Claire
Perversely, I think the explanation is that small bones are less able to withstand the effects of burning.
I think five factors are important to explain the generality of observations made in previous replies.
1. If a body is roasted in a fire, terminal bones are not protected from the heat by much flesh, so calcine readily.
2. Terminal bones, not being required for eating, are discarded. Indeed they often fall off in the ashes.
3. Calcined bone is inorganic. Its calcium phosphate is often fused. Therefore calcined bone is resistant to both mechanical and chemical degradation.
4. Unburnt bone is less resistant to mechanical and chemical degradation, though charred (carbonized) bone is more resistant than fresh, unburned bone.
5. The density of the articular surfaces of calcined bone encourages their survival, compared with the more fragile shafts.
Do you ever see carbonized or unburnt bone among the pieces?
In particular, do calcined areas grade into carbonized, and the carbonized grade into unburnt?
Richard
On 17/11/2010 19:32, Claire Ingrem wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have an assemblage comprised almost entirely of small
> calcined fragments of bone from a Mesolithic site in the Hebrides. Few
> pieces are identifiable and most of these are articular surfaces of
> phalanges, carpals and tarpals.
>
> I would be very interested in
> hearing if anyone has come across similar material and your views on
> whether this pattern is likely to result from the ability of small bones
> being better able to withstand the effects of burning.
>
> One final request.....if anyone has a pdf of the following paper I would really appreciate a copy:
>
>
>
> Grigson, C.& Mellars, P.A. (1987) The mammalian remains from the middens. pp. 243-289 in Mellars, P. A. (ed.) Excavations on Oronsay. Edinburgh University Press.
>
>
>
> Many thanks
>
>
>
> Claire
>
>
>
|