Julia,
As you know, Lyman found that structural density affects natural taphonomic
processes--bones of higher density will survive better than bones that are
less dense. When I looked at bone density and regressed it against cortical
wall thickness (for avian skeletal elements), I found that 47% of the
variation in bulk density could be explained by cortical wall thickness.
The thickness of the cortical wall in bones varies taxonomically (in birds
so I'm assuming in other animals as well), as well as within each skeletal
element.
I'll just mention a few elemental variations that I found. For instance,
with birds, the distal end of the tarsometatarsus is likely to be missing
because the cortical wall becomes increasingly thinner toward that end,
however, the third digit is likely to be preserved because the cortical wall
is relatively thicker than that of the other digits. The femur is likely to
be missing one or both ends because the cortical wall thins proximally and
distally. The coracoid is likely to be missing the sternal end because of a
thinning cortical wall.
My work in this area has been only on birds (and they weren't domestic), but
I can send you a copy of the paper if you'd like.
--Jude
Jude Higgins
Department of Anthropology &
Utah Museum of Natural History
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
[log in to unmask]
> Is there any evidence for certain areas of bones being more susceptible to
> degradation than others ?
>
> In particular is there any evidence for the differential preservation of
> proximal and distal humeri of domestic mammals?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Julia
>
> Julia Elise Cussans
> Post-graduate research
> Department of Archaeological Sciences
> University of Bradford
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: webmail.brad.ac.uk
>
|