8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

1/10

Complutum, 10,1999:1524

THESTUDYOF SKELETALPART PROFILES:AN AMBIGUOUS TAPHONOMIC TOOL FORZOOARCHAEOLOGY

ManuelDom(nguez~Rodrigo*

ABSTRAcT. - Recent studies en boneaccu,nulations and bonemodifications by humansandcarnivores havemadethe us eofskeletalpanprofilesoflimited valueforzocarchaeologicalpurposes.Equifinality

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

2/10

MANUEL DOMNGUEZ-RODRIGO1 6

Identificationof bone damage along this debate wasused as a secondary argumentby most of the resear-chers involved ffithe discussion. Binford (1981, 1985,1988) used the evidence oftooth marks on fossilbo-nes from sitesto supportthe hypothesis that carnivo-res were the main consumers of carcasses; Bunn(1981, 1982, 1983, 1991) used the percentages andanatomical distributionofcut marks also found on so-me ofthese bones to claimthat hominids were proce-ssing fleshed carcasses; Blumenschine (1988) andPotts (1982, 1988) used in different ways both ty-pes of marks to reconstruct the sequence of interven-tion of both agents (hominids and carnivores) in siteformation. Blumenschine (1995) further used them to

justify the hypothesis that hominids were scavengingcarcasses from felid kills, from which they removedte scraps of flesh ant exploited their marrow con-

tents.However, the secondary use of bone damage

as a taphonomicindicator is responsible forthe laclc,during a long period in such debates,fthedevelop-ment ofthe analytical procedures in which te studyof bone surface modifications could really be diag-nostic ofhominid and carnivoreintetaction (Blumen-schine 1988). Conceming this issue, Blumenschineleads a group ofresearchersthat, due to the lack ofre-solution of the traditional focus, have tumed their

attention to bone modifications, using them as a pri-mary source of information to infer hominid interven-tion incarcassprocessing and site formation. In thissense, several studies and experirnents have beenca-rried out to create a referential frameworkto be usedas a guideline for te methods ofanalysis and inter-pretationstat are beingelabofatedaud applied to thePlio-Pleistocenea+cheologicalrecord(Blumenschine

1988, 1995; Blumenshine & Marean, -1993; Mreaneral., i992;Selvggio~1994; Capaldo 1995, Domin-guez-Rodrigo 1997a, 1997b).

Thecontroversial interpretationsof hominid-behavior using analyses of skeletal partprofiles, aretey a proofoftheir limited value and, subsequently,oftheirexcessive use in zooarchaeological studies oris this simply a smoke screen of surmountable criti-cism? -

In thiswork, 1 will try tu show how skeletal

pan analysesare ambiguous for taphonomic purpo-ses. Ii i tefirst part of hepapeK 1 willarguethat theo-

- reticalbackgrounds elaboratedto interpretarchaeolo-gicalassemblgesarebasedoh alimitedarray of pre-conceptionsand referntial franieworks, that turn out

tobe moreheterogeneous than previously thought. Inthesecond part, 1 will stressthat most Paleolithic sitesarepalimpsestsand, therefore, they aren o interpreta-ble from referentil backgrounds (single-pattemedmodels) that do not properly take into account such aconsideration. Dual-pattemed experiments with carn-

vores show how distorted original human-made boneaccumulationsmay be after carnivore ravaging. As aconclusion, 1 offer a few examples and predictionsabout skeletalpan profiles in bone assemblages thathave undergone several processes of modification bymorethan one agent (lowresolution andlow inte-gri->ty [Binford 1981]). Based on this theoretical and ex-perimental frameworks, 1 suggest that studies on ske-letal representationare of little valueforzooarchaeo-logical research, and that more attention should bepaid toaltemative taphonomic techniques.

2 . ON TIl lE UTILITYO FSKELETALPART REPRESENTATIONANALYSESI NZOOARCI{EOLOGICALIINTERPRETATIONS

2.1. Moderu Humansas areference forbominids

Skeletal pafl profiles are used under teassumption that thereare diagnostic pattems in theway that modern humans and other agents transponand accumulate bone remains. In order to create a re-ferential framework tat can be applied to te ar-chacological record, some actualistic ethnoarchaeolo-gical studies on differentialtranspon ofcarcasses byhuman groups have been carried out (Binford 1978,1981; Bunn eral. 1988, 1991; o:Connelletal. 1988,1990, 1992). Some of tese studieshave constitutedand still do in many academic circes tebasis formany taphonomistsanalytical and interpretiveproce-dures,based onWhites(1952)andPerkins & Dalys(1968) claim that hurnans prioritarily transpo limbsfrom carcasses (te so-called Schlppeffect). Thus,the application of these references to archaeologicalbone assemblages makes long bones usually lo be

seen as the result of transport processes, whereasaxial bones are assurned to be preferentially represen-ted at kill sites (Binford 1981; Bunn 1982, 1991;Bunn &Kroll 1986;Bunnet al. 1988,1991).

However, important pifals can be observedin such referential frameworks. A lot of factors deter-mine te transportof carcasses by humans and theirposterior accumulationon a specific spot. One ofthem is te costof transport, conditioned by te dis-tance between the carcass and the base camp, tenumber of individualsthat participate in tetransport,

the timeofthe day-and te size ofthe animal (Met-calfe 1989; OConnell a al. 1980, 1990). Anotherfactor that must be taken into account is the initialstrategyon the preparation of the animais to be trans-poned. Some human groups disarticulate carcasseswhere they obtain them and prepare them for- trans-

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

3/10

TI-lE STUDY OF SKELETAL PART PROFILES 17

port, by discarding some bones on te spot(OCon-nel a a l. 1992), whereas oters do not. Other cir-cumstances that willcondition the way that carcassesare accumulatedare the cultural variations among di-fferent ethnic groups and their preferences for anato-mical sections (OConnell a a l. 1990, 1992) and Iheweb of social interactions which will condition teway that carcasses are shared: within the group (samenuclear family, amongseveral families...) or outsidete group (Marshall 1994). Some of tese behaviorswill not show aclear archaeological evidence (Gar-gett & Hayden 1991; Bartram et a l. 1991; Marshall1994). We should also consider humans as agentsproneto distort their own bone accumulations, whenthey clean some areas of debris and garbage (OCon-nelaal. 1991).

However, even considering such a bunch offactors that conditions carcass transpon and bone ac-cumulation, one of the main objections that can bemade about te use of skeletal panprofilesfor-zooar-chaeological purposes is that there is no unique hu-man pattem of bone accumulation. Differences emer-ge when considering several lines of evidence fromvarious human groups. The way that the Nunamiuttranspon carcasses (Binford1978, 1981) is not the sa-me as those exhibited, for instance, by the Hadza(OConnell eral. 1990) or oter populations. Ifwe ta-ke te Hadza as an example, we can noticethat thereis a wide variation in the parts that they select fromcarcasses at kill sites to be transponedto basecamps.Studies on the carcass transpon by the Hadza showthat te Whiteanproposition also developed in tePerkins & Daly mod el , tat hunters preferentiallytransport appendicular rather than axial bones fromkill sites, is wrong (OConnell et al. 1990). Whendealing with wildebeest andhanebeest carcasses, teHadza seem topreferentiallytransponvertebrae, pel-vis and ribs fromkill sites to base camps, followedbythe head, scapulae and limbs.For impala, te trans-port pattern is similar. Por elands, te Hadzaprefera-bly transpon venebrae and pelvisfollowed (by thisorder) by head, ribs andIimbs. Curiously enough, forbuifalo(inspite of its similar size to theelaud) limbbones are most likely to be removed and axial bonesare the least likely. Zebras display a high proportionof axial elements transponed, te same as warthogs(OConnell et al. 1990).

Very often, the Hadza foraging groups pre-pare carcasses priorto their transpon, which ismadeby stripping meatfrom al te long bones,which areten cracked soa s to eat te marrow tey contain andafterwards, abandoned in te kill site or nearby

(OConnell a al. 1992). Transpon, thus, in mainlymade on axial and cranial elements (OConnell er al.

1992). On other occasions, wit some species, teHadzajust separate te lower legs from carcasses and

metapodials and phalanges are either abandoned orconsumed in or near Ihe kill site, while te rest oflimbs are transponedto base camps (OConnell etal.1992).That is, insome instances, meat from limbs istransponed once it has been stripped fromlong bones,whichare abandoned at kill sites also referred to assnack sites (Bunn etal. 1991) and oter timeslimb bones are also transponed. In these cases, lowerleg bones usually considered diagnostically trans-poned areabandoned atkill sites.

Overall,OConnelletal.s (1990,1991, 1992)studies show not only that the appendicular preferen-ceby humans has been exaggerated by etnoarchaeo-logicalmodels contra Binford (1978, 1981) aud Bunnet al. (1988, 1991) ,butalso that carcass transpon ishighly pattemed among Hadza, aud tat it vanesamongdifferentcarcasssizesand even in te same si-ze group, among different species. Thus, if one samehuman group shows variation in te patterns ofcar-cass transpon, it is not surprising that such a diffe-rencebecomes moreimportantwhen comparing seve-ra]human groups(Dominguez-Rodrigo& Mani 1996).Re mostrelevant consequence oftese studies isthatteyshow that there is not a particular humanpat-tem of bonetransponand accumulation.

2.2. Humausas carnivores

Anotherassumption implicit inthe analysesof skeletal pan profiles isthat humans actlike cami-vores that is, aiming at the highest-yielding fleshedparts transporting tose elements withlarger amountsof usable meat (White 1952; Perkins & Daly 1968).Blumenschine (1986) modeled a consumption se-quence based on the rank order of consumption ofeach anatomical section, as observed among modemsavanna predators. From it , he also elaborated an in-verse consumptionsequence, in which he tried to mo-del te skeletal parts most likely to be found ata dento which bones had beentransponed and accumula-ted. However, even though imponant discordanceswere observed when matching tese theoretical fra-meworks with real data from camivore dens aud lairs(Lyman 1994),carnivores seem to behave in a regularway, prioritarily exploiting tose anatomical partswith higheryields (Blumenschine 1986). Re assump-tion that humans would do te same led Binford(1978) to argue tal strategies in te use of food re-

sourcesbyhumans were also determinedby te diffe-rential anatomical distribution of such resources.Rus, he measured the amounts of meat, marrow andgrease associated with each ofte skeletal elementsof two domestic sheeps and one caribou. With thesemeasurements, he elaborated indices on te utility(GUI) that each carcass pan could have for humans.Ren, in order to gain a better insight into transpon

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

4/10

18 MANUELDOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO

processes,bearing in mmd that some parts with lowGUI may also be transponed because they remainattached-to other skeletal units with highGUI, he ela-borateda modifed general utility index (MGUI) toincorporate categorical-utility values to the dynamicprocessoftranspon (Binford1978, 1981).

The way that Binford derived these utilitymodel was promptly followedby other researchers,-tat began tocreateutilityindices for other taxa(Will

1985; Borrero 1990; Lyman et al. 1992). However,al these modelswere made assuming that people de-cide how to-butcher and- transponcarcasses influen-ced by the associated availability of meat, marrowandgrease. Blumenschine (1986, 1988, 1991, 1995)hasinsistedon the fact tat hominids mighthavehadadifferent order of access to carcasses from that ob-served in modem humans and their food choice mayhave been constrained by te differential availabilityof such resources. He urged to elaborate a separateGUI for flesh (Blumenschine & Caro 1986) and formarrow (Blumenschine &- Madrigal 1993), whichcould be more useful to understanding hontinid deci-sions and their involvementwith carcassprocessing.

However, the application ofGUIs in generalto the archaeological record shouldstill be done cau-tiously, because such indices have usually been ela-

boratedfrom one or a few individuals and, therefore,do not take into account variations observed in ani-

mals according to their sex, age, and nutritional status(some ofte species analyzedare subjected to signifi-cant seasonalchanges). Moreover, we lack a properreferential frameworkon GUI for al the speciesthat

archaeologists unearth at sites. Thus, te applicationof GUI documented in other species, even thoughthey are not dissimilar in size, may be misleading.Re analysesof GUI on various species show howsgnificant variation is (Metcalfe & Jones 1988; Bor-rero 1990; Lyman 1992), even among taxa structura-llysimilar, belonging to the same size category fo rinstance, seethe differences between Bison (Brink &Dawe 1989; Emerson 1990) and Muskox (Will 1985),bearing inrnind GUI andMGUI.

Variation is also documented in GUIselabo-rated for particular food sources. Blumenschine &Caro (1986) generated a GUI for flesh from asamplemainly madeup ofThompsonsand Grants gazelles,one adult impala and one adult wildebeest. Rey ob-

servedevidentage, sex and taxonomic differences inthe proportionate contribution of flesh to the wholeweight of each carcassunit (oc.: 278). Theyalso do-

cumentedtat adult male wildebeest have propor-tionately less flesh on their hindlimbs than do malesofother species, but relatively more on the forelimbs

(o.c.: 280). Rerefore, the GUI for flesh yield in Afri-can ungulates is only applicable tospeciessimilartothose studiedby tese researchers. Taxonomic diffe-

rences in the distributionoffleshareapparent in com-parison of adult male gazelle and impala withadultmale wildebeest... The concentration of appendicularflesh inthe hindlimb ofgazelle and impala can per-haps be related tothe greatamount of springingandleaping seen in these species compared towildebeest,which have a more equitable distribution of limbflesh fore and aft (oc.: 282). Blumenschine &Caro(1986) are right when cautioning about te applicabi-lity of Binfords (1978) flesh yield data to archacolo-gical faunas,a s theyobserved how variation was ma-nifested among species and even in the same species,dependingon te age and sexofthe individual cons-dered.

This variation is not only observed in theanatomical distribution of flesh. Blumenschine &Ma-drigal (1993) also elaborated a GUI for marrow in27east African ungulates (including bovids, equids andsuids) and documented that tegross energeticyieldand skeletal distribution of marrow inthem variedac-cording to age, species and faunal group(e.g: bovidsversus equids).

Therefore, we should be awareofthisrangeofpossibilitieswhen applying GUIs to archaeologicalfaunas.

However, in spite of al these metodologi-cal drawbacks, anoter important objection that canbe made to the traditional position is theassumptionthat humans behave like any other carnivore whenprocessing carcasses. Predators preferentially consu-me carcasses from their most high-yielding parts tothe lowest-yielding ones (Blumenschine 1986). Wewsllsee that humansdo not necessarily do so.

2.3. Humaus as butchers -

The samethat there seems to be a commonsense consumption sequence among carnivores, isthere a similar consumption sequence for humans?This has been one of the main issues that ethnoar-chaeologicalstudies have not usuallydeal with.May-be it is because zooarchaeologists commonly assumethat what is transponed (irrespective of its order ofconsumption) is what really matters fortaphonomicpurposes. Should this be-true, wouldwe then expectsuch variation among humantranspon decisions?

Carnivores process carcasses withoutdisarti-culating them. The frequent dismembering madeonthem by gregarious camivores is to reduce te degreeofintra-group competition and it is-usually manifes-

ted in limbs being separated from the restofte car-cass, but al longbones remain joined. Humans, onthe contrary, fully disaniculatecarcasses before con-suming them.

Ihe pattem of disarticulation is also highlyvariable among different ethnic groups even on the

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

5/10

same type ofcarcass and according to tespecies.As Oifford (1977)documents,the traditional butcherypattems among the Maasai, Kalenjin and Akambapeoples of Kenya are different from one another.Limbs are dismembered in different order. In sornecases, the whole limb isdismembered from carcasses,and in others tey are disaniculated flrst, before re-moving theupper sections from theaxial skeleton.

As an exampleof further variation within asame ethnic group and with the same type of carcass,1 had the chance to observe on several occasions thedismemberingpattem made by MaasaipeoplelivinginPeninj, west of Lake Natron (Tanzania),on goats.It isdifferent from the one tat Gifford documents forthe Maasai of Kenya. Pirst, afterskinning, they severemetapodials fromlimbs. Ren, dependingon te occa-sion, oneofthe front legs (humerus plus radio-ulna)isremoved complete,followed by the rib cage of thesameside. Afterwards, the same process is observedforthe other side (front leg and rib cage). Then, theyremovethe head and, finally, the hindlimbs (femurandtibia) from the pelvis and spine that remain toge-ther.

The consumption sequence observed is: so-me viscerae(e.g. kidneys) are firsteaten raw. The restisconsumed after preparation. Then, they process me-tapodials. The rest of the goat is consumed by thegroup at the same time.

Such pattem of dismembering andconsump-tion differs from the one that 1 observed among teMaasai ofSouth-Eastem Kenya. After evisceration,they remove limbs, without disarticulating tem, andthen the axial skeleton. Re kidneys are also eatenraw, but no initial consumption ofmetapodials wasobserved.

Among the Hadzapeople, ithas been obser-ved a s mentionedaboye tat te preparation of car-casses for transponrnay convey the consumption ofsome visceraeand marrow from long bones (OCon-

nel eta l. 1992). This initial consumption will condi-tion te variety of bones that will be transponed tobasecamps.

Bearing in mmd that humans share food, the-re isno clearconsumption sequence once te carcasshas beenprepared eitherfor transpon of, once in thecamp, forconsumptionalthough there seems to be asharing sequence (Marshall 1994). Nevenheless,tere appears to be a clear contrast with carnivores.Whereas they initially aim at high-yieldinganatomi-calpans, humans often consume lower-yielding partsat first, during what could be called the snack phaseof carcassprocessing.

Once again, variation in the decisions madeby humans, conceming what products are initiallyconsumed (viscerae/flesh/marrow) means that the usemadeofskeletalpanfrequencies can no longer deal

with simple or unique human models as reference for

interpreting archaeological faunas.

3. SITES AS TillE RESULT OF

MULTIPLE-PATTERNEDPROCESSES

Another of the main objections tat could beadvanced against te analyses of skeletalpan repre-sentation is te factthat most of thereferential frame-workselaboratedso far have been madeon the diffe-rential transponofanatomical parIsby humans fromkill sites to base camps, and not from what is left afterthe consumption of carcasses. Bone assemblages atsites are the result of dynamic processes of selectionaud destruction, which results in a distonion of theinitial bone accumulations made by humans. Faunalassemblagesat sitesare the result of humans takingdecisions atkill sites, transporting determinedbones,modifying and destroying pan of tese bones atcamps due to consurnption, abandonment and inter-vention of other agencies: physical (e.g. water flows)and/or biological(e.g. camivore post-ravaging). Thus,it is not methodologically correct to use as reference

data drawn from the initial stage of this process to becompared with the end product thereof.

Comparison should be made in equal terms.

TUs means that since we recognizethat sitesare pa-limpsests a u d , therefore, the result ofte interventionofseveralagencies single-pattemed models (carnivoredens, human transport of carcasses...) are no longerappropriate as reference to interpretarchaeological bo-ne assemblages. The recognition oftis factled someresearchers to suggest that such reference should beobtained from multiple-pattemed models (Blumens-chine 1988, 1995; Blumenschine & Marean 1993;Mareaneral. 1992;Selvaggio 1994; Capaldo 1995).

Giventhe fact that hominids and camivores

(inpanicular, hyenas) intervened in the formation ofPlio-Pleistocene sites, due tothe presence ofboth cutmarks and tooth marks on archaeological faunal as-semblages(Bunn 1981, 1982, 1983; Potts & Shipman1981),the experiments carried out to testthe effect ofcamivorepost-ravagingon bone accumulationsmadeby humans led to te following conclusions (Mareanet al. 1992; Blumenschine & Marean1993; Capaldo1995):1 . Axial bones (ribs, venebrae and pelves) andcenainlongbone epiphyses arepreferentiallydepleted, follo-wedby the smallcompact limb bones. This createsananificial profile, dominated by limb and cranial ele-ments.2.With respect to limb bones, the epiphyseal frag-ments are more likely to be depleted tan the mid-

shaft specimens.

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

6/10

2 0 MANUEL DOMNGUEZ-RODRIGO -

Figure1 .- Differential bone deletion iii cadistage ofcarcassmodification;from acquisitionto deposition, sedinientation, aralrecovery.Noti-ce dic sirngbias introduced by carnivore ravaging. Data andinfonnation for this figurecan be found in the works ofBlumenscine (1988,1991, 1995),Capaldo(1995), Mareaner ah(1992), Domnguez-Rodrigo(1996, and personal observtin). -

- Previous studies on bone density demonstra-ted that the anatomicalsections ofthe skeleton com-posed of cancellous tissue were proneto be des-tro-

- yed or taken away from their original site ofaccumu-lation by severalprocesses: water flows, weathering,carnivoredepletion, etc... It is because tey are lessdense than other bone sections and usually constitutesignificantdeposits of grease (Lyman 1994).

--Phis -adds a funher dimension Lo tlie discus-

- sion of the utility of the skeletal pan profiles for zoo-

archaeological analyses, because in sites where some

- of these processes have been operating, especially

carnivore ravaging, the distrtion of the anatomical

representation patterns- of carcasses transponed to si-

tes by hominids issuch tat we are not able to discern

the original patterns of bone accumulation made by

humans. Were hominids-selectively transporting cer-

tain skeletal units (cg. limbs) or complete carcasses?

-Zooarchaeological -explanations of bot types of be-

haviors can be widely different, as they cari be used Lo

suppon different-types of strategies of carcass exploi-

tation by humans.

Re distonion tat carnivore post-ravaging

may cause in human-made bone accumulations is rea-

lly remarkable. Ris is only one of the processes to

which bone accumulations are subjected prior to their

analysisby taphonomists. Ifwe take into account so-me other-agentsthat-may also intervene in the finalconfiguration of fossil skeletal panprofiles, we-willnotice tat the degree ofdistonioncanbe funher in-creased. As an example, we canhypotesizeabout fi-nal skeletal elements in bone assemblages tat baveundergone te effect ofseveral deletion processes (fi-gure 1 ). In-such a modeling 1 wiJ l consider severalprocesses mnvoived in carcass modifcation and final

bone preservation intefossil record. Carcass trans-formation begins at temomentofte animalsdeath.Considering the effects of processing at acquisitionsite, transport, processig and consumption at trans-ponsite, carnivoreravaging, sub-aerialpost-nutritiveexposure, diagenesis and, finally, recovery and analy-sis, the final resuil is a substantially biased bone as-semblage. 1 have divided these -theoretical back-grounds intotwo modalities: dual-pattemedmodels inwhich humans are primary agents of carcass proce-ssing atad triple-patrerned modeis in wbicb humans

occupy an intermediate position between felids andhyenids in carcass consumption. In the firstoption, 1have considered a model of human modification ofcarcasses that excludes teactionofcarnivores (mo-del A) and amodel inwhichthe action of humans isfollowedby the intervention of carnivores (model B).

A ~ , O

EFGH

proceases

A -dea th B - p rocess ing atdeath s i te C-transport D-p rocess ing a ra l eonsumpt on by nitialconsume,a t transportsite E - r a va g in g F - s u b- ae r ia l exposure G- d iagene sisH - recovexy and analys is .

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

7/10

THE STUDY OFSKELETALPARTPROFILES 21

In the second set of models, 1 have assumed that car-nivores(in this case, lions) preceded the interventionof hominids and other scavengers, namely hyenids,modified bones inthe last stage ofcarcass processing.1 have included a model without ravaging by scaven-

gers after hominid manipulation of bones (model C)andanotherone with bone ravagingincluded (modelD). In al these models 1 have used data on middle-si-zed carcasses. In their elaboration, 1 have made thefollowing assumptions:

1 . Bonediscard at kill oracquisitionsites is not exce-ssive, contrary to what can be observed in some mo-dem hunter-gatherergroups. In tose models in whichhominids intervene after lions, we assumethey wouldhave transponed the edible pans. Rerefore, axials,scapulae or pelves would have remained atkill sites.

2 . In the sub-aerial post-nutritive exposureonly

mi-

nor hydraulic disturbance and moderate to high wea-

tering of bones is assumed. The former would in-fluenceon bone fragments according tuteir size andshape, and te latterwould affect moreon the preser-vation of cancellous bone specimens (limb boneepi-physes and axialbone).3. In the diagenesis phase, only slight verticalmo-

vements of materials is assumed. Smaller specimenswould have been more prone to move in the stratumthan the largerones. Bearing in mmd tat small shaftfragments would have buen more numerous thansmall fragments from epiphyses, they would havebeen more likely toundergo this process.4. In the recovery & analysis it was differentiatedbetween global recovery of bones and bone discardmade by archaeologists, who are responsible for agreat loss of faunal remains (especially from shafts,frequently considered as unidentifiable) from sites.

In al te modeis, it can be observed that aninitial bone discard of most of the different anatomi-cal sections (head, limbs, axial elements, pelves andscapulae) occur atthe acquisitionsite.I t has been re-peatedly observed among different ethnic hunter-ga-therergroups,like the Hadza or theSan, tat they fre-quently process or discard metapodial bones, someportionsofrib slabs, thehead and oter marrow limbbones, as a result ofcarcass defleshing at te kill site.Re aim of this initial butchery at the acquisitionsiteis meant to reducethe weightofthe load tobe carriedback to the camp (Bunn a al. 1988;OConnell er al.1990, 1992; Bartram 1993). Marrow bones exposed

during defleshing are often abandoned at the kill siteafter having been craked open and their marrow con-

tents eaten (Banram 1993). Therefore, most of theflesh oftecarcassis transponedto camps, after ha-ving being stripped from bones. A quantifying analy-sis ofpan abundances fromthe bonespreserved at si-tes would wrongly indicate selectivetranspod ofde-terminedanatomical sections instead (Bartram 1993).

Variation of human behavior concerning the initialbutchery carried out at the kill site isalso very noto-rious. Even in the same human group, strategies mayvary dependingon several circumstances. Porinstan-ce, Banram (1993) documents how te same type ofanimal (gemsbok) can be differently treated by teKua. In some cases, te carcass is transponed com-plete to the camp site, on other occasions, mostoftebones can be discarded at the butcherysite. Regular-ly, scapulae are discarded atkill sites, whereas pelvesare more often transponed. However, in other etnicgroups, like the Nunamiut, pelves are often abando-ned at kill sites (Binford 1981). Vertebrae may alsobe abandoned, but they are alsotransponedvery often(OConnell 1990, 1992). One third of the rib cage aswell as halfofal te long marrow elements can beabandoned at butchery sites (Bunn et al. 1988; Bar-tram 1993).The analysis ofskeletalpanabundance atcamp sites among the Kua is not positively correlated

to any food utility index, because their strategy ofstripping the flesh from bones and its subsequentdrying to reduce transpon costs bias ihe productstransponed, as inferred from the bones accumulatedatcamps. However, for the sake ofthe modelspropo-sed, andjust as 1 mentioned earlier, in this case 1 willassume a moderate tolow proportion of bone discardat theacquisition site.

Re second process of bone deletion andskeletal panbias in bone assemblages that have notbeen ravaged by carnivores occurs in te sub-aerialpost-nutritiveexposure (model A) in which some bo-nes, namely cancellous and greasy bones like verte-brae andribs undergo the effects of weathering andwater flows, tat even if moderate, may delete morefragments (andelements) of tese types of bones thanof other denserelements. Finally, during the phase ofrecovery and analysis, one of the greatest loss thatmay occur is attributed to the action of archaeologiststhemselves that regularly discard -non-identifiablespecimens. Among these specimens te most frequentones belong tothe limb shafts. Risentails the loss ofinformation of the original MNEpresent at the site(Bunn &Kroll 1986;Blumenschine & Marean1993).However, as we have documented in the previoussection, the major process of distonion of originalskeletalpan abundanceoriginally accumulatedby hu-mans at transpon sites (assuming a moderate to lowbonediscard at the acquisitionsite) is due tothe raya-gingby bone-crunchingcarnivores(model B). Pelves,scapulae, axialbones andcompactelements, as wellas most limb bone epiphyses are mostly deleted (Ca-paldo 1995). We can observe the contrast betweenmodel A andmodel B, once ravaging has taken place.Re original numberofelements represented at sitesissignificantly low. Ris suggeststhat in bone accu-mulations where camivore ravaging is documented,

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

8/10

22 MANUELDOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO

skeletalpanprofilesmaybe highly biased andare notreliableindicators of thetransponand processingbe-haviorsofhumans (Capaldo 1995).

Even in thecase ofpassive scavengingfromfelid kills, the behavior of humans can be distorted ina similarway. At a lionkiJl, for instance, the bonesmore likely tobetransponedby humans are the mar-row-yielding ones and the head, containing the ton-gue and the brain. Head and longlimb bones wouldbe then transponed to consumption sites(Blumens-chine 1986, 1991; Dominguez-Rodrigo 1994). Ifnoravaging occurs after consumption at transpon site,the total MNE might be represented without bias(model C). Ifravaging is documented, mostcompactbones as well as the epiphyseal fragments would di-sappear and the total MNE might be somewhat bia-sed, especially if an imponant percentage of shaftspecmens are lost (model D). In both cases, the ske-letal pan profiles obtained may be barely distingui-shable frombone assemblagesaccumulated byan ni-tialtranspon ofmostlycomplete carcasses.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

PERSPECTIVES:EXPERIMENTALMULTIPLE-PATTERN MODELSANDBONESURFACE

MODIFICATION A S A NALTERNATIVETAPHONOMICAPPROACH

We haveseen how skeletal panprofiles arebiased whencarnivore ravaging of bones takes placeat sites. In this sense, it is impossible to differentiatepnmary access (model B) from secondary access(model D) to carcasses by hominids. Recently, achange of focusby some researchers on the study ofbone assemblages is propitiating te appearanceof

new technological and interpretative procedures thatseem to be more resolutive tan te traditional use of

skeletal pa profiles. Theassumptionthat sites werepalimpsestsand,therefore, te result of dynamic pro-cesses in which more than one actorhave panicipa-ted, led Blumenschine (1988) to study the timing ofhominid and carnivore panicipationat sites. He madeseveral experimentson the frequencies anddistribu-

tion of tooth marks according to bone section in a setofassemblages created firstby humans and in anotherset ofassemblages in which hyenaswere the pimaryactors. When comparing the results obtained withthedistribution of tooth marks and cut marks at Plio-

Pleistocenesites, Blumenschine could determine f o rthe first time without ambiguous and untested specu-lations the order of both agents atOlduvai sites.

Theutility ofthis novel approach fueled otherstudieson bone modification as a usefulsource ofta-phonomic information. Since then, several experi-mentshave been carried outon the differential deple-tion of bonesby hyenas (Marean et al. 1992; Capaldo1995), on their distinctive tooth markingfrequenciesand distribution according to their access to carcasses(Blumenschine & Selvaggio 1991; Capaldo 1995),onthepercentagesanddistribution ofcut marksaccordingto the order of intervention of humaus to carcass pro-

cessing, analysing their distributionon bone section(Selvaggio 1994)aud te relationship of bonesectionto bone type (Domnguez-Rodrigo 1997a,b). Studieson bone breakage pattems havealso been made ana-lysingpanicular traces related to carnivores and hu-mans, such as tooth marks, percussion marks (Hlu-menschine & Selvaggio 1988) and bone notches (Ca-paldo & Blumenschine 1994).

These experiments are modeling site forma-tion from dual-pattemed conceptions: hominids andhyenas(altemating their order of access tocarcasses).More recently, in order to test hypotheses ofhominidsscavenging from felid kills (Blumenschine 1991,1995), new experiments, dealing with three-pattemedmodels are being created (Selvaggio 1994;Dominguez-Rodrigo 1997a, 1997b). AII the information that weare obtaining from these type of studies is potentiallymore useful than the traditional approaches tothe su-dy ofarchaeological sites (Blumenschine 1995) . How-ever, so far their application has been restricted toPlio-Pleistocene sites in Africa. There is a completefleld of study open to this new taphonomic approach:the Pleistocene archaeological record of Eurasia:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ideas ofthismanusciipt have enorn,ously benefitedfrom he long hours ofdiscussion witl, R.iBlumenschine ami S.D.Ca p a l d o , t w hom 1 amgreatlyindebted.

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

9/10

THE STUDY OF SKELETAL PART PROFILES 23

BIBLIOGRAFL4

BARTRAM, L.E. (1993): Perspectiveson skeletal panprofi-les and utility curves from Eastem Kalahari Ethnoar-chaeology.From bones tobehavior: Ethnoarchaeologi-caland experimental contributions to the interpreta-

tions offaunal remains (J.Hudson, cd), Southem Illi-nois University: 115-137.

BARTRAM, L.E.; KROLL, E.& BUNN, H.T.(1991): Variabi-lity i n canip structure and bone food refuse patterning alKua San hunter-gatherercamps. The interpretationofarchaeological spatial patterning (EM. Kroll andT.D,Price, eds.), Plenuin Press, Nueva York: 77-148.

BINFORO, L. (1978): Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. NewYork, Academic Press.

BINFORO, L. (1981): Rones: ancient men, modern myths.AcademicPress,Nueva York.

BINFORO, L. (1984): Faunal remains from Klasies River

Mouth.AcademicPress, Nueva York.BINFORD, L. (1985): Human ancestors: changing views of

their behavior. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeolo-gy , 4:292-327.

BINFORD , L. (1988): Fact and fictionabout theZinjanthro-pusFloor: Data, arguments and interpretations.CurrentAnthropology. 4 :292-327.

BINFORD, L.; Ho. C.K. (1985): Taphonomy at a distance:Zhoukoudian, the cave-home ofBeijing Man?CurrentAnthropology,26: 413-439.

BLUMEN5CHINE, R.J. (1986): Early hominid scavengingopponunities. Implicationsofcarcassavailabilityin the

Serengeti an d Ngorongoro ecosystems. BAR Interna-tionalSeries 283, Oxford.BLUMEN5UHINE, RA. (1988): Anexperimental model ofIhe

timingofhominid andcarnivore influenceon archaco-logical bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological

Science, 15: 483-502.BLUMEN5cHINE,R.J.(1991): Hominid carnivoryandforaging

strategies, and the socio-economicfunctionofearly ar-chacological siles. Phil. Trans.R . Soc.Lond.,334:211-21.

BLUMEN5cHINE, R.J. (1995): Percussionmarks, looth marksand the experimental determinationsofthe timingofho-minid and carnivoreaccess t o longbones at FLK Zin-

janhropus, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. iournal ofHu-manEvolution, 29: 21-51.

BLUMEN5cHINE,R.J.;CAR O ,T.M. (1986): Unit flesh weightsof some East African bovids. African JournalofEcol-ogy, 24: 273-286.

BLUMEN5cHiNE, R.J.; SELVACCIO, MM.(1988): Percussionmarks on bone surfaces as a new diagnostic ofhominidbehavior.Nature, 333:763-765.

BLUMENSc HINE, R.J.;MAREAN, C.W.(1993): Acarnivoresview ofarchacological bone assemblages. From bonesto behavior: Ethnoarchaeologicalan experimentalcon-tributions to the interpretations offaunal remains (J.Hudson, cd.), Southem Illinois University: 273-300.

BLUMEN5cHiNE, R.J.; MADRIGAL, T.C. (1993): Long bonemarrow yields ofsorne African ungulates. Journal ofArchaeologicalScience, 20: 555-587.

BORRERO, L. (1990): Fuego-Patagonian bone assemblagesandthe problemofcommunal guanaco hunting. Hun-tersofthe recentpast (B.O.K. Reeves, cd), Unwin Hy-man, London:373-399.

B R L N K , J. & DAWE, 8. (1989): Final reportofthe 1985 an d1986 fleld season at Head-Smashed-ln buifalo jump,Albena. Archaeological Survey ofAlbertaManuscriptSeries, 16. Edmonton,

B O N N , H.T. (1981): Archacological evidence formeat-ea-tingby Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora, Ke-nya. Nature,291: 574-577.

BUNN, 1-IT. (1982): Meat-eatinga nd human evolution:stu-dies on thediet andsubsistencepatternsofplio-pleisto-cene hominids in EastAfrica. Ph . D. dissenation, Uni-versity ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

B U N N , H.T. (1983): Evidence on the diet and subsistencepattems of Plio-Pleistocene hominids at Koobi Fora,Kenya, and al Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Animals an dArchaeology: Hunters an d theirPrey. (J. Clutton-Brock,cd.) BAR.InternationalSeries, 163,Oxford: 21-30.

BuNI~, HT. (1991): A aphonomic perspectiveon the ar-chaeologyofhumanorigins. AnnualReviewofAnthro-pology, 20: 433-467.

B L JN N , H.T.; KROLL, F.M. (1986): Systematic butchery byPlio-Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.CurrentAnthropology, 27:431452.

B u N N ,H.T. (1988): A reply to Binford. CurrentAnthropo-logy,29:123-149.

BONN, H .T.; KROLL,EM.; BARTRAM, LE. (1988): Variabi-lity i n bone assemblage formation froinHadza hunting,scavenging and carcass processing.JournalofAnthro-pologicalArchaeology,7:412-57.

B U N N , H.T.: KROLL, EM.; BARTRAM, LE. (1991): Bonedistributionon a modern East African landscape and i tsarchacological implications Cultural Beginnings: ap-proaches to understanding early hominid life-ways inthe African savanna (J.D. Clark, cd.), USPP Monogra-phienBand, Bonn.:33-54.

BUNN, H.T.; Eno, JA. (1993): Hunting and scavengingbyPlio-Pleistocene hominids: nutritional constraints, ar-chacological patterns, and hehavioral implications.JournalofArchoeologicalScience,20: 365-398.

CAPALDO,S.D. (1995): lnferring hominidandcarnivorebe-havior from dual-patterned archacological assembla-ges . Ph. D. Thesis.Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

CAPALDO, S.D.; BLUMEN5cHINE, R.J. (1994): A quantitativediagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussionand carnivore gnawingi n bovid long bones. AmericanAntiquity, 59: 724-748.

DO M N GU Ez -R O DR IGO ,M. (1994): Elorigen del comporta-mientohumano. TIPO, Madrid.

DoMINGLJEZ-RoDRiGO, M. (1996): A Iandscape sludy ofbone conservation in te Galana and Kulalu (Kenya)ecosystem.Origini, 20: 17-38.

D OMING UEz- ROD RIOO, M. (1997a): Meat-eating by earlyhominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus site, OlduvaiGorge, Tanzania: an experimental approach using cu-

mark data. JournalofHumanEvolution,33: 669-690.DoMcnjEz-RouRcO, M. (1997b): A reassessment of the

studyof cut mark palterns to infer hominid manipula-tion offleshed carcasses alIhe FLK Zinj 22 site, Odo-val Gorge,Tanzania. Trabajosd e Prehistoria, 54:2942.

D OM ING OE z-ROD I400, M.;M ART L EzANA , R (1996): Estu-dioetnoarqueolgicode uncampamento temporal Ndo-

8/12/2019 30886-30905-1-PB

10/10

robo(Maasai) en Kulalu (Kenia). Trabajos dePrehisto-ria,53: 131-143.

EMERSON, A.M. (1990): Archacological implicationsof va-riabilityin theeconomic anatomyofBison bison.Ph. U.dissenation,Washington State University. Ann Arbor.

GARGET, R. & HAVOEN, B . (1991): Site structure, kinshipand sharing in aboriginalAustralia: implications for Ar-chaeology. The interpretationofarchaeologicalspatialpatterning (E.M. KroU and T.D. Price, eds.) PlenumPress,NuevaYork: 11-32.

GIFFORD, D. (1977): Observations ofmodern human settle-mentsasanaid toarchaeological interpretation. Ph.D .

dissertation,University ofCalifornia,Berkeley.GRAYSON, D.K. (1984) . Quantitative Zooarchaeology: to-

pics in the analysisofarchaeologicalfaunas. OrlandoAcademicPress.

IsAAc, G.L. (1983): Bones in contention: competing ex-planations for thejuxtaposition of Early Pleistocenear-tifacts aud faunal remains. Animaland Archaeology 1 .Huntersand theirprey(J. Clutton-Brock andC . Grig-son, eds.), Oxford: B.A.R. International Series 163 : 3-19.

IsAAc,GE. (1984): The archaeology of human origins: stu-dies of Lower Pleistocene in East Africa, 1971-1981.Advancesin WorldArchaeology,3:1-87.

KLEIN, R . (1982a): Age profiles as a means of distingul-shing hunted species ftorn scavenged ones in StoneA gearchacological sites. Paleobiology, 8:151-158.

KLEIN, R . (1982b): Patterns ofungulatemonalityand ungu-late mortality profiles fromLangebaanweg(Early Pleis-tocene) and Elandsfontein(MiddlePleistocene) south-

westemCape, SouthAfrica. AnnalsoftheSouthAfricanMuseum, 90: 49-94.

LYMAN, R.L. (1992): Bone density and differential survi-vorship in fossil classes.JournalofAnthropologicalAr-chaeology,3 : 259-99.

LYMAN, RL. (l994): - Vertebrate Taphonomy, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cmbridge.

MAREAN, C.W.; SPENCER, L.M.;BLuMENscI-uNn, R.J.; CA-PALDO, 5. D . (1992) : Captive hyaena bone c ho ic e anddestruction, th e Schlepp effectand O l duva l archaeofau-nas. JournalofArchaeologicalScience, 19: l0l-121.

MAR5KALL, F. (1994): Food sharing and body panrepre-

sentation inOkiek faunalassemblages. JournalofAr-chaeologicalScience, 21: 65-77.METCALFE, D. (1989): A general cost/beneflt modelof the

trade-offbetween transport andfleldprocessing. FifthAnnual Meeting of theS.AA. (Society for AmericanArchaeology), Atlanta.

METcALFE, U.; JONES, K.T. (1988): A reconsideration ofanimal body pail utility indices. American Antiquity,53: 486-504.

OCoNNELL,J.F.; H A W K E S , K .; BLuRTON JONES, N. (1988):Hadzahunt ing, butchering an d bonetranspon an d theirarchacologicalimplications.JournalofAnthropologicalResearch, 44:113-61.

O C O N N E L L , J.F.;H A W K E S , K.; B LU R T O N J O N ES, N.(1990):Reanalysis oflarge mammal body pantransponamongth e Hadza . JournalofArchaeologicalScience, 17: 301-316.

OCoNNELL, IP.; HAWKES, K.;BLURTONJONES, N, (1991):Distribution ofrefuse-producing activities at Hadz a re-sidential base camps: implications for analysis of ar-chacological site structure. T he interpretation ofar-chaeological spatial patterning (EM. Kroll and TU.Price,eds.), PlenumPress , N u e v a York: 61 -76 .

OCONNELL, J.F.;HAWKE5, K.; BLURTON JONEs,N . (1992):Patterns in te distribution, site structure and assem-

blage composition ofHadzakill-butcLiering sites. Jour-nalofArchaeologicalScience, 1 9: 3 19-45.

PERKiN5,D.; DALY, P . (1968): A huntersvillage in Neoli-thicTurkey. ScientificAmerican, 2l9: 97-106.

Pons, R . (l982): Lower Pleistocene Site Formation andHom inid Activitiesat OlduvalGorge, Tanzania. Ph. U.dissertation,Harvard University. Massachusetts.

Pons, R . (1988): EarlyhominidactivitiesatOlduvai.Aldi-nc de Gruyter, Nueva York.

Pons, R.; SHIPMAN, 1 . (1981) : Cutmarksmade by stonetoolsfrom Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature,291: 577-580.

SELvAGO IO , MM. (1994): Ident~fying the timing an d se-quence of hominied and carnivore involvement withPlio-Pleistocene bone assemblagesfrom carnivore toothmarksa nd stone-tool butchery markso n bone surfaces.Ph .U. Dissertation, Rutgers University.

SHIPMAN, P. (1986): Scavenging or hunting in early homi-nids:theoreticalframework andtests.AmericanAnthro-

pologist, 88:27-43.S T I N E R , M. (1991): Food procuremen an d transponby hu-

man andnon human predators.JournalofArchaeologi-calScience, 18: 455-82.

Wnrru, TE. (1952) : Observations on thebutchering techni-

queofsorne aboriginal peoples, 1 . AmericanAn tiquity,17: 337-8 .WILL,R.T. (1985): Nineteenthcentury copperJnuitsubsis-

tence practices on Bdnk lslands. Ph. U. dissenation,UniversityofAlberta, Edmonton.