I had a paleozoologist specializing in wild mammalia look this over (in
consultation with an environmental zoologist) - and she looked for evidence
of carnivore activity and didn't find any. She had several arguments against
this which I can ask her to write up and post either here or on the excavation
website. The feet may have been disarticulated (as a result of skinning) --
the bones were so small they had to be fine-sieved out of the fill. We could
only be sure that the skull/jaw was articulated -- for the long bones it was a
reasonable assumption given their deposition. Smaller elements were
distributed throughout the fill.
I thought of this one too - that it was a buried pet that had been devored by
a dog or something similar, having come across similar, though not identical
(I've never seen all of the torso gone with no damage or disarray to the other
skeletal parts) remains in a non-archaeological context before.
Maureen
>===== Original Message From HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]> =====
>Maureen,
>
>Skinning would have resulted in a disarticulation of
>the "feet" or cut marks at the distal ends of the
>tibia and ulna/radius.
>
>Burial often involves the entire animal or, in the
>case of ritual burial, certain elements. An animal
>missing the chest cavity alone sounds more like a
>carnivore kill that subsequently became buried.
>Carnivores often go for the organs of small animals,
>consuming and fragmenting the ribs and transporting
>the vertebrae away from the main carcass.
>
>-April
>
>______________________
>April M. Beisaw, RPA
>Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy Consulting
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.taphonomy.com
>______________________
>
>--- basedowm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Differential deterioration doesn't explain it. We
>> had some very tiny elements
>> from the present parts preserved in good condition
>> -- i.e, from the feet. No
>> reason why the ribs and vertebrae would deteriorate
>> when elements of similar
>> or lesser size and robustity were well-preserved.
>>
>> Regarding the other message, when I mentioned
>> apotropaic functionalism and put
>> "head and hooves" in quotes I was thinking of
>> prehistoric European examples --
>> had no idea this sort of thing continued so late in
>> a European context though.
>> Thank you! Interesting.
>>
>> Maureen Basedow
>> Visiting Asst. Professor
>> UNCW
>>
>> >===== Original Message From Brian Kenny
>> <[log in to unmask]> =====
>> how about differential preservation
>> some bones deteriorate more readily than others
>>
>>
>> >From: basedowm <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Reply-To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: partial racoon burial
>> >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:18:30 -0400
>> >
>> >From a slave cabin site (late 18th, early 19th
>> century), in a clearly
>> >defined
>> >pit next to what was probably a door post, the
>> partial burial of a young
>> >racoon. That's the odd part - the burial consisted
>> only of complete
>> >skull/jaw
>> >parts and long bones/mandibles. Although we had the
>> entire context in situ
>> >and
>> >took the entire pit fill back to the lab for fine
>> sieving there was no
>> >trace
>> >of spine ribs or anything else in the middle. Yes
>> the young racoon could
>> >have
>> >been a buried pet, but why the decided partiality
>> and suggestive location
>> >(i.e., apotropaic burials near doors/windows at
>> slave cabin sites, etc.) ?
>> >Does anyone know of a "head and hooves" custom for
>> ritual burial in the
>> >American Southeast, any period, or any other
>> comments here that might help
>> >with interpretation. Also, no butchering or cut
>> marks were present,
>> >although
>> >this is not terribly significant with an animal
>> this young as it could have
>> >been easily disarticulated simply by pulling apart
>> once skinned.
>> >
>> >Thanks for any help.
>> >
>> >Maureen Basedow
>> >Visiting Assistant Professor of Archaeology
>> >UNC-Wilmington
>>
>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
