Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-23T11:45:22.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

This little piggy went to market … an archaeozoological study of modern meat values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

László Bartosiewicz
László Bartosiewicz*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeology, Múzeum Körút 4B, Budapest, Hungary
Get access

Abstract

This study is part of broader ethnoarchaeological studies of the value attributed to various cuts of beef and pork. It is aimed at establishing a perspective from which the osteological and cultural aspects of palaeodiets can be equally evaluated. Meat prices analysed in this study originate from 24 supermarkets in 16 developed countries. The great regional variability of identical cuts, and especially intestines shows the importance of local traditions which when combined with the actual nutritional value are expressed in retail prices.

Este artículo forma parte de un análisis etnoarqueologico todaviá en march a que se trata del valor atribuido a varias partes de la carne de vaca y puerco. Si bien el objeto primordial del estudio es el de propoicionar una perspectiva amplia, desde el análisis osteologico de paleodietas human as hasta las consideraciónes que influyen preferencias culturales. Se ha estudiado precios actuales de 24 supermercados en 16 paises desarollados. Además de un análisis de la variación anatómica reflejada en los valores comerciales se expresaron las diferencias y semejanzas regionales. Los precios de carne del mismo tipo, y sobre todo los de entrañas (corazón, cerebro, hígado etc.), pueden ser altamente variables y dependen principalmente de tradiciones locales. La composición alimentaria se combina con esta apreciación cultural en el valor comercial de came.

Diese Studie ist ein Teil einer ethnoarchäologischen Forschung, die vermeintlichen Werte der Rindund Schweinefleische untersucht. Ihr Ziel ist die Eröffnung einer Perspektive, aus der die osteologischen und kulturellen Aspekte der Paleodiät gleichersmassen gewertet werden kann. Die analysierten Preise stammen aus 24 Supermärkten von 16 entwickelten Ländern. Die grosse regionale Variabilität der gleichen Fleischteile, und besonders die der Innereien zeigt die Wichtigkeit der lokalen Traditionen. Mit diesen Faktoren verschlungen wird der Marktpreis durch den Nährungswert bestimmt.

Keywords

archaeozoologypalaeodietsethnocentric biasarqueozoologíapaleodietaprejuicios etnocentricosArchäozoologiePälaeodiäteethnozentrische Verzerrung
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 170 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atchley, A. H., Gaskins, C. T. and Anderson, D., 1976. Statistical properties of ratios 1. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology 25: 137–138.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L., 1985. Most na Soci: A preliminary faunal analysis of the Hallstatt Period settlement. Arheološki Vestnik 36: 107–131.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L., 1988. Biometrics at an Early Medieval butchering site. In Slater, E. and Tate, J. O. (eds), Science and Archaeology Glasgow, 1987: 361–367. Oxford: BAR British Series 196.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L., 1992. Addendum. – Zooarchaeology in Székesfehérvár: The Géza. Square and Csók István Street sites. Acta Arch. Hung. 44: 397–413.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L., 1995. Animals in the Urban Landscape in the Wake of the Middle Ages. A case study from Vác, Hungary. Oxford: BAR International Series 609.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L., 1996. Közép- és törbök kori állatmaradványok Segesdröl (Medieval and Turkish Period animal bones from Segesd, Southwestern Hungary). Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei XII: 183–222.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L. and Choyke, A. M., 1994. Taxonomie und Typologie der Knochenartefakte von St. Blaise. In Kokabi, M. and Wabl, J. (eds), Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie: 263–268. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg, Konrad Theiss Verlag.Google Scholar
Beech, M., 1993. Post-processual archaeology: ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ some comments by an archaeozoologist working in the Czech republic. Archeologické rozhledy XLV: 375–380.Google Scholar
Billault, J., 1992. L'évolution du metier du boucher. Ethnozootechnie 48: 57–66.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones. Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, S. and Binford, L. R. (eds), 1968. New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Burton, M. L. and Kirk, L., 1980. Ethnoclassification of body parts: A three culture study. In Brokensha, D., Warren, D. M. and Werner, O. (eds), Indigeneous Knowledge Systems and Development: 269–296. Washington D. G.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Clarke, D., 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Coy, J., 1972. Iron Age cookery. In Clason, A. T. (ed.), Archaeozoological Studies: 426–430. Amsterdam: North Holland and Elsevier.Google Scholar
Csoma, Zs. and Löwy, L., 1994. Kóser vágás és kóser borok a nem zsidó vallású magyar parasztok tudatában (Kosher slaughter and kosher wines as perceived by non-Jewish Hungarian peasants). In Deáky, Z., Csoma, Zs. and Vörös, E. (eds),… és hol a vidék zsidósága?…(… and where has country Jewry gone?…): 95–130. Budapest: Central-Európa Alapitványi Könyvek 2.Google Scholar
Emerson, A. M., 1993. The role of body part utility in small-scale hunting under two strategies of carcass recovery. In Hudson, J. (ed.), From Bones to Behavior. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental contributions to the interpretation of faunal remains: 138–155. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 21.Google Scholar
Gautier, A., 1984. How do I count you, let me count the ways? In Grigson, C. and Clutton-Brock, J. (eds), Animals and Archaeology, Husbandry in Europe 4: 237–251. Oxford: BAR International Series 227.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K., 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Studies in Archaeological Science. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Gross, E., Jacomet, S., and Schibler, J., 1990. Stand und Ziele der wirtschaftsarchologischen Forschung an neolithischen Ufer- und Inselsiedlungen im unteren Zürichseeraum (Kt. Zürich, Schweiz). In Schibler, J., Sedlmeier, J. and Spycher, H.-P. (eds), Festschrift für Hans R. Stampfli. Beiträge zur Archäozoologie, Archäologie, Anthropologie, Geologie und Paläontologie: 76–100. Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
Higham, C., 1967. Stock rearing as a cultural factor in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33: 84–107.Google Scholar
Jarman, M., 1971. Culture and economy in the North Italian Neolithic. World Archaeology 2: 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleindienst, M. R. and Watson, P. J., 1956. ‘Action archaeology’: the archaeological inventory of a living community. Anthropology Tomorrow 5: 75–78.Google Scholar
Kretzoi, M., 1968. Étude paléontologique. In Gábori-Csánk, V. (ed.), La station du paléolithique moyen d'Érd, Hongrie: 59–104. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D. and Jones, K. T., 1988. A reconsideration of animal body part utility indices. American Antiquity 53: 486–504.Google Scholar
Ringrose, T. J., 1993. Bone counts and statistics: a critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 121–137.Google Scholar
Schibler, J. and Furger, A. R., 1988. Die Tierknochenfunde aus Augusta Raurica (Grabungen 1955–1974). Augst: Forschungen in Augst, Band 9.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987. Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. A., 1955. The limitations of inference in archaeology. Archaeological Newsletter 6: 1–7.Google Scholar
Stahl, A. B., 1993. Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical perspective. American Antiquity 58: 235–260.Google Scholar
Stahl, A. B., 1995. Has ethnoarchaeology come of age? Antiquity 69/263: 404–407.Google Scholar
Takács, I., 1990–1991. The history of pig (Sus scrofa dorn, L.) butchering and the evidence of singeing on subfossil teeth. Magyar Mezögazdasági Múzeum Közleményei 1990–1991: 41–56.Google Scholar
Tótfalusi Kis, M., 1785. Szakácsmesterségek könyvecskéje (The booklet of cooking skills). Nagyszombat/Trnava.Google Scholar
Uerpmann, H.-P., 1973. Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: a critical study of the ‘osteo-archaeological’ method. World Archaeology 4/3: 307–322.Google Scholar
Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, L. H., 1990. Replication of butchering marks on pig mandibles. In Robinson, D. E. (ed.), Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology: 167–174. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Vörös, I., 1986. Egy 15. századi ház csontlelete Vácott (Animal bones from a 15th century house in Vác). Archeológiai Értesitö 113/2: 255–256.Google Scholar
White, T. E., 1952. Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples: I. American Antiquity 17: 337–338.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1985. The reaction against analogy. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1988. ‘Simple’ analogy and the role of relevance assumptions: implications of archaeological practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2: 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar