Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-8z4zl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T12:02:33.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David H. Thomas
David H. Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A quantitative method is presented which assists the archaeologist in distinguishing between bones resulting from human activity and those deposited in archaeological contexts by non-cultural means. The assumption is that relatively incomplete carcasses are more likely to have been deposited or disturbed by extra-corporeal activities such as carnivores, raptorial birds, rodents, stream action, or man. This method is illustrated on faunal data from 3 sites in the High Rock county of extreme northwestern Nevada.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 366 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1971

Access options

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

References

Cleland, Charles E. 1966 The prehistoric animal ecology and ethnozoology of the upper Great Lakes region. Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 29. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1968 Archaeological applications of factor, cluster, and proximity analyses. American Antiquity 33:367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1968 The vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns. In The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 1, edited by Douglas Byers, pp. 132–178. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert F., and Cook, Sherburne F. 1960 The application of quantitative methods in archaeology. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 28.Google Scholar
Howard, W. E., and Childes, H. E. Jr. 1959 Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae Mewa. Hilgardia 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layton, Thomas N. 1966 The archaeology of Smokey Creek Cave, Humboldt County, Nevada: 26-Hu-46. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Layton, Thomas N. 1970 The archaeology of the High Rock country of northern Nevada. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Miller, R. S. 1964 Ecology and distribution of pocket gophers (Geomydae) in Colorado. Ecology 45:256–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shotwell, J. Arnold 1955 An approach to the paleoecology of mammals. Ecology 36:327–337.Google Scholar
Shotwell, J. Arnold 1958 Inter-community relationships in Hemphillian (mid-Pliocene) mammals. Ecology 39:271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin, 120.Google Scholar
Stewart, Omar C. 1939 The northern Paiute bands. University of California Anthropological Records 2(3).Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1968 Flotation techniques for the recovery of small-scale archaeological remains. American Antiquity 33:353–362.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1969 Great Basin hunting patterns: a quantitative method for treating faunal remains. American Antiquity 34:392–401.Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1953 A method of calculating the dietary percentages of various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. American Antiquity 18:396–398.Google Scholar