Moving on slightly - the last veins of the owl pellet
discussion have touched on carnivores in general. Which
brings to mind another great debate, how much do carnivores
in general account for patterning in assemblages.
I have been having a running discussion for some years with
someone who, from ethnographic research, contends that most
animal bone is destroyed by dogs and the bits we get are
generally the exception. (after Hodder 1982, Kramer 1982)
Also there is bob wilsons work on scavenging patterns of
dogs/foxes and how far they can carry stuff. Big bits
carried to the periphery and little bits eaten near the
middle (or is that the wrong way around ? - can find the
ref at this instant)
Does anyone have any further info or thoughts on this?
Do we only ever have 'a tiny proportion of the originally
bones discarded bone.....and they will be scattered,
disturbed and badly preserved).
My line at present runs something along the well around 5-
15% or bone gnawed is par for the course. The fact that is
not all gnawed tells us that they buried it/dogs were
excluded. On the other hand the gnawed bits of human and
gnawed bone found in what appear to be ritual deposits does
suggest that canids got at a some material.
Thoughts for countering or supporting the everything should
have been gnawed, unless immediately buried, argument
welcome. As it kind of effects most of our interpretations
partic with regard to spatial patterning.
jacqui
----------------------
Jacqui Mulville,
EH Regional Science Advisor (E. Mids)
Oxford University Museum,
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW
Tel: 01865-272996 Fax: 01865-272970
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|