Article One Summary:
The article titled “Butchering Circa 10,000 B.C.”, by Jennifer Viegas (2013) provides information about a butchery site found in Denmark. The origin of the information is a publication in the Journal of Archeological Science. The article explains what is believed to be the process of butchering, after an animal has been killed for food. The site in South Zealand, Denmark provides evidence of animal butchery, including bone fragments (Viegas, 2013). It is believed that elk was a favorite of the people using this site due to the high amount of elk remains at the site. The article states that once an animal was killed, the first goal was to remove the hide likely for use as a disposable container (Viegas, 2013). Once the hide was removed, the meat that was easily accessible was removed and often eaten on the spot (Viegas, 2013). Because there is no evidence of a fire pit it is assumed that the meat was eaten raw (Viegas, 2013). Interestingly, the majority of the bones known to contain bone marrow were found broken, a sign that the marrow was something the hunters enjoyed consuming (Viegas, 2013). The remains of the hunter’s feast were then thought to be transported to a settlement close by (Viegas, 2013). Here, bones such as the shoulder blades were removed and used to create knives for fish processing (Viegas, 2013). Often the front teeth of the animal were missing. Viegas (2013) points out that perhaps they were kept by hunters as a symbol of their achievement.
Article One Reaction:
The article, Butchering Circa, by Jennifer Viegas explains numerous interesting aspects of prehistoric butchery. I believe the description of the butchering process provides information, but also brings up a few unanswered questions. The article states that once the hide was detached from the animal, the meat that was easy to attain was consumed on the spot (Viegas, 2013). I find this to be quite interesting, but I then wonder why this is? Why did the hunters consume the meat they could before bringing it back to the settlement? Perhaps they felt they deserved the meat immediately as a reward for killing the animal. Another possibility could be that the hunter could not carry the entire animal back in full, or maybe they had not eaten recently because they had been out hunting, and needed to refuel for the butchery process. This also made me wonder if they used all of the parts of the animal as the Native Americans did with buffalo. The article states they used the hide, some of the bones, antlers and the meat of course, but what else? Perhaps they did not need to use every part of their kill because it was not too difficult for them to kill another animal. If this article explains anything revealing about the past it’s that food was most likely not in shortage if hunters were able to have their own personal meals, and not every useful part of the animal was kept.
Article Two Summary:
In the article,” Human Ancestors’ Oral Hygiene: The...