Body Part Distribution
Once the bones have gone through the identification and ageing stages, they are often divided into species specific body part categories to address a range of themes. One question that can be answered through this method is the nature of acquisition: were the animals obtained as living specimens? This would imply they were fed, watered, sheltered and protected, all of which requires some manner of investment. Or were they obtained as parcels of meat? This would suggest an organized system of food provisioning, where animals were killed at a different location, butchered there, and were then delivered.
Redding (1994:287) expressed body part distribution as a ratio comparing non-meat bearing bones to meat bearing bones to demonstrate whether or not entire animals occurred at a site or if only certain elements were transported back from the kill area. Redding’s approach will be considered by applying its premises on the Iron Age fauna from Mudaybic. Redding (1994:287) assumes that non-meat bearing bones will be about twice as abundant as those bearing meat if the entire animal was present. Redding’s approach takes into account that different bones occur more often in the skeleton. Results of the analysis are represented in Table 3, where bone counts were calculated individually for ovicaprines, sheep, and goats. In each instance, the data demonstrates that the ratio of non-meat bearing to meat bearing bones falls far short of the 2:1 threshold for a complete animal. Ratios of 0.44:1 for ovicaprines are the most convincing because it is derived from a sample of over 200 bones, showing these remains were mainly brought in as parcels of meat. Although based on a much smaller sample, ratios for sheep (0.96:1) and goats (1.17:1) indicate the same phenomenon.