JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ZOOARCH Archives


ZOOARCH Archives

ZOOARCH Archives


ZOOARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZOOARCH Home

ZOOARCH Home

ZOOARCH  2000

ZOOARCH 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Meat Weight Estimates

From:

tpoc1 <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

tpoc1 <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 19 May 2000 11:17:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

Thanks to John Speth for the reminder about Fort Ligonier.  Another
caculation along the same lines is in Barbara West's characteristically
exuberant analysis of bones from the Royal Navy Victualling Yard, London
(West B 1995. 'The case of the missing victuals', Historical Archaeology
29, 20-42). From contemporary documents and some plausible arithmetic,
West calculates that the victualling yard should have generated around
880kg of waste cattle bone per day, yet the 'early' phase at the site,
representing some 75 years of usage, yielded just 38kg of cattle bone
fragments. Even allowing for Feast Days and Holy Days, that is around
.0004% recovery. The rest of the paper speculates as to the fate of the
missing bones.  Read it - I wouldn't want to spoil the plot by giving
away the ending!

Terry O'Connor

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Archaeological Science
Department of Archaeology
University of York
Kings Manor
York YO1 7EP
U.K.

"John D. Speth" wrote:
> 
> Several previous emails commented on problems of estimating meat weights
> from faunal remains.  There's a wonderful old reference concerning the
> faunal analysis of a British fort in western Pennsylvania which comes to
> very similar conclusions.  I've appended a quote from the publication
> which summarizes the principal finding of the study.  The author attempted
> to estimate meat weights from the faunal remains recovered in the
> excavations and then compared the results to the historical documentation
> for the fort.  Below are his conclusions.
> 
> Grimm, Jacob L. 1970 Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier,
> 1960-1965.  Annals 42. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Museum.
> 
> [Fort built in 1758 by British and used for several years in French and
> Indian war.]
> 
> "At standard field ration of one pound of meat per man per day, 4,000
> pounds would have sustained only two men for the length of time of the
> known occupancy, or the entire garrison at full strength for just one day!
> Calculations such as these are patently ridiculous.  The major portion of
> the meat ration (salt pork) left no archaeological trace, troops were not
> on full rations at all times, the sample recovered is but a portion of the
> full archaeological sample at the site, and the facilities for garbage
> disposal in the creek, where it would be lost to the archaeologists, were
> excellent...." (p. 186).
> 
> Qualitatively, however, a fair idea of the relative importance of the
> various meat animals in the military diet and the relative importance of
> hunting can be derived from the collection (p. 186).
> 
> John D. Speth                                   Home    (734) 662-9505
> Museum of Anthropology                          Office: (734) 764-1240
> 4009 Museums Building                           E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> University of Michigan                          Fax:    (734) 763-7783
> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079 USA


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager