![\"SME-led](\"https:\/\/www.ukessays.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Standard-UKessays-image-1024x536.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMethods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For this British Neolithic Era Cattle data set the methods used to analyze the elements will be the calculation of the percentage alive at each fusion stage, so as to create a kill off pattern as well as osteometric analyses of the measurements of the cattle metacarpal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The database Animal Bone Metrical Analyses Project (ABMAP) has been used to compare the data of this site to those of other sites discovered in England and Europe. It has similarly been used in the literature \u201cAn osteometrical method for sexing cattle bones: the metacarpals from 17th century Carnide, Lisbon, Portugal\u201d (Davis et al.. 2018, 367-387).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Results: Quantitative Data<\/h2>\n\n\n\nTable 1. Skeletal part abundances (of selected elements) expressed in MNE for cattle<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\nElement<\/p>\n<\/td>
\nTotal<\/p>\n<\/td>
\nNo. Fused<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nScapula<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n27<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n21<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nP. Humerus<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n36<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n10<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Humerus<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n42<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n17<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nP. Radius<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n48<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n18<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Radius<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n42<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n12<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nUlna<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n50<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Metacarpal<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n51<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nPelvis<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n54<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nP. Femur<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n45<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n10<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Femur<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n40<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n7<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nP. Tibia<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n38<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n6<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Tibia<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n45<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n18<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nCalcaneum<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n57<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n20<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\nD. Metatarsal<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n42<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n1st<\/sup> Phalanges<\/p>\n<\/td>\n66<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n2nd<\/sup> Phalanges<\/p>\n<\/td>\n75<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n36<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Table 2. %Unfused in Each Fusion Stage<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\nStages<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n%Unfused<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n1 (7-10 months): Scapua, Pelvis<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n40.74<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n2 (12-18 months): d. humerus, p. radius, 1st phalange, 2nd phalange<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n55.84<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n3 (24-36 months): d. metacarpal, d. tibia, d. metatarsal<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n65.22<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n4 (36-48 months): p. humerus, d. radius, ulna, p. femur, d. femur, p. tibia, calcaneum<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n74.03<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Example of Calculations completed to create Table 2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 1:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Total : 27+54=81<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Total\u2013Total Fused:81\u201348=33<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(% unfused) = (total unfused\/total in stage) x 100<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3381\u00d7 100=40.74%<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Table 3. Measurements of 15 fused distal metacarpals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\nBd (breadth of distal end)<\/p>\n<\/td>
\nDd (depth of distal end)<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n52<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n57<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n55<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n52<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n29<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n69<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n37<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n48<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n50<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n60<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n53<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n52<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n56<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n74<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n36<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n54<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n59<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>
\n58<\/p>\n<\/td>
\n32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Table 4. Cattle bones from the ABMAP database, including measurements and site locations.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Graph 1. Kill Off Pattern formulated from calculations relating to Table 1.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Graph 2. Relationship between the Dd and Bd (mm) of the distal end of 15 cattle metacarpals.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When interpreting the data from this site sex and size are both important and closely linked variables that must be considered (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387). However, it is often difficult to distinguish where they differ. The ratio of males to females can provide insight about hunting or husbandry strategies practiced by humans during the Neolithic period (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kill Off Pattern<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
When considering the use of cattle at this particular site, analyses must be broadened to consider seasonality, and use of the cattle. Cattle at this time would have to graze during the spring summer and autumn, but the cattle would have no food source during the winter and thus, areas in the northern latitudes were very restricted in their exploitation of animals. (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). During the early and middle of Neolithic time periods milk and cheese is thought to have been a symbolic currency for our ancestors (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). However, during the Late Neolithic the importance of cattle came from their meat, especially in large animals such as cattle or hunted wild game such as aurochs. (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94) .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The % unfused increased in the latest fusion stages, indicating that the cattle were killed as they were older but before complete fusion (adulthood) had been reached during the Late Neolithic at Pupi\u00b4cina all of the major domestic animals were being herded primarily for meat (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). Cattle appear to have been culled primarily for their meat towards the Late Neolithic time period (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). However, Graph 1. indicated a kill of pattern of cattle as they got older. Looking at the age at deathL slaughter in infancy maximises availability of milk and cheese. Slaughter of juveniles or subadults maximises meat production and slater of adults indicates cattle beings used for labour (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). Serjeantson mentions that there is evidence of this in the analysis of sherds from several Neolithic sites. The have shown \u201cthat dairy products were cooked or processed in some of the vessels\u201d (Serjeantson, D. 2006, pp. 113-134).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Females vs Males<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The productive potential of an animal is influenced partly by its age and sex (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112) Use of domestic cattle for primary carcass products was broadened to include the exploitation of secondary products in from the 4th<\/sup>-3rd<\/sup> millennia BC (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). If you consider the evidence from Graph 1. Age classes that are evident in the cull need to be considered with the ratio of sexes surviving into adulthood.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe surviving cattle and their uses are thus reflected in the proportions of male and females (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181). Males are known to have larger measurements than females. In Graph 2. Two groups can be identified, the first (in blue) with a smaller sixe measurement but quite numerous and the other group with a larger size and fewer cattle. This indicates a larger presence of female cattle and could indicate that the cattle at the site were indeed used for secondary products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A note on Aurochs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What is important to consider when analyzing the second set of data (Table 3.) is that within the distribution of cattle dimensions from the Neolithic sites, the relation to the possible presence of large wild cattle must be considered (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181) This can included species such as Aurochs or the Urus. The aurochs were the largest of the wild game species present during the sixth millennium (Boyle, K.V. 2006, pp. 10-23) When looking at data from the database ABMAP wild animals such as the aurochsen are rare in Neolithic faunal assemblages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Occasionally, domestic cattle can be misidentified as aurochs (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039) Female aurochs and male domestic cattle show considerably similar osteometric values (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039). So when looking at Graph 2. one has to look at the second group (in red) critically. This group could be domestic male bulls or wild female aurochs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, it is most probable that the second group represents the bulls kept to sow the females and to keep the herd structure. As well as the fact that wild and domesticated species have similar dietary preferences but the occupy different ecological niches (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further Work<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For further work on the present data, it could be valuable to explore the mitochondrial DNA in the elements of the assemblages and to also review the isotopic values of these. The reason for this is because with the analyses of the mitochondrial DNA and isotopic values an understanding can be taken from the data that reveals early domestication practices and can show the interaction between wild cattle and domesticated cattle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This would be especially useful for the data in Table 3. And Graph 2. It would confirm whether or not the second group is in fact domesticated bulls or wild female aurochs. Furthermore, the analyses of the contexts in which the elements were found could give great insight into the value humans at the site placed on the cattle. For example, if they were all buried in a particular area or in a particular context, evidence can be cross examined with social and cultural knowledge of the time to construct a value on the herd as a whole and the geographical area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
| \n Element<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n Total<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n No. Fused<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n Scapula<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 27<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 21<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n P. Humerus<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 36<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 10<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Humerus<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 42<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 17<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n P. Radius<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 48<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 18<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Radius<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 42<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 12<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n Ulna<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 50<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Metacarpal<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 51<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n Pelvis<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 54<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n P. Femur<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 45<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 10<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Femur<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 40<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 7<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n P. Tibia<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 38<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 6<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Tibia<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 45<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 18<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n Calcaneum<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 57<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 20<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n D. Metatarsal<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 42<\/p>\n<\/td> | \n 15<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n 1st<\/sup> Phalanges<\/p>\n<\/td> 66<\/p>\n<\/td> 31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 2nd<\/sup> Phalanges<\/p>\n<\/td> 75<\/p>\n<\/td> 36<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Stages<\/p>\n<\/td> %Unfused<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 1 (7-10 months): Scapua, Pelvis<\/p>\n<\/td> 40.74<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 2 (12-18 months): d. humerus, p. radius, 1st phalange, 2nd phalange<\/p>\n<\/td> 55.84<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 3 (24-36 months): d. metacarpal, d. tibia, d. metatarsal<\/p>\n<\/td> 65.22<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 4 (36-48 months): p. humerus, d. radius, ulna, p. femur, d. femur, p. tibia, calcaneum<\/p>\n<\/td> 74.03<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Example of Calculations completed to create Table 2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Total : 27+54=81<\/p>\n\n\n\n Total\u2013Total Fused:81\u201348=33<\/p>\n\n\n\n (% unfused) = (total unfused\/total in stage) x 100<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3381\u00d7 100=40.74%<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bd (breadth of distal end)<\/p>\n<\/td> Dd (depth of distal end)<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 52<\/p>\n<\/td> 31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 57<\/p>\n<\/td> 32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 55<\/p>\n<\/td> 31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 52<\/p>\n<\/td> 29<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 69<\/p>\n<\/td> 37<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 48<\/p>\n<\/td> 27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 50<\/p>\n<\/td> 27<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 60<\/p>\n<\/td> 32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 53<\/p>\n<\/td> 30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 52<\/p>\n<\/td> 31<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 56<\/p>\n<\/td> 30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 74<\/p>\n<\/td> 36<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 54<\/p>\n<\/td> 30<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 59<\/p>\n<\/td> 32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> 58<\/p>\n<\/td> 32<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n When interpreting the data from this site sex and size are both important and closely linked variables that must be considered (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387). However, it is often difficult to distinguish where they differ. The ratio of males to females can provide insight about hunting or husbandry strategies practiced by humans during the Neolithic period (Davis et al.. 2018, pp. 367-387).<\/p>\n\n\n\n When considering the use of cattle at this particular site, analyses must be broadened to consider seasonality, and use of the cattle. Cattle at this time would have to graze during the spring summer and autumn, but the cattle would have no food source during the winter and thus, areas in the northern latitudes were very restricted in their exploitation of animals. (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). During the early and middle of Neolithic time periods milk and cheese is thought to have been a symbolic currency for our ancestors (Dineley, M. 2006, pp. 56-62). However, during the Late Neolithic the importance of cattle came from their meat, especially in large animals such as cattle or hunted wild game such as aurochs. (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94) .<\/p>\n\n\n\n The % unfused increased in the latest fusion stages, indicating that the cattle were killed as they were older but before complete fusion (adulthood) had been reached during the Late Neolithic at Pupi\u00b4cina all of the major domestic animals were being herded primarily for meat (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). Cattle appear to have been culled primarily for their meat towards the Late Neolithic time period (Miracle, P. 2006, pp. 63-94). However, Graph 1. indicated a kill of pattern of cattle as they got older. Looking at the age at deathL slaughter in infancy maximises availability of milk and cheese. Slaughter of juveniles or subadults maximises meat production and slater of adults indicates cattle beings used for labour (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). Serjeantson mentions that there is evidence of this in the analysis of sherds from several Neolithic sites. The have shown \u201cthat dairy products were cooked or processed in some of the vessels\u201d (Serjeantson, D. 2006, pp. 113-134).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The productive potential of an animal is influenced partly by its age and sex (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112) Use of domestic cattle for primary carcass products was broadened to include the exploitation of secondary products in from the 4th<\/sup>-3rd<\/sup> millennia BC (Isaakidou, V. 2006, pp. 95-112). If you consider the evidence from Graph 1. Age classes that are evident in the cull need to be considered with the ratio of sexes surviving into adulthood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The surviving cattle and their uses are thus reflected in the proportions of male and females (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181). Males are known to have larger measurements than females. In Graph 2. Two groups can be identified, the first (in blue) with a smaller sixe measurement but quite numerous and the other group with a larger size and fewer cattle. This indicates a larger presence of female cattle and could indicate that the cattle at the site were indeed used for secondary products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is important to consider when analyzing the second set of data (Table 3.) is that within the distribution of cattle dimensions from the Neolithic sites, the relation to the possible presence of large wild cattle must be considered (Legge, A.J. 1984, pp. 169-181) This can included species such as Aurochs or the Urus. The aurochs were the largest of the wild game species present during the sixth millennium (Boyle, K.V. 2006, pp. 10-23) When looking at data from the database ABMAP wild animals such as the aurochsen are rare in Neolithic faunal assemblages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Occasionally, domestic cattle can be misidentified as aurochs (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039) Female aurochs and male domestic cattle show considerably similar osteometric values (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039). So when looking at Graph 2. one has to look at the second group (in red) critically. This group could be domestic male bulls or wild female aurochs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is most probable that the second group represents the bulls kept to sow the females and to keep the herd structure. As well as the fact that wild and domesticated species have similar dietary preferences but the occupy different ecological niches (Lynch, A.H, Hamilton, J & Hedges, R.E.M. 2008, pp. 1025-1039).<\/p>\n\n\n\n For further work on the present data, it could be valuable to explore the mitochondrial DNA in the elements of the assemblages and to also review the isotopic values of these. The reason for this is because with the analyses of the mitochondrial DNA and isotopic values an understanding can be taken from the data that reveals early domestication practices and can show the interaction between wild cattle and domesticated cattle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This would be especially useful for the data in Table 3. And Graph 2. It would confirm whether or not the second group is in fact domesticated bulls or wild female aurochs. Furthermore, the analyses of the contexts in which the elements were found could give great insight into the value humans at the site placed on the cattle. For example, if they were all buried in a particular area or in a particular context, evidence can be cross examined with social and cultural knowledge of the time to construct a value on the herd as a whole and the geographical area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n |