HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brian Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:55:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Diet, (18 lines)
It seems unlikely that pig bones ever made their way into soap.  If the
early British settlers of the Tidewater region really did eat more pork
than beef, the absence of those pig bones from the archaeological record
has nothing to do with soap-making.
 
The fat from pigs can be used in making soap.  But the butchery of pigs
did not involve the separation of the meat from the (limb) bones.  The
bones were part of these joints of meat.  The bones only became trash
after the meat was consumed.  One informant suggests these leftover
bones were thrown to the dogs.  Pork bones, she says, are not as dense
as beef bones, and will not shatter in the dog's jaws.  If these early
settlers really did eat more pork than the archaeological record
suggests, none of my informants has any idea as to what became of their
teeth or skulls.
 
Brian Siegel
(curious town boy)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2