Bone density studies and the interpretation of the faunal record

Abstract

Some bones preserve better than others. For decades, researchers have attempted to quantify this observation. While many of their intrinsic qualities are known to affect how well bones preserve in the archeological record,1 the variable that has received the most attention to date is bone density.2–6 This has become the most commonly accepted proxy measure of a bone's ability to withstand destructive forces.

An experimental investigation of cut mark production and stone tool attrition

“…Several studies have shown that bone density is a very strong predictor of bone survivability, and that long bone shaft fragments are among the most dense bone portions in the skeleton (Lam et al, 1998(Lam et al, , 2003Lam and Pearson, 2005;Lyman, 1984). We therefore expect that under the majority of taphonomic circumstances, long bone shafts will have higher representation per individual than long bone ends or elements comprised entirely of spongy bone (such as the vertebrae, pelvis, or the small compact bones of the wrist and ankle).…”

Using ZooMS to identify fragmentary bone from the Late Middle/Early Upper Palaeolithic sequence of Les Cottés, France

“…Palaeolithic sites often contain large numbers of bone specimens that are taxonomically unidentified due to high fragmentation on faunal and human bone specimens as the result of carnivore activity (for example Costamagno et al, 2008), anthropogenic fragmentation (examples include Costamagno et al, 2006;Gaudsinski and Roebroeks, 2000;Niven, 2007;Mussini et al, 2012) or because of taphonomic processes (Behrensmeyer, 1978;Lam and Pearson, 2005;Nielsen-Marsh et al, 2007;Todd and Rapson, 1988). Anatomically incomplete bone specimens often lack morphologically discriminatory characteristics, impeding taxonomic identification.…”

How Accurate are Paleoecological Reconstructions of Early Paleontological and Archaeological Sites?

“…In addition, there is a change in emphasis from descriptive taphonomic studies of bone assemblages to more experimental and process-oriented investigations. Cleghorn and Marean (2007), Lam and Pearson (2005), Pickering et al (2003), Denys (2002), Bobe et al (2002), Reed (1997), Andrews (1995), and Lyman (1994) are among the many to have reviewed taphonomic experiments conducted in the field of paleoanthropology in the past two decades.…”