Does butchering fish leave cut marks?

Abstract

Despite the fact that fish are a common component of coastal and other aquatic archaeological sites, cut marks are rarely reported on archaeological fish remains. To assess whether butchering practices leave cut marks on fish bones, we butchered 37 fish using stone tools and a metal knife following methods provided in ethnographic accounts and by modern fish processors. In contrast to archaeological analyses, our research demonstrates that butchering commonly produces cut marks on fish bones, with 4019 cut marks and 2167 cut mark clusters identified on the bones of 30 fish. Cut marks occurred frequently on vertebral neural and haemal spines, vertebral transverse processes, pterygiophores, ribs, and other bones not generally identified to low taxonomic categories by zooarchaeologists (e.g., family, genus, or species). To test our experimental data, we also analyzed 9391 archaeological fish remains from a Late Holocene shell midden on the California Coast, noting 33 previously undocumented cut marks. We hypothesize that the scarcity of cut marks reported on archaeological fish bones is the result of researchers overlooking cut marks because they occur primarily on undiagnostic bones, taphonomic factors such as root etching that may destroy or obscure cut marks, differences between fish, mammal, and bird anatomy, or ancient butchering strategies that relied on limited cutting of fishes.