 9 10 105 TOTAl 4,220 Table 15.3. unidentified specimens by length length (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 total Level 3 9,823 2,553 459 122 37 16 5 1 13,016 Level 4 4,134 495 309 226 50 22 4 3 5,243 Level 5 2,917 1,484 477 206 65 26 8 6 5,189 Level 6 2,583 494 285 112 58 21 6 0 3,559 Level 7 2,416 869 392 160 79 27 8 1 3,952 Level 8 2,303 464 217 80 46 11 2 0 3,123 Level 9 5,227 858 434 135 26 13 1 0 6,694 Level 10 1,137 713 278 89 22 9 0 0 2,248 TOTAl 30,540 7,930 2,851 1,130 383 145 34 11 43,024 Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 275 | Table 15.4. identified specimens, number of individual species (nisP) by length length (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 total Bronze Age, levels 3, 3.5, 301 Bos taurus 4 4 17 20 22 15 11 13 8 4 5 7 1 1 8 140 Ovis, Capra, Sus 32 38 21 12 10 8 8 8 4 1 1 143 Cervus, Capra pyrenaica 1 10 6 5 4 309 Total 36 42 38 32 32 23 19 21 12 5 6 7 1 1 8 283 Chalcolithic, levels 4, 5, 6, 7 Bos taurus 0 23 53 41 46 31 30 22 17 19 7 9 6 9 19 332 Ovis, Capra, Sus 31 67 61 89 56 55 43 31 17 13 12 4 2 1 1 483 Cervus, Capra pyrenaica 2 3 3 1 4 4 1 18 Total 31 90 114 130 102 86 73 53 34 32 19 13 8 10 20 833 late Neolithic, levels 8, 9, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 Bos taurus 1 7 29 41 27 26 21 14 4 6 4 3 1 1 185 Ovis, Capra, Sus 155 88 192 128 119 84 50 42 16 9 14 2 1 900 Cervus, Capra pyrenaica 0 13 18 16 10 8 5 7 6 1 1 85 Total 156 95 221 169 146 110 71 56 20 15 18 5 0 1 2 1,170 Early Neolithic, levels 10, 303, 303.1, 303.2, 303.3 Bos taurus 1 1 2 3 7 5 8 1 3 0 1 32 Ovis, Capra, Sus 52 80 92 73 60 28 17 13 6 6 1 1 429 Cervus, Capra pyrenaica 3 12 17 6 7 7 2 3 6 1 1 1 66 Total 53 81 94 76 67 33 25 14 9 6 2 1 1 527 TOTAl IDENTIFIED SPECIMENS 2,813 | 276 | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.5. unidentified specimens and marks by length intervals length (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 total Bronze Age, level 3 Burns 662 144 27 5 1 839 Burns + cuts 0 0 2 0 2 Burns + gnawing 0 3 0 3 6 Gnawing 6 38 27 14 7 5 1 98 Gnawing + cuts 0 1 1 0 1 3 Cuts 1 18 12 12 3 46 No marks 9,154 2,349 390 88 25 11 4 1 12,022 TOTAl 9,823 2,553 459 122 37 16 5 1 13,016 Chalcolithic, levels 4, 5, 6, 7 Burns 3,403 883 267 106 33 15 9 2 4,718 Burns + cuts 1 1 2 Burns + gnawing 4 6 6 6 4 26 Gnawing 1,345 435 306 198 72 42 6 1 2,405 Gnawing + cuts 2 2 4 Cuts 4 6 9 9 3 0 1 1 33 No marks 7,298 2,014 872 383 137 35 17 5 10,761 TOTAl 12,050 3,342 1,463 704 252 96 33 9 17,949 later Neolithic, levels 8, 9 Burns 567 29 5 1 602 Burns + cuts 0 Burns + gnawing 0 Gnawing 756 277 161 60 24 6 1 1,285 Gnawing + cuts 0 Cuts 1 1 1 3 No marks 6,207 1,015 485 153 47 19 2 7,928 TOTAl 7,530 1,322 651 215 72 25 3 9,818 Early Neolithic, level 10 Burns 112 98 26 4 4 2 246 Burns + cuts 0 Burns + gnawing 1 1 2 Gnawing 28 49 20 5 1 103 Gnawing + cuts 0 Cuts 0 No marks 997 565 231 80 17 7 1,897 TOTAl 1,137 713 278 89 22 9 2,248 Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 277 | Table 15.6a. bronze age number of individual species (nisP) and number of marks level 3 3.5 301 Total Fr Cu Gn Gr Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Gr Bu Bos taurus 134 5 4 75 1 3 49 8 12 1 3 1 Ovis/Capra 90 2 48 20 1 5 62 3 23 2 Capra hircus 30 2 2 2 6 1 3 Ovis aries 12 2 4 3 0 3 1 Sus domesticus 28 2 14 14 2 6 1 8 1 Total domesticated 294 5 12 143 1 6 85 8 3 23 2 82 4 28 3 Equus 1 2 Capra pyrenaica 29 3 1 17 7 1 14 3 4 2 Cervus elaphus 8 2 1 3 7 2 1 1 18 4 3 7 1 1 Capreolus capreolus 1 1 Felis sp. 1 TOTAl WIlD 37 5 2 3 0 0 25 9 1 2 0 36 7 8 9 1 1 Note: Types of marks: Fr = produced by humans during marrow-cracking; Cu = tool marks; Gn = carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; Gr = rodent gnaw marks; Bu = burning traces. Table 15.6b. Chalcolithic number of individual species (nisP) and number of marks level 4 5 6 Total Fr Cu Gn Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Dg Gr Bu Bos taurus 165 12 13 67 9 173 12 10 32 32 91 5 26 30 1 16 Ovis/Capra 76 7 12 7 162 3 3 44 23 60 5 21 4 9 Capra hircus 8 3 1 2 1 1 0 Ovis aries 2 1 3 2 1 2 5 1 4 1 Sus domesticus 18 1 3 5 74 2 1 13 10 29 1 8 Canis familiaris Total Domesticated 269 12 22 85 22 414 17 16 91 68 185 5 33 63 4 1 29 Equus 1 1 1 Capra pyrenaica 6 2 1 11 4 Rupicapra ru. 1 Cervus elaphus 3 1 1 10 4 4 1 Ursus arctos 1 1 Vulpes vulpes TOTAl WIlD 10 2 3 1 24 8 4 1 1 1 Note: Types of marks: Fr = produced by humans during marrow-cracking; Cu = tool marks; Gn = carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; Gr = rodent gnaw marks; Bu = burning traces; dg = digestion traces. | 278 | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.6c. Chalcolithic (Level 7) number of individual species (nisP) and number of marks total Fr Cu gn dg gr bu Bos taurus 57 8 5 34 1 9 Ovis/Capra 242 4 195 3 18 Capra hircus 1 1 Ovis aries 20 1 17 2 1 2 Sus domest. 43 3 27 1 TOTAl DOMESTICATED 364 8 13 274 5 2 30 Note: Types of marks: Fr = produced by humans during marrow-cracking; Cu = tool marks; Gn = carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; Gr = rodent gnaw marks; Bu = burning traces; dg = digestion traces. Table 15.6d. early neolithic number of individual species (nisP) and number of marks level 10 303 303.1–303.3 Total Fr Cu Gn Dg Gr Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Gr Bu Total Fr Cu Gn Gr Bu Bos taurus 7 44 17 2 15 1 7 1 Ovis/Capra 123 1 82 1 2 199 3 138 9 284 5 104 1 22 Ovis aries 8 6 16 1 3 3 1 3 24 1 12 2 Sus domesticus 9 1 2 9 1 3 1 1 11 Total domesticated 147 1 89 1 4 268 1 7 161 2 15 334 1 6 123 1 25 Capra pyrenaica 3 1 4 7 2 3 1 Cervus elaphus 85 13 21 1 1 2 1 2 9 1 3 3 TOTAl WIlD 88 13 22 1 1 4 7 1 4 3 10 1 3 3 Note: Types of marks: Fr = produced by humans during marrow-cracking; Cu = tool marks; Gn = carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; Gr = rodent gnaw marks; Bu = burning traces; dg = digestion traces. Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 279 | Table 15.7a. bronze age anatomical parts (number of gnawed specimens) skull md-mx Axial Front legs rear legs Phalanges total level 3 Bos taurus 31 (12) 33 (25) 33 (18) 22 (11) 15 (9) 134 (75) Ovis/Capra 10 9 (4) 15 (12) 19 (10) 26 (18) 11 (4) 90 (48) Capra hircus 1 (1) 1 (1) + 12 16 30 (2) Ovis aries 9 (4) 2 1 12 (4) Sus domesticus 2 (1) 3 (1) 3 7 (5) 9 (5) 4 (2) 28 (14) Capra pyrenaica 1 1 9 7 11 29 Cervus elaphus 1 1 (1) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 8 (3) TOTAl lEVEl 3 44 (13) 13 (5) 53 (38) 80 (39) 82 (36) 60 (15) 331 (146) level 3.5 Bos taurus 4 (1) 3 (1) 15 (4) 9 (3) 7 (3) 11 49 (12) Ovis/Capra 9 (1) 3 (2) 8 (2) 20 (5) Capra hircus 1 1 2 Sus domesticus 2 5 6 (3) 4 (3) 1 18 (6) Equus sp. 1 1 Capra pyrenaica 5 4 (1) 8 17 (1) Cervus elaphus 1 1 (1) 2 3 7 (1) TOTAl lEVEl 3.5 6 (1) 10 (1) 22 (8) 28 (7) 17 (6) 31 (2) 114 level 300.1 Bos taurus 1 2 (1) 3 (1) Ovis/Capra 13 (6) 3 (2) 5 (5) 13 (4) 9 (4) 19 (2) 62 (23) Ovis aries 2 1 3 Capra hircus 1 2 2 1 6 Sus domesticus 2 2 (1) 4 8 (1) Equus sp. 1 1 2 Capra pyrenaica 4 5 (1) 5 (1) 14 (2) Cervus elaphus 1 (1) 1 (1) 3 (1) 6 7 (4) 18 (7) Capreolus capreolus 1 1 Felis sp. 1 1 TOTAl lEVEl 300.1 14 (6) 4 (3) 9 (6) 29 (6) 23 (5) 39 (8) 118 (34) | 280 | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.7b. Chalcolithic anatomical parts (number of gnawed specimens) skull md-mx Axial Front legs rear legs Phalanges total level 4 Bos taurus 37 (8) 14 (9) 62 (38) 22 (5) 10 (5) 20 (2) 165 (67) Ovis/Capra 3 11 30 (3) 11 (5) 16 (4) 5 76 (12) Capra hircus 3 3 (1) 2 (2) 8 (3) Ovis aries 1 1 2 Sus domesticus 3 1 6 (3) 2 3 3 18 (3) Capra pyrenaica 1 (1) 1 1 3 6 (1) Cervus elaphus 1 1 (1) 1 3 (1) Ursus arctos 1 (1) 1 (1) TOTAl lEVEl 4 47 (8) 26 (9) 100 (46) 40 (11) 35 (12) 31 (2) 279 (88) level 5 Bos taurus 35 7 26 (11) 30 (9) 35 (11) 14 (11) 173 (42) Ovis/Capra 14 12 (7) 31 (17) 19 (11) 23 (7) 7 (2) 162 (44) Ovis ariess 3 (1) 3 (1) Capra hircus 1 (1) 1 2 (1) Sus domesticus 5 (1) 7 (3) 1 15 (6) 17 (3) 8 74 (13) Capra pyrenaica 1 2 4 3 11 Rupicapra rup 1 Cervus elaphu. 1 1 (1) 1 2 2 10 (1) Equus sp. 1 TOTAl lEVEl 5 54 (1) 136 (10) 60 (29) 70 (28) 81 (21) 35 (13) 437 (102) level 6 Bos taurus 22 9 29 (19) 12 (6) 14 (3) 5 (2) 91 (30) Ovis/Capra 2 4 (1) 16 (1) 17 (9) 11 (6) 10 (4) 60 (21) Ovis aries 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 5 (4) Sus domesticus 5 3 4 8 (4) 5 (1) 4 (3) 29 (8) Capra pyrenaica 1 1 TOTAl lEVEl 6 29 16 (1) 49 (20) 39 (21) 33 (12) 20 (9) 186 (63) level 7 Bos taurus 8 (5) 4 (4) 11 (6) 10 (7) 9 (7) 15 (5) 57 (34) Ovis/Capra 32 (28) 31 (23) 39 (35) 54 (42) 72 (58) 14 (9) 242 (195) Ovis aries 11 (9) 5 (4) 4 (4) 20 (17) Capra hircus 1 (1) 1 (1) Sus domesticus 6 12 (8) 3 (3) 6 (5) 10 (8) 6 (3) 43 (27) Canis familiaris 1 1 Cervus elaphus 1 1 Vulpes vulpes 1 1 TOTAl lEVEl 7 46 (33) 47 (35) 55 (44) 82 (64) 97 (77) 39 (21) 366 (274) Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 281 | Table 15.7c. Later neolithic anatomical parts (number of gnawed specimens) skull md-mx Axial Front legs rear legs Phalanges total level 8 Bos taurus 12 (7) 2 (1) 17 (9) 12 (3) 15 (10) 11 (7) 69 (37) Ovis/Capra 36 22 (14) 47 (31) 55 (35) 62 (50) 15 (8) 237 (138) Ovis aries 3 (2) 6 (2) 9 (4) Capra hircus 3 (3) 1 (1) 4 (4) Sus domesticus 2 (2) 1 (1) 7 (4) 8 (6) 6 24 (13) Canis familiaris 1 1 Sus Scrofa 2 (1) 1 1 (1) 4 (3) Cervus elaphus 2 (1) 5 (3) 2 (1) 9 (5) Felis silvestris 3 3 Meles meles 1 1 Rupicapra ru. 1 1 TOTAl lEVEl 8 52 (10) 25 (15) 71 (44) 82 (48) 99 (70) 33 (16) 362 (204) level 9 Bos taurus 6 (2) 6 (2) 10 (4) 12 (7) 11 (2) 13 (6) 58 (23) Ovis/Capra 26 (10) 31 (8) 64 (44) 92 (64) 90 (57) 16 (7) 319 (190) Ovis aries 1 (1) 1 16 (9) 11 (2) 4 33 (12) Sus domesticus 3 9 2 (2) 4 (2) 8 (2) 26 (6) Cervus elaphus 3 (1) 12 (10) 9 (1) 5 (3) 17 (9) 46 (24) TOTAl lEVEl 9 39 (14) 46 (10) 87 (58) 131 (83) 121 (66) 58 (24) 482 (255) level 9.6–9.8 Bos taurus 16 (2) 31 (5) 16 (16) 27 (14) 19 (10) 8 (5) 117 (52) Ovis/Capra 2 (2) 38 (3) 101 (37) 168 (113) 156 (118) 23 (17) 488 (290) Ovis aries 22 (12) 46 (6) 1 (1) 69 (19) Sus domesticus 27 9 2 3 (1) 3 5 (1) 49 (2) Canis familiaris 1 1 Cervus elaphus 2 13 (6) 19 (5) 13 (1) 12 59 (12) TOTAl lEVEl 9.6–9.8 45 (4) 81 (8) 132 (59) 239 (145) 237 (135) 49 (24) 783 (375) | 282 | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.7d. early neolithic anatomical parts (number of gnawed specimens) skull md-mx Axial Front legs rear legs Phalanges total level 10 Bos taurus 2 3 1 1 7 Ovis/Capra 8 (3) 10 (1) 22 (10) 43 (38) 33 (27) 7 (3) 123 (82) Ovis aries 1 3 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 8 (6) Capra hircus 1 (1) 1 (1) Sus domesticus 1 2 3 (1) 1 2 9 (1) Cervus elaphus 5 3 (1) 22 (9) 17 (4) 14 (3) 24 (4) 85 (21) Capra pyrenaica 1 2 (1) 3 (1) TOTAl lEVEl 10 15 (3) 13 (2) 46 (19) 66 (45) 51 (32) 37 (11) 236 (115) level 303 Bos taurus 7 (2) 2 9 (6) 7 (3) 13 (6) 6 44 (17) Ovis/Capra 18 (16) 15 (8) 53 (37) 41 (26) 53 (39) 19 (12) 199 (138) Ovis aries 2 8 (1) 6 (2) 16 (3) Sus domesticus 2 2 (2) 2 (1) 3 9 (3) Capra pyrenaica 4 (2) 3 (1) 7 (3) TOTAl lEVEl 303 25 (18) 19 (8) 66 (45) 52 (31) 79 (48) 34 (14) 275 (164) level 303.1 Bos taurus 2 1 (1) 1 3 (2) 1 (1) 8 (4) Ovis/Capra 12 (2) 7 (2) 40 (14) 34 (14) 48 (15) 14 (5) 155 (52) Ovis aries 1 (1) 7 (5) 3 5 16 (6) Capra hircus 1 1 Sus domesticus. 1 1 1 1 3 7 TOTAl lEVEl 303.1 16 (3) 7 (2) 42 (15) 44 (19) 55 (17) 23 (6) 187 (62) level 303.2 Bos taurus 3 3 Ovis/Capra 13 (4) 3 (1) 19 (8) 16 (8) 18 (11) 6 (3) 75 (35) Ovis aries 4 (4) 3 (2) 1 8 (6) Sus domesticus 1 3 4 Cervus elaphus 1 (1) 1 1 3 (2) 1 7 (3) Capra pyrenaica 1 1 TOTAl lEVEl 303.2 14 (5) 4 (1) 19 (8) 22 (12) 24 (15) 15 (3) 98 (44) level 303.3 Bos taurus 2 (2) 2 (1) 4 (3) Ovis/Capra 5 2 13 (10) 18 (2) 13 (4) 3 (1) 54 (17) Cervus elaphus 1 1 2 TOTAl lEVEl 303.3 5 2 15 (12) 19 (2) 15 (5) 4 (1) 60 (20) Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals | 283 | Table 15.8. Bos taurus, distribution of cut marks bronze Age Chalcolithic later neolithic early neolithic dismemberment Filleting dismemberment Filleting Filleting Filleting Mandible 2 1 Hyoides 1 Vertebrae 2 1 Ribs 3 28 1 Scapula 1 1 Shaft fg. humerus 3 1 distal humerus 1 Cubitus 1 2 Proximal radius 1 Fg. shaft radius 1 Pelvis 1 Shaft femur 1 Fg. shaft femur 1 2 1 distal tibia 1 Astragalus 1 Frag. Px. Metatarsal 1 distal metatarsal 2 Phalanx II 1 TOTAl 0 4 13 41 4 1 |  | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.9. Ovis, Capra, and Sus, distribution of cut marks Bronze Age Chalcolithic Later Neolithic Early Neolithic Dismemberment Filleting Dismemberment Filleting Dismemberment Filleting Dismemberment Filleting Maxilar 1 (Sus) Mandible 2 (1 Sus) 12 (1 Sus) 1 Vertebrae 1 Ribs 4 (Sus) 4 1 4 1 Scapula 2 1 1 (Sus) Distal humerus 1 (Sus) Distal fg. humerus Proximal radius 1 (Sus) 2 Proximal fg. radius 1 Shaft fg. radius 1 Cubitus 1 Proximal metacarpus 1 2 (1 Sus) Proximal fg. metacarpal Distal metacarpal 1 1 Pelvis 1 1 1 1 Femur proximal 1 Shaft femur 1 Astragalus 1 1 3 Proximal metatarsal 3 (1 Sus) Proximal fg. metatarsal 1 Distal phalanx I 1 Phalanx III 1 ToTal 4 7 16 13 10 3 7 4 Table 15.10. Ovis, Capra, and Sus, distribution of fracture marks Early Bronze Chalcolithic Later Neolithic Early Neolithic Proximal metacarpus 1 Prox. fg. metacarpus 1 Shaft fr. tibia 1 (Sus) Distal tibia 1 Prox. fg. metatarsus 1 1 Shaft fg. metatarsus 1 ToTal 1 1 2 3 Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals |  | Table 15.11. Bos taurus, distribution of fracture marks Bronze Age Chalcolithic Later Neolithic Skull 1 Mandible 5 Vertebrae 4 Ribs 1 Shaft fg. humerus 3 1 Distal humerus 1 1 1 Distal fg. humerus 1 Proximal radius 5 Shaft radius 1 Shaft fg. radius 2 4 Proximal metacarpus 1 Proximal fg. metacarpal 1 1 Distal metacarpal 1 1 Shaft femur 1 Shaft fg. femur 1 1 1 Distal tibia 2 Astragalus Proximal metatarsal 1 1 Proximal fg. metatarsal 1 1 Distal metatarsal 1 1 Lateral phalanx 1 1 Distal fg. phalanx I 3 1 Lateral phalanx II 1 ToTal 9 37 8 |  | Chapter Fifteen Table 15.12. Cervus elaphus and Capra pyrenaica, distribution of cut marks Bronze Age Chalcolithic Later Neolithic Early Neolithic Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Mandible 1 1 Hyoides 1 Ribs 1 3 1 Shaft fg. humerus 1 1 1 Proximal radius 1 Carpals 1 Proximal fg. metacarpal 1 Pelvis 1 Shaft femur Shaft fg. femur 2 1 Shaft fg. tibia 1 Proximal metatarsal 1 Shaft fg. metatarsal 1 Centrotarsal 1 ToTal 4 3 5 0 3 0 5 2 Taphonomic Study of the Large and Medium Mammals |  | Table 15.14. Epipaleolithic number of individual species (NISP) Level 10.1 Level 304 Total Fr Cu Gn Bu Total Bos sp. 1 Capra pyrenaica 3 3 2 Cervus elaphus 29 6 Capreolus capreolus 6 Sus sp. 3 Note: Types of marks: Fr = produced by humans during marrow-cracking; Cu = tool marks; Gn = carnivore gnaw marks, presumably made by dogs; Bu = burning traces. Table 15.13. Cervus elaphus and Capra pyrenaica, distribution of fracture marks Bronze Age Chalcolithic Later Neolithic Early Neolithic Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Cervus Capra Shaft fg. humerus 1 Proximal fg. radius 3 Proximal fg. metacarpal 1 Shaft fg. metacarpal 2 Distal metacarpal 1 Distal fg. metacarpal 1 Shaft fg. femur 2 Shaft fg. tibia 1 Calcaneus 1 Proximal fg. metatarsal 1 1 Shaft fg. metatarsal 1 1 Distal fg. metatarsal 1 Sagittal phalanx I 1 2 2 Proximal phalanx I 2 2 Proximal fg. phalanx I 1 1 Lateral phalanx 1 Distal phalanx I 2 1 3 Distal fg. phalanx I 2 3 Sagittal phalanx II 1 Proximal phalanx II 1 1 Lateral phalanx II 1 Distal phalanx II 1 1 1 Distal fg. phalanx II 2 3 1 3 ToTal 8 13 5 6 6 0 18 0 ...