Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep Cut mark micro-morphometrics associated with the stage of carcass decay: A pilot study using three-dimensional microscopy Rosalind Wallduck ⁎ , Silvia M. Bello Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, London, UK ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Experimental archaeology Focus variation microscopy Scavenging vs hunting Cannibalism vs defleshing ABSTRACT Recent analyses of archaeological collections have suggested that the frequency, location and micro-morpho- metric characteristics of cut marks produced when cleaning partially decayed bodies are significantly different from butchery of fresh bodies. The present study attempts to verify this hypothesis by performing incisions into pig body parts at different stages of decay, using different hand pressures and two different types of tool. Focus variation microscopy was used for metric evaluations of experimentally produced cut marks. The clearest metric correlation observed was that greater cutting strength produces wider and deeper cut marks. We also observed that in general, when using the same strength, wider and deeper cut marks are produced on bone with less meat due to the decay (i.e. reduction) of organic tissues. It was also observed that liquefying tissues affect the pre- cision of incisions, causing tools to slip on decaying remains. Finally, no clear metric or morphological differ- ences were observed between cut marks produced using unretouched flakes and unretouched blades. 1. Introduction Cut marks are produced when a cutting tool (made of stone, metal, bamboo, etc.) accidentally strikes the surface of a bone, antler or tooth during defleshing, filleting and disarticulation of a body. They are di- rect traces of human action and by studying how and why they were made, we can begin to understand a variety of past human behaviours. In the context of carcass processing these include specific butchery tasks, different tool or raw material use, and the determination of handedness of the tool user (e.g. Bello, 2011; Bello et al., 2009; Bonney, 2014; Bromage and Boyde, 1984; Bromage et al., 1991; Domínguez- Rodrigo and Barba, 2005; Greenfield, 1999, 2006; Hillson et al., 2010; Maté-González et al., 2016; Pickering and Hensley-Marschand, 2008; West and Louys, 2007; Wilson, 1982). When cut marks are found on human remains, their study enables the identification of funerary practices such as cannibalism or defleshing (e.g. Bello et al., 2011a, 2015, 2016; Boulestin, 1999; Cauwe, 2001; Cole, 2017; Fernández- Jalvo et al., 1999; Redfern, 2008; Schulting et al., 2015; Turner and Turner, 1999; Wallduck, 2013; Wallduck and Bello, 2016a; White, 1992). In the context of artefact production the study of deliberate cut marks, or engraving marks, can facilitate the reconstruction of chaîne opératoires, the identification of different artistic techniques, and level of expertise (e.g. Bello et al., 2013, 2017; Choi and Driwantoro, 2007; d'Errico and Cacho, 1994; Güth, 2012; Rivero, 2016; Wallduck and Bello, 2016b). The timing at which cuts are produced after the death of an animal (human or non-human), however, often remains uncertain. Yet de- termining the length of time between death and butchery has sustained debates related to hunting versus scavenging as a means for carcass acquisition by early hominins (Blasco and Rosell, 2009; Bunn, 1981; Capaldo, 1998; Domínguez-Rodrigo, 1997; Domínguez-Rodrigo and Pickering, 2003; Shipman, 1983) as well as the differentiation of can- nibalism from secondary burial practices (Bello et al., 2016; Chacon and Dye, 2007; Diamond, 2000; Hurlbut, 2000; Pickering, 1989; Saladié et al., 2013; Saladié and Rodríguez-Hidalgo, 2017; Wallduck and Bello, 2016a). Determining the time carcasses are accessed, processed, and modified has been mainly supported by the mutual relationship and physical superimposition of cut marks with other bone modifications (e.g. carnivore chewing marks, trampling; c.f. Blumenschine, 1995; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2009; Olsen and Shipman, 1988; Selvaggio, 1994; Lupo and O'Connell, 2002). In the case of human bodies and funerary practices, differences in the location of cut marks (i.e. on labile or persistent joints; c.f. Bello et al., 2016; Duday, 2009; Saladié and Rodríguez-Hidalgo, 2017; Wallduck and Bello, 2016a) has been used as a diagnostic feature. But these methodologies have been often criticised for their qualitative approach and their strong interpretative compo- nent. Apart from two recent studies (Bello et al., 2016, and Wallduck and Bello, 2016a), no other research has attempted to directly associate cut mark frequency and micro-morphometric features with the time when the cutting of carcasses occurred. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.01.005 Received 8 September 2017; Received in revised form 18 December 2017; Accepted 4 January 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: r.wallduck@nhm.ac.uk (R. Wallduck). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18 (2018) 174–185 2352-409X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T