Shechita and Kashrut: Identifying Jewish populations through zooarchaeology and taphonomy. Two examples from Medieval Catalonia (North-Eastern Spain)

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e9

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Shechita and Kashrut: Identifying Jewish populations throughzooarchaeology and taphonomy. Two examples from MedievalCatalonia (North-Eastern Spain)

Silvia Valenzuela-Lamas a,b,*, Lua Valenzuela-Suau b, Oriol Saula c, Anna Colet c,Oriol Mercadal d, Carme Subiranas e, Jordi Nadal f

aDepartment of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, United KingdombGRACPE, Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, C/Montalegre 6-8, 08001 Barcelona, SpaincMuseu Comarcal de l’Urgell, C/Major 11, 25300 Tàrrega, SpaindMuseu Cerdà, C/Higini de Rivera 4, 17520 Puigcerdà, SpaineArqueòloga ARCS Patrimoni Cultural, Plaça Grau, 7, 2n 2a, 08560 Manlleu, Spainf SERP-Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, C/Montalegre 6-8, 08001 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

* Corresponding author. Department of ArchaeolNorthgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, Unite

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Valenzuel

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.035

Please cite this article in press as: Valenzuelataphonomy. Two examples from Medievaj.quaint.2013.12.035

a b s t r a c t

Diet is a key element of cultural identity, especially when it conveys religious practices. A multivariatestudy of two zooarchaeological assemblages from Medieval Catalonia (North-Eastern Spain) is describedhere. The combination of several criteria regarding the presence of species, the skeletal part represen-tation and the butchery pattern, converge towards a Jewish origin of the faunal remains. These twoassemblages constitute one of the few opportunities for characterizing the diet of the Medieval Jewishcommunities in Spain, and for comparing it to contemporary Muslim and Christian populations.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Food is one of the main expressions of cultural identity. This isparticularly reinforced when it also marks religious practices, andwhen it is used as a means of distinction from other communities.Faunal remains from archaeological sites are usually the best tes-timony of the animals that were traded, butchered and consumedin antiquity. Therefore, it is potentially possible to detect culturesand religious practices via faunal remains.

Meat consumption is highly ritualized in Judaism. Jewish dietarylaws dictate which species may be consumed, and how they mustbe slaughtered, butchered and cooked in order to be kosher (suit-able for consumption). This encompasses two aspects: one con-cerns the composition of the food (Kashrut rules), and the otherconcerns the preparation (Shechita rules). Both are required for thefood to be kosher (Greenfield and Bouchnick, 2011).

The basis of the Jewish dietary laws was established in theTorah, in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Vayikra andDevarim). There are several sources that summarize the Jewish

ogy, University of Sheffield,d Kingdom.a-Lamas).

nd INQUA. All rights reserved.

-Lamas, S., et al., Shechita andl Catalonia (North-Eastern

dietary laws. An abbreviated version, adapted to what we can findin the archaeological record, is recalled here.

1.1. Species allowed for human consumption. Kashrut rules

Contrasting with plant based foods, there is an extensive regu-lation and detail regarding animals, especially mammals (Lev. 11,3e4; Deut. 14, 6e7). In terms of the mammal species allowed, theyneed to have both cloven hooves and chew their cud (that is, beruminants). Animals that only meet one characteristic (such as pig)are not permitted. Wild animals are not forbidden in principle, butthey need to be slaughtered following the Shechita rules (seebelow), which are difficult to apply to animals living in the wild.

Concerning aquatic creatures, anything residing “in the waters”is allowed if it has both fins and scales (Lev. 11, 9; Deut. 14, 9). Thisapplies to themajority of fish, and excludes cartilaginous fishes, likesharks.

The criteria concerning birds are not described in the Torah but alist of forbidden birds is given (Lev. 11, 13e19; Deut. 14, 11e18).Those allowed include chicken, geese and ducks.

Other animals, like molluscs, insects, other invertebrates, am-phibians and reptiles are all forbidden. This includes seafood suchas lobsters, oysters, shrimps, clams, and crabs, among many others.

Kashrut: Identifying Jewish populations through zooarchaeology andSpain), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.035



S. Valenzuela-Lamas et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e92

The only exception is several forms of grasshoppers (Greenfield andBouchnick, 2011; Table 1).

Table 1Taphonomical alterations identified on the mammal remains recovered from Tàr-rega. Results in %NISP. The last column indicates the NISP recovered from each SU. SU2040 is an earthen level over 2069; SU 2069-90-91is an earthen level over the silo;SU 2089 is the silo, which contains most of the faunal remains.

Roots Carnivore Desquamation Fissures Fire NISP SU

SU 2040 35.4 9.1 39.4 33.3 0.0 104SU 2069-90-91 55.6 12.1 80.8 50.5 2.0 290SU 2089 16.1 11.9 29.6 14.8 4.2 1382Mean: 35.7 11.0 49.9 32.9 2.1

Kosher secondary products for consumption (i.e., dairy prod-ucts) must also come from kosher animals. Other secondaryproducts, like labour, bones, skins, etc. can come from non-kosheranimals. Keeping non-kosher animals in proximity and usingthem as pets or labour animals is also permitted.

1.2. Treatment of the food to make it kosher. Shechita rules

These rules apply from themoment of slaughtering an animal toall the preparation process of the meat as food, and are a subset ofthe Kashrut laws. The animal must be slaughtered by a skilledsochet, whowill ensure that the process is performed appropriately.

1) The animalmust be alive before it is ritually slaughtered, and thesacrifice follows a very precise process and instrumentation. Thesochet cuts the jugular veins with a special knife e chalaf e thatneeds to be as sharp as a razor and without imperfections. Thecarotid arteries and the trachea must be cut without tear themand without touching any bone (Greenfield and Bouchnick,2011). Any animal must be slaughtered in this way in order tobe kosher. For instance, they cannot be hunted, shot, impaled,poisoned, or left to starve in a pit. This is why it is so difficult tosacrifice wild animals in a kosher way.

2) After being sacrificed, the animal is carefully inspected for anyabnormality in its body and internal organs (Daróczi-Szabó,2004). Any animal with any sign of disease, injury and malfor-mation is deemed not kosher. It still can be sold to non-Jews ifthe animal has no contagious disease.

3) After inspection, the animal is raised into the air with the neckdown to facilitate drainage of the blood and to be skinned. Bloodconsumption is forbidden in Judaism, and therefore especialcare is taken in draining all the blood, also using salt and/orwater to drain it from the meat. During this stage, the sciaticnerve is removed if possible, since its consumption is strictlyforbidden (Genesis 32, 33) because Jacob got injured in thisnerve as a result of a fight against an angel (Genesis 32, 26e32).This nerve is very difficult to remove, and therefore in sometraditions, like the Ashkenazi, the whole hind limb of the animalis deemed not kosher (Daróczi-Szabó, 2004). In other traditions,like the Sephardim, the consumption of the hind limb is allowedif the sciatic nerve is removed and all the blood purged (Daróczi-Szabó, 2004). Any excess fat is also removed at this stage.

All these characteristics together make it potentially possible todetect observant Jewish populations in the archaeological record,as only kosher species will be present, no animals with pathologicalconditions (or very few) will be eaten, and the Shechita rules canresult in a particular butchery pattern and anatomical representa-tion. It is on this issue that the present article aims to make acontribution.

Please cite this article in press as: Valenzuela-Lamas, S., et al., Shechita andtaphonomy. Two examples from Medieval Catalonia (North-Easternj.quaint.2013.12.035

2. Materials and methods

2.1. The sites

The sites are located in North-Eastern Spain, in present-dayCatalonia (Fig. 1). They both date from the 14th c. AD, when thisregion had already been re-conquered by Christians from theMuslims. In the re-conquered territories of Medieval Spain prior to1492, there were three religious communities living in the citiesand villages: Christians, Muslims and Jews (Sabaté, 2003; Bramon,2009). From the 12th century onwards, after the 3rd Concilium ofLatera (1179), Jews were forced to live in special quarters, theJewries, named “call” in Catalan, and “judería” in Spanish (Bada,2009; Mercadal et al., in press).

2.1.1. TàrregaThe site in Carrer de la Font 7e9 inTàrrega is in the area occupied

by the town’s Jewry in the 14th and 15th centuries (the street nameshave been kept in the original language. ‘Carrer’ means ‘street’ inCatalan). This neighbourhood was made up of Carrer de l’Estudi,which was the main axis and Carrer de les Piques and Carrer de laFont, on either side of the former street. However, the location of theexcavated site, on the edgeof the Jewry, requireda thoroughanalysisto clarify whether these 14th-century remains corresponded to theJewish or Christian population. The site was excavated during acommercial intervention in 2008. The materials appeared in acourtyard containing a silo (SU 2089). Different earthen levels ofrefilling were documented abutting awall dating from the late 13the early 14th century (SU 2040 and SU 2069-90-91, among others).This wall bounded the courtyard and its inner side was part of ahouse built in various stages. A large amount and range of materialswere recovered during the excavation, including pottery, glass,bronze and iron objects, coins, and faunal remains. Some pieceswere clearly complete when discarded. The whole filling depositwas probably done simultaneously or over a short period of time,whichwould explainwhy fragments of the same itemwere found indifferent strata. Besides the problemof attributing cultural origins tothematerial, there is the question of the reasonwhymaterial in usewas thrown away, which is considered in the Discussion.

Regarding the ownership of the material discarded, the study ofthe ceramics failed to show any difference between the potteryused by Jews and Christians except for one item: a hannukiah, (akind of candelabrum) of which only a small fragment was recov-ered. This piece is clearly of Jewish origin, although it is possiblethat it ended up mixed with a dump of Christian materials. In thiscontext, the study of the faunal remains was key to assess thecultural origin of the archaeological materials.

2.1.2. PuigcerdàThe archaeological interventions carried out in 1992, 1993, 2005

and 2007 (directors: O. Mercadal and C. Subiranas) uncoveredseveral houses of the so-called vilanova (literal translation: newtown), a groupof newneighbourhoods that grewupbeyond the12e13th century town walls, and more specifically the Jewish Quarter(Mercadal, 1993; Mercadal and Subiranas, 1993-1994; Mercadalet al., 1994a,b, 1995; Bosom et al., 1995; Mercadal and Bosom,2003; Mercadal et al., in press). The Jews arrived here from Rous-sillon, mainly from Perpignan and Villefranche-de-Conflent,Southern Catalonia and Languedoc. The first documentary evi-dence about these settlers dates to 1260 and, by the end of thecentury, they had already established themselves in the new dis-tricts. The first reference to the gate of the Jewish Quarter dates from1325, a time when the area would have also taken Christians in.

Several indicators suggest that the remains recovered couldbelong to the Jewish quarter: the archaeological proof that there


0 50 100 km

BarcelonaC/St.Honorat

S.Julià

S.EsteveC/St.Ramon

Fig. 1. Location of the sites analyzed in the present study (black dots) and other contemporary sites used as comparison (grey dots).

S. Valenzuela-Lamas et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e9 3

was a vilanova located outside and next to the old walls, the sub-sequent exploitation of that same land by the Franciscans (whosuperposed their convent on the streets and houses of the JewishQuarter), the existence of a first synagoguewhere themonks wouldlater establish a small refectory, as some 18th-century French plansaccurately show, and the discovery of some remarkable piecesassociatedwith a Semitic population, such as a Hanukah lamp and astamp for matzot (unleavened bread; Fig. 2) (Mercadal et al., 1994a;Bango, 2002; Casanovas, 2002; Planas and Forcano, 2009). Thezooarchaeological analysis was key to assess the homogeneity andcultural attribution of the archaeological materials.

2.2. Methods

In both sites, the bone remains were recovered by hand, and nosieving was performed during the excavation. During thezooarchaeological analysis, all the bones were examined macro-scopically in order to identify the species, the anatomical element,fusion and wear stage (in the case of teeth), as well as any post-depositional alteration, butchery marks and pathological condi-tions. Side of body was also recorded and measurements taken.

The distinction between sheep and goats followed the works ofBoessneck (1980), Payne 1985, Halstead et al. 2002, Zeder and

Fig. 2. Reconstructed hanukah lamp (left; the original fragment is on the right side ofthe picture) and stamp for matzot bread (right) recovered in Puigcerdà site (14th c.AD). Pictures: O. Mercadal (hanukah lamp) and S. Bosom (stamp).


Pilaar 2010, and Zeder and Lapham, 2010. The interpretation ofthe butchery marks was based on Vigne (1988), and the quantifi-cation units used were the number of identified specimens (sensuGrayson, 1984), the frequency of species expressed by %NISP, the‘simple’ minimum number of individuals (Grayson, 1984), and thepercentage of representation (Dodson and Wexlar, 1969).

3. Results

3.1. Post-depositional conservation

Cortical bone preservation was good in both sites. A quantifi-cation of the impact of the different taphonomical agents and theirdegree of impact on the bones is only available for Tàrrega (Table 1and Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Degree of alteration of the faunal remains recovered from Tàrrega site followinga scale inspired on that of Behrensmeyer (1978) and Valenzuela (2008) (0 ¼ absence ofalterations; 4 ¼ bone cortical completely destroyed). Values in %NISP. Total NISP: 1705.


Fig. 4. Comparison of the main domesticates in several Medieval sites (14th century)from Catalonia. Results in %NISPt (NISP referring only to the domestic triad: cattle, pigand sheep/goat). Sites: C/St. Honorat, Barcelona (urban houses; Florensa et al., 2007;NISPt ¼ 856; Jewish); S. Julià (urban silos; Molina et al., 2003a; NISPt ¼ 430; Christian);S. Esteve 1 (village; Molina et al., 2003b; NISPt ¼ 1355; Christian); S. Esteve 2 (churchsilos; Molina et al., 2003b; NISPt ¼ 310; Christian); C/St. Ramon (urban silos; Fornerand González, 2007; NISPt ¼ 130; Christian).

Table 3


Table 1 shows the frequency on the bones for each of thetaphonomical agents observed in the three stratigraphical units(SU) having a NISP > 95. Faunal remains were mainly concentratedin the silo, which makes them a rather ‘closed’ assemblage (sensuPoplin, 1976), as it seems to come from a sole episode of depositionquickly covered, in a way that does not indicate later intrusions.

Concerning diagenesis, desquamation is the principal alteration,especially in the layer over the silo and therefore nearer to the surface.Root etching and fissures follow in frequency. The desquamations andfissures are related to seasonal changes in humidity, rather humid inautumn and winter, and extremely dry in summer. Root etching is tobe related to the vegetal richness of the soil. The effects of carnivoreactivities are notable. The proportion of gnawed bones is rather con-stant in the three main SUs, and overall affects about 11%NISP.Consequently, partof the faunal assemblagehasprobablydisappearedbecause of the action of carnivores. Finally, the incidence of burningmarks is rather low,with amoremarked presence in the silo remains.

Fig. 3 shows the overall degree of incidence of the differenttaphonomical agents on the bone surface following a scale inspiredby Behrensmeyer (1978), in which 0 is the absence of alterationsand 4 is a cortex completely destroyed (Valenzuela, 2008). It can beappreciated that most of remains are in degree 1, which do notendanger the preservation of the bone.

3.2. Species representation

The number of identified specimens (NISP) was 1705 in Tàrregaand 1416 in Puigcerdà (Table 2). Fig. 4 shows the representation ofthe main domesticates (%NISP) for both sites, among others of thesame chronology and region (14th century Catalonia). In bothTàrrega and Puigcerdà, sheep and goats (Ovis aries and Capra hircus)are the most abundant taxa, followed by cattle (Bos taurus) inPuigcerdà, and birds (galliforms and anatidae) in Tàrrega. Otherspecies, particularly pigs (Sus domesticus) and dogs (Canis famil-iaris) are almost absent from the zooarchaeological record, but stillpresent in both sites. A sole cat (Felis catus) bone was recoveredfrom Tàrrega. It is a maxilla of a very old individual (Fig. 5), whichmost probably needed to be fed by humans. No wild animals weredocumented in either site.

Table 2Number of identified specimens in both sites.

Tàrrega Puigcerdà

NISP %NISP NISP %NISP

Bos taurus 51 3.0 250 17.6Sus domesticus 5 0.3 23 1.6Ovis aries 89 5.2 231 16.3Capra hircus 7 0.4 47 3.3Ovis/Capra 1421 83.3 825 58.3Canis familiaris 22 1.3 7 0.5Felis catus 1 0.1 0 0.0Birds 109 6.4 33 2.3Total NISP 1705 1416

Anatomical representation and percentage of representation (PR) of sheep and goatbones from Tàrrega. ‘NISP’ column indicates the NISP recovered from the archaeo-logical excavation; ‘NISP 1 indv’ indicates the number of bones originally present inone individual; ‘exp. NISP’ is the expected NISP if all the individuals (according to thecalculated MNI) were complete in the archaeological assemblage; ‘PR’ indicates thePercentage of Representation calculated according to Dodson and Wexlar (1969):NISP*100/exp. NISP.

Tàrrega SU2089 MNI ¼ 25

NISP Ovis/Capra NISPi 1 indv exp. NISP PR

Skull 62 1 25 248.0Mandible 33 2 50 66.0Teeth 9 30 750 1.2Scapula 50 2 50 100.0Humerus 48 2 50 96.0Radius 50 2 50 100.0Ulna 28 2 50 56.0Carpal 2 10 250 0.8Metacarpal 16 2 50 32.0Ribs 778 29 725 107.3Vertebrae 123 26 650 18.9Pelvis 1 2 50 2.0Femur 7 2 50 14.0Tibia 7 2 50 14.0Tarsal 5 4 100 5.0Metatarsal 15 2 50 30.0P1 9 8 200 4.5P2 0 8 200 0.0P3 0 8 200 0.0

1243 144 3600 34.5

Concerning pigs, only 5 isolated remains were recovered inTàrrega, coming from SU 2069 (earthen level) and SU 2089 (silo).The bones correspond to two metacarpals, one isolated tooth, adistal epiphysis of a radius and a second phalanx. Two of these re-mains (a metacarpal and the distal radius) show gnawing marks. InPuigcerdà, the pig bones come from diverse archaeological layersand include fragments from different parts of the body (skull andmandibles, isolated teeth, anterior and posterior members, meta-podials and phalanges). Compared to other contemporary sites fromthe same region (Fig. 4), it is clear that both Tàrrega and Puigcerdàdisplay a very low proportion of pig remains, only comparable tothat attested in the Jewish quarter of Barcelona (C/St. Honorat).


3.3. Anatomical representation of sheep and goats

Sheep and goats were the most abundant taxa in both Tàrregaand Puigcerdà, and the only ones providing reliable informationabout anatomical representation. Tables 3 and 4 show the NISP ofsheep and goats by body-part, the number of expected remains(basing on the MNI), and the calculation of the percentage of rep-resentation, according to Dodson and Wexlar (1969). Other thanthe over-representation of the skull remains, the abundance ofbones from the forelimb (scapula, humerus and radius) is notice-able in both Tàrrega and Puigcerdà. Conversely, the pelvis is veryrare in both assemblages.


Table 4Anatomical representation and percentage of representation (PR) of sheep and goatbones from Puigcerdà. ‘NISP’ column indicates the NISP recovered from thearchaeological excavation; ‘NISP 1 indv’ indicates the number of bones originallypresent in one individual; ‘exp. NISP’ is the expected NISP if all the individuals(according to the calculated MNI) were complete in the archaeological assemblage;‘PR’ indicates the Percentage of Representation calculated according to Dodson andWexlar (1969): NISP*100/exp. NISP. 18 bones classified as ‘metapodials’ were notincluded in the PR.

Puigcerdà MNI ¼ 59

NISP Ovis/Capra NISPi 1 indv exp.NISP PR

Skull 84 1 59 142.4Mandible 94 2 118 79.7Teeth 161 30 1770 9.1Scapula 87 2 118 73.7Humerus 103 2 118 87.3Radius 117 2 118 99.2Ulna 28 2 118 23.7Carpal 3 10 590 0.5Metacarpal 111 2 118 94.1Ribs 2 29 1711 0.1Vertebrae 8 26 1534 0.5Pelvis 8 2 118 6.8Femur 10 2 118 8.5Tibia 51 2 118 43.2Tarsal 23 4 236 9.7Metatarsal 100 2 118 84.7P1 63 8 472 13.3P2 22 8 472 4.7P3 10 8 472 2.1

1085 144 8496 12.8


In order to assess if the anatomical representation could have acultural significance, we compared the results with contemporaryChristian and Muslim sites. Fig. 6 shows the comparison of Tàrregaand Puigcerdà sheep and goat anatomical profiles with that of aChristian assemblage from a Medieval castle in the same region(Valenzuela and Colominas, 2009). It is clear that the hind limbbones, the pelvis, femur, and tibia, are much more common in theChristian castle. Fig. 7 shows the same comparison, this timeconsidering an urban Muslim period assemblage from Portugal(Davis, 2006). Pelvis, femur and tibia are much more abundant inthe Muslim assemblage.

3.4. Butchery marks

Chop marks are very abundant in both assemblages, and displaya very regular butchery pattern (Fig. 8). Fig. 9 summarizes the tracesobserved on sheep and goat remains from the silo in Tàrrega (SU

Fig. 5. Right maxilla of an old cat (Felis catus). The animal lost most of its teeth whilealive.


2089). The skull is chopped longitudinally in two. The mandible isusually chopped on the angle or on its ascending ramus, and thenalso over p3. Vertebrae are chopped longitudinally and also trans-versally into different parts. Ribs are chopped in, at least, twosegments, but they can also be chopped in three or more segments.We measured the length of the fragments that were chopped atboth sides. Overall, we measured 304 rib fragments and the meanlength was 6.6 cm, with values ranging between 2 and 14 cm. Weobtained similar results in the three main stratigraphical units.

3.5. Pathologies

No pathological remains were recovered in the Puigcerdàassemblage. In the case of Tàrrega, three pathological bones, allfrom the silo SU 2089, were identified. This was the case of a sheepmandible with an abscess around the second molar (Fig. 10), asheep/goat metatarsal with an exostosis on the proximal epiphysis,and another sheep/goat metatarsal with a twisted distal epiphysis.These three bones represent 0.2% of the identified remains.

4. Discussion

Meat consumption is highly ritualized in many cultures andreligions (Davis, 2008). Beyond the observance of religious prac-tices, food becomes an element of cultural identity. The faunal as-semblages from Tàrrega and Puigcerdà provide a uniqueopportunity for testing the cultural attribution of the fauna recov-ered in both sites. The presence of a diversity of species andanatomical parts, together with the butchery marks, suggests thatthe faunal remains recovered correspond to domestic waste in bothTàrrega and Puigcerdà.

4.1. Species consumed

In terms of number of remains (NISP), sheep and goat are, by far,the most abundant taxa in both sites, followed by birds in Tàrrega,and cattle in Puigcerdà. These differences in terms of diet seemgenuine (Chi ¼ 227,6; p < 0,00000), and can relate to the differentecological conditions of both sites: Tàrrega is located in a centraldepression that becomes very hot and dry in summer (present-dayaverage rainfall ¼ 435 mm per annum), and Puigcerdà is located ina valley in the Pyrenees mountains (1200 m asl), which are wet andrather cold all year long, especially in winter (averagerainfall ¼ 700 mm per annum).

The species representation in Tàrrega and Puigcerdà (Table 1,Fig. 4) shows distinctive characteristics compared to contemporaryChristian assemblages from the same region. The low proportion ofpig remains in both assemblages e under 5%NISP e is comparablewith that from the Jewish quarter of Barcelona (C/St. Honorat),which contrasts with the contemporary Christian ones. The pres-ence of these few pig remains can be related either to archaeo-logical intrusions, pet scavenging (cats, dogs), or may be veryoccasional consumption. The low proportion of pig is potentiallycompatible with Muslims, for whom pig consumption is alsoforbidden. In any case, the low proportion of pig remains cannot beattributed to the character of the sites or the sampling strategy, asthey all come from urban context commercial excavations whereno sieving was performed.

A distinctive characteristic of Jewish communities in terms ofthe species consumed is the absence of wild species, which are verydifficult to slaughter following the Shechita rules (Greenfield andBouchnick, 2011). In Iberia, this is especially noted by the absenceof rabbit remains, which are commonly found in Christian andMuslim sites (Moreno-García and Davis, 2001; Molina et al.,2003a,b; Davis, 2006; Alòs et al., 2006-2007; Davis et al., 2008).


Fig. 6. Comparison of sheep and goat anatomical representation in Tàrrega, Puigcerdà and Mur Christian castle (Catalonia, Spain).


Rabbits do not chew their cud nor have cloven hooves, and aretherefore not kosher. In both Tàrrega and Puigcerdà, rabbits arecompletely absent, as are any other wild species, which iscompatible with Jewish dietary practices.

4.2. Anatomical representation

As noted above, eating blood is strictly forbidden in Judaism,and special care is taken to drain all blood from themeat, right fromthe moment of slaughtering. One of the most difficult steps in thebutchery process is removing the sciatic nerve and the femoralartery from the animal, which cross the pelvis and go down to theplantar side of the leg. In some cases, the whole hind limb or part ofit can be sold as non-kosher meat (Ijzereef, 1989; Greenfield andBouchnick, 2011).

In both Tàrrega and Puigcerdà sites, a predominance of forelimbbones and an extremely low proportion of pelves was found(Tables 3and 4). This clearly contrasts the contemporary Muslimand Christian assemblages used as comparison, in which the hindlimb is privileged (Figs. 7 and 8). In the case of the Christian castle,the anatomical representation could reflect the high status of thesite (McCormick, 2002). In the case of the urban Muslim assem-blage from Santarém (Davis, 2006), the anatomical representationreflects the ‘usual’ profile when all anatomical parts are processedand consumed. This corresponds well with a Jewish cultural originfor both Tàrrega and Puigcerdà assemblages, and more precisely to

Fig. 7. Comparison of sheep and goat anatomical representation in Tàrrega, Puigcerdàand Moslem Santarém (Portugal).


the Sephardim tradition, as the whole hind limb is deemed notkosher in the Ashkenazi tradition (Daróczi-Szabó, 2004).

The practice of selling non-kosher meat to Christians is welldocumented in Medieval Spain (Riera, 1988; Banegas, 2005) andother European countries in Modern times (Ijzereef, 1989). Thatactivity was allowed by the Torah (Deut. 14, 21). Following theepisodes of Black Death in the 14th and 15th centuries, buyingmeatfrom Jews was strictly forbidden, as the spread of the plague wasattributed to them (Bada, 2009). The orders of St. Vicenç Ferrer,dating from the 15th century, which inspired many city councils ofthat time (including Puigcerdà), clearly stated that:

Ítem que nengun cristià no gos comprar de nenguna natura decarn morta de juheu ni juheva sota pena de cinch sous percascuna vegada que provat li sia. (Cerdanya County Archives(ACCE, 125, cu 94.)

That is:

“No Christian is allowed to buy any product of dead meat from aJew under punishment of five sous [local coin] each time thatthis was proven to happen.”

Because both the zooarchaeological assemblages from Tàrregaand Puigcerdà date from the 14th century (at least 50 years before

Fig. 8. Example of the regular butchery pattern on some sheep and goat scapulae fromTàrrega.


< 10%10,1 - 20%20,1 - 40%40,1 - 80%> 80,1

Chop mark

Cut mark

Fig. 9. Location of the butchery marks identified on sheep and goat bones from the silo(SU 2089) in Tàrrega. The colour code refers to %NISP (NISP ¼ 1245).


the orders were published), it is probable that part of the hind limbwas sold to Christians, or just discarded as non-kosher. This con-trasts with the assemblages from Gamla and Yodefat (Galilee)dating from the Roman period, in which the pelvis is present andthe sciatic nerve carefully removed (Cope, 2004). This suggests thatthe anatomical representation can be indicative of a Jewish com-munity, but cannot be used as a sole criterion.

4.3. The butchery pattern

The regularity observed on the butchery pattern (Fig. 9) suggeststhat it was performed by a professional butcher. In ancient times,the regularity in butchery has been used to distinguish Jewishpopulations from other communities (Bar-Oz et al., 2007). In me-dieval times, this cannot be used so easily, as both Christians andMuslims had professional butchers that produce regular butcherymarks (Moreno-García and Davis, 2001). Similarly, the differencesbetween kosher, halal and Christian butchery patterns are yet to bedescribed, with the limitation that butchery traditions have notbeen fixed and evolve through time. In this case, the regularity inthe butchery pattern adds evidence to a possible Jewish origin ofthe faunal assemblages from Tàrrega and Puigcerdà, but cannot beused as a sole distinctive criterion.

Fig. 10. Right sheep/goat mandible displaying a pathology derived from a long termabscess on the second molar.


4.4. Pathologies

The prohibition of consuming animals with injuries or diseasescould potentially translate into a very low incidence of pathologiesin Jewish assemblages. Nevertheless, the inspection for diseasesmainly focuses on soft tissues, and therefore it is not clear to whichextent the skeletal pathologies can happen in kosher contexts. Inthe two assemblages studied here, only three remains in Tàrrega(0.2%NISP), and none in Puigcerdà were found to have a patho-logical condition. A ratio of the 0.2%NISP pathological bones wasalso found in the Moslem context from lixeira de Silves, Portugal(Davis et al., 2008), and exactly the same in the Iron Age site ofAlorda Park, located in present-day Catalonia (Valenzuela, 2008).Therefore, it seems that the incidence of pathologies cannot be usedto detect kosher practices.

4.5. Recognizing cultural identities from faunal remains

From the results detailed above, it appears that combining theinformation from the species consumed, the anatomical repre-sentation and the butchery pattern distinguishes observant Jews,Muslims, and Christians.

The main difference between the three communities is found inthe species consumed. Jews are the most restrictive in terms of thespecies allowed, as pigs, horses, rabbits, and molluscs, amongothers, are forbidden as food, and wild animals are very difficult toslaughter following the rules of shechita. Comparing to Jewishzooarchaeological assemblages, Muslim ones can include wild an-imals, such as rabbit and red deer (Moreno-García and Davis, 2001;Davis, 2006; Casal et al. 2009-1010). The main difference betweenMuslims and Christians is the presence of pig, which also consti-tutes an element of cultural identity for Christian populations(Fàbrega, 1996).

The anatomical representation can provide additional informa-tion because, if possible, Jews tend to sell the hind limb to non-Jews,as it requires a difficult processing in order to make it kosher. Thebutchery pattern can also provide a cultural insight, especiallywhen Jews are the only community with professional butchers. Thelow incidence of pathologies, that a priori seemed to be a possibledescriptor, was found not to be distinctive of kosher practices.

4.6. Origin of the faunal remains in their chronological context

The 14th century was a convulsive period in Europe, with theBlack Death as a major episode in 1348. In Spain, several violentattacks against Jewish and Muslim communities occurred, startingfrom the south and quickly spreading to the Northern provinces.

In Tàrrega, the materials in the associated levels in the silo andthe first filling of the courtyard date from the second half of the14th century, and most probably from the middle of the 14thcentury. This leads us to link these dumped materials with twoalmost simultaneous events that took place in 1348: the BlackDeath and the assault on the Tàrrega Jewry. This suggests twopossible interpretations. Firstly, it could correspond to a hygienicmeasure to clean up the house or houses of people who had diedfrom the plague. Secondly, the dumping could be the result of anattack on the Jewry, when the Christians massacred most of theJewish population and looted their homes, stealing and destroyingdebt books and other goods. Both explanations are compatible withsome of the ceramic materials recovered, which were clearlycomplete in origin.

In the case of Puigcerdà, Jewish segregation had already takenplace in the mid-14th century, coinciding with the arrival of Fran-ciscans in the area (1333) (Delcor, 1977; Mercadal et al., 1994a;Bosom and Mercadal, 1995). The relationship between Christians,



Jews and mendicants was peaceful enough, apart from the logicaltensions between communities with common objectives and cus-tomers (Denjean, 2004). Nevertheless, in 1391 a group of peoplefrom Urgell harassed the Jews from Puigcerdà, who had to takeshelter in Llívia castle (ACAU). In this case, the relationship betweenthe archaeological materials of Puigcerdà and the documentedepisode of violence is not clear.

5. Conclusion

This integrated study of two faunal assemblages from MedievalSpain (14th century Catalonia) shows the potential of zooarch-aeology and taphonomy for detecting cultural groups in thearchaeological record. The presence of solely kosher species, thepredominance of forelimb bones and the scarcity of pelvis remains,together with the regular butchery pattern, all lead us to interpretthem as Jewish in origin.

These two assemblages also provide a rare opportunity toreconstruct the diet of two Jewish communities from MedievalSpain. In terms of number of remains (NISP), sheep and goat are, byfar, the most abundant taxa in both sites, followed by birds inTàrrega, and cattle in Puigcerdà. These differences in terms of dietcan relate to the ecological conditions of each site, the formerlocated in a hot and dry depression in central Catalonia, and thelatter located in the Pyrenees, at 1200 m of altitude. The consis-tency of these two assemblages with the Jewish dietary lawsdemonstrates the strict observance of the religious prescriptions inthese two communities, both surrounded by a Christian commu-nity, increasingly hostile during the 14th century AD.

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented in the 2nd ICAZ Taphonomy WorkingGroupmeeting held in Santander in September 2012 and organizedby Drs. Ana Belén Marín and Marta Moreno. We thank Dr. EstherAliaga, Mr. Chris Boswell and Dr. Simon Davis for their help withEnglish correction and translation. Thanks to Mr. Mikolaj Lisowskifor suggesting some bibliographical references. The work receivedpartial financial support from research projects HAR2011-26193(Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación; MICINN), SGR2009-1145(Generalitat de Catalunya), and an IEF Marie Curie Fellowship(FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF 271921).

References

Alòs, C., Camats-Malet, A., Monjo-Gallego, M., Solanes-Potrony, E., Alonso-Martínez, N., Martínez-Moreno, J., 2006-2007. El Pla d’Almatà (Balaguer, laNoguera): primeres aportacions interdisciplinàries a l’estudi de les sitges i elspous negres de la Zona 5. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 16-17, 145e168.

Arxiu Comarcal de l’Alt Urgell (ACAU). Fons Ajuntament de la Seu d’Urgell.Col$lecció de pergamins, 1391.

ACCE. Arxiu Comarcal de la Cerdanya, 125, cu 94.Bada, J., 2009. L’expulsió dels Jueus, 1492. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’Estudis

Històrics 20, 51e68.Banegas, R.A., 2005. Seguretat, qualitat i higiene a la venda de carn a Barcelona

durant el segle XIV. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’Estudis Històrics 16, 75e95.

Bango, I.G., 2002. Menaje del hogar. Memoria de Sefarad. Sociedad Estatal para laAcción Cultural Exterior (SEACEX), Madrid, p. 132.

Bar-Oz, G., Bouchnick, R., Weiss, E., Weissbrod, L., Lernau, O., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.,Reich, R., 2007. “Holy garbage”: a quantitative study of the city-dump of earlyRoman period Jerusalem. Levant 39, 1e12.

Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from boneweathering. Paleobiology 4 (2), 150e162.

Boessneck, J., 1980. Diferencias osteológicas entre las ovejas (Ovis aries Linné) y lascabras (Capra hircus Linné). In: Brothwell, D.R., Higgs, E.S. (Eds.), Ciencia enArqueología, pp. 331e358. Madrid.

Bosom, S., Denjean, C., Mercadal, O., Subiranas, C., 1995. El Call i el convent de SantFrancesc de Puigcerdà (Cerdanya): recerca documental i arqueològica. Tribunad’Arqueologia 1993-94, 135e152.


Bosom, S., Mercadal, O., 1995. Puigcerdà, La Cerdanya, El Conflent. In: CatalunyaRomànica, vol. VII. Enciclopèdia Catalana, Barcelona, pp. 216e224.

Bramon, D., 2009. L’expulsió dels moriscos. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’EstudisHistòrics 20, 69e81.

Casal, M.T., Martínez, R.M., Araque, M.M., 2009-1010. Estudio de los vertederosdomésticos del arrabal de �Saqunda: ganadería, alimentación y usos derivados(750-818d.C.) (Córdoba). Anejos deAnales deArqueología Cordobesa 2,143e182.

Casanovas, J., 2002. Testimonis materials de la presència dels jueus a Catalunya enl’època medieval. In: DA La Catalunya Jueva. Àmbit. Museu d’Història de Cata-lunya. Generalitat de Catalunya, Ajuntament de Girona, pp. 143e159 (Caixa deGirona).

Cope, C., 2004. The butchering practices of Gamla and Yodefat: beginning thesearch for kosher practices. In: O’Day, S.J., Van Neer, W., Ervynck, A. (Eds.),Behaviour behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status andIdentity. Oxbow Books, pp. 25e33.

Davis, S.M.J., 2006. Faunal remains from Alcáçova de Santarém, Portugal. In: Tra-balhos de Arqueologia 43.

Davis, S.M.J., 2008. «Thou shalt take of the ram. the right thigh; for it is a ram ofconsecration.» some zoo-archaeological examples of body-part preferences.In: D’Andria, F., De Grossi, J., Fiorentino, G. (Eds.), Uomini, plante e animali nelladimensione del sacro. Università degli Studi de Lecce, pp. 63e70. Quaderno 6.

Davis, S.M.J., Gonçalves, M.J., Gabriel, S., 2008. Animal remains from a Moslemperiod (12th/13th century AD) lixeira (garbage dump) in Silves, Algarve,Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 11 (1), 183e258.

Daróczi-Szabó, L., 2004. Animal bones as indicators of kosher food refuse from 14thcentury AD Buda, Hungary. In: O’Day, S.J., Van Neer, W., Ervynck, A. (Eds.),Behaviour behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status andIndentity. Oxbow Books, pp. 252e261.

Delcor, M., 1977. Els jueus de Puigcerdà al segle XIII. In: Estudis històrics sobre laCerdanya, pp. 77e110. Ed. Barcino, Barcelona.

Denjean, C., 2004. Juifs et chretiens de Perpingnan à Puigcerdà, XIIIeXIV siècles. Ed.Trabucaire (Perpinyà).

Dodson, P., Wexlar, D., 1969. Taphonomic Investigations of Owl Pellets. Paleobiology5 (3), 275e284.

Fàbrega, J., 1996. La cultura del cerdo en el Mediterráneo, entre el rechazo y laaceptación, in: Alonso, R., La Alimentación Mediterránea: Historia, Cultura.Nutrición, 217e238.

Florensa, F., Moreno, I., Ramos, J., Suau, L., 2007. La fase baix medieval del jacimentarqueològic del Carrer Sant Honorat, 3 (Barcelona). In: Actes del 3r congrés del’ACRAM, vol. 1, pp. 216e225.

Forner, M., González, J., 2007. Anàlisi faunística. In: Guàrdia, J., Pancorbo, A. (Eds.),Un assentament medieval al centre de Sta. Perpètua de Mogoda (Vallès Occi-dental): les sitges del Carrer de Sant Ramon, 1e3, Actes del 3r congrés de l’A-CRAM, vol. 1, pp. 344e359.

Grayson, D.K., 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis ofArchaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.

Greenfield, H., Bouchnick, R., 2011. Kashrut and Shechita e the relationship be-tween dietary practices and Ritual slaughtering of animals on Jewish identity.In: Amundsen-Meyer, L., Engel, N., Pickering, S. (Eds.), Identity Crisis: Archae-ological Perspectives on Social Identity, pp. 106e120.

Halstead, P., Collins, P., Isaakidou, V., 2002. Sorting the sheep from the goats:morphological distinctions between the mandibles and mandibular teeth ofadult Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 545e553.

Ijzereef, F.G., 1989. Social differentiation from animal bone studies. In:Serjeantson, D., Waldron, T. (Eds.), Diet and Crafts in Towns, British Archaeo-logical Research British Series 199, pp. 41e53.

McCormick, F., 2002. The distribution of meat in a Hierarchical Society: the Irishevidence. In: Miracle, P., Milner, N. (Eds.), . Consuming Passions and Patterns ofConsumption. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 25e31.

Mercadal, O., 1993. El barrio judío y el convento de St. Francesc de Puigcerdà(Girona). Primeros resultados. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia. SociedadePortuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia 33 (3e4), 473e490.

Mercadal, O., Bosom, S., Denjean, C., Subiranas, C., 1994a. Coneguem... Els Jueus I ElsFranciscans a Puigcerdà (Segles XIII-XVI). In: Colecció Coneguem, 3 (Ajunta-ment de Puigcerdà).

Mercadal, O., Bosom, S., Denjean, C., Subiranas, C., 1994b. El call jueu i el convent deSant Francesc/Sant Agustí (Puigcerdà, la Cerdanya). In: Segones Jornades d’Ar-queologia de les Comarques de Girona, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, pp. 178e189.

Mercadal, O., Bosom, S., Denjean, C., Subiranas, C., 1995. Noves aportacions a l’estudide l’urbanisme medieval de Puigcerdà. Segles XIIIeXV. Cultures i medi. In: De laprehistòria a l’edat mitjanaeX Col$loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puig-cerdà. Institut d’Estudis Ceretans, Puigcerdà, pp. 641e650.

Mercadal, O., Bosom, S., 2003. La Vila de Puigcerdà. L’art gòtic a Catalunya. Arqui-tectura III. Dels palaus a les masies. Enciclopèdia Catalana, Barcelona, pp. 88e91.

Mercadal, O., Bosom, S., Denjean, C., Subiranas, C., in press. La vilanova de Puigcerdà.Quaderns de la Revista de Girona. Guies. Diputació de Girona.

Mercadal, O., Subiranas, C., 1993-94. Convent de Sant Agustí (Puigcerdà, la Cerda-nya). Acta historica et archaeologica Medievalia, 386e387.

Molina, J.A., Álvarez, I., Piñeiro, M., 2003a. La fauna del sitjar baixmedieval de St.Julià d’Altura (Sabadell, Vallès Occidental). In: Actes del 2n congrés de l’ACRAM,vol. 2, pp. 551e553.

Molina, J.A., Maragall, M., Guilera, A., Piñeiro, M., 2003b. Registre arqueozoològic deSt. Esteve de Castellar Vell (Castellar del Vallès, Vallès Oriental): vilatge ipropera església altmedievals (s. X-XI). In: Actes del 2n congrés de l’ACRAM, vol.2, pp. 810e815.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(13)00969-5/sref1



















































































































































Moreno-García, M., Davis, S., 2001. Estudio de las asociaciones faunísticas recu-peradas en Alcácer do Sal, Convento de São Francisco, Santarém y Sé de Lisboa.In: Garb, Sítios Islâmicos do Sul de Portugal, pp. 231e255.

Payne, S., 1985. Morphological distinction between the mandibular teeth of Youngsheep, Ovis and goats Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 139e147.

Planas, S., Forcano, M., 2009. Història de la Catalunya jueva. Ed. Àmbit. Ajuntamentde Girona, pp. 35e62.

Poplin, F., 1976. A propos du Nombre de Restes et du Nombre d’individus dans leséchantillons d’ossements. Cahiers du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques 5,61e75.

Riera, J., 1988. La conflictivitat de l’alimentació dels jueus medievals, segles XII-XV.CSIC Institut Milà i Fontanals, Barcelona, p. 311.

Sabaté, F., 2003. Història de Lleida. In: Alta edat Mitjana, vol. 2. Pagès Editors, Lleida.


Valenzuela, S., 2008.Alimentació i ramaderia al Penedèsdurant la protohistòria (seglesVII-III aC), Premi d’Arqueologia. Societat Catalana d’Arqueologia, Barcelona.

Valenzuela, S., Colominas, L., 2009. Anàlisi de la gestió dels recursos animals alCastell de Mur. In: Sancho, M. (Ed.), Mur. La història d’un castell feudal a la llumde la recerca històrico- arqueològica, pp. 147e170.

Vigne, J.-D., 1988. Les Mammifères post-glaciaires de Corse, étude arché-ozoologique. In: XXVI Supplément Gallia Préhistoire. CNRS Editions, Paris.

Zeder, M.A., Pilaar, S.E., 2010. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identifymandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal ofArchaeological Science 37, 225e242.

Zeder, M.A., Lapham, H.A., 2010. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identifypostcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 37, 2887e2905.



































Shechita and Kashrut: Identifying Jewish populations through zooarchaeology and taphonomy. Two examples from Medieval Catalonia (North-Eastern Spain)

Documents