Another classic assemblage recently reanalysed is from Tepe Tulai. Here is the link
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300341?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb
Best
Haskel
Haskel Greenfield
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Haskel Greenfield <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> A reanalysis of a classic assemblage from a taphonomic perspective is:
> Legge, A.J., & Rowley-Conwy, P. (1988). Star Carr Revisited: A Re-analysis of the Large Mammals. London: Birkbeck College.
>
> Best
> Haskel
>
> Prof. Dr. Haskel J. Greenfield,
> Distinguished Professor, University of Manitoba
> Professor, Department of Anthropology, Fletcher Argue 432, Winnipeg, MB, R3T2N2
> Coordinator, Judaic Studies Program, Fletcher Argue 328, Winnipeg, MB, R3T2N2
> Co-director, Near Eastern and Biblical Archaeology Laboratory, St. Paul’s College, 70 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3T2M6
> Office phone – 204-272-1591
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jesper Ostergaard
> Sent: December-03-15 1:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Taphonomy and changes in assemblage interpretation
>
> Also this article, would be of particular interest, it reintrepetates the hunting strategy, from a new investigation of the assemblage:
>
> Grønnow, Bjarne (1987) Meiendorf and Stellmoor Revisited. An Analysis of Late Paleolithic Reindeer Exploitation. Acta Archaeologica, Vol. 56, pp. 131 - 166. (Copenhagen, Denmark).
>
> Jesper S. Østergaard
> Hessensgade 22, 2tv
> 2300 København S
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 12/3/15, Serjeantson D. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Taphonomy and changes in assemblage interpretation
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2015, 2:13 AM
>
> The classic example must
> surely be Brain's re-interpretation of Ardrey's The Hunting Hypothesis about early Man in Africa.
>
> These are the early papers.
>
> Brain, C. K. 1967. Hottentot
> food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil bone assemblages. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station, 32, 1-7.
>
> Brain, C. K. 1969. The contribution of Namib desert Hottentots to an understanding of Australopithecine bone accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station, 39, 13-22.
>
> There is also Brain's later book.
>
> Dale Serjeantson
>
>
> Archaeology
> School of
> Humanities
> University of Southampton
> Highfield
> Southampton SO17
> 1BJ
> http://www.southampton.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/dale.page
> Birds and Archaeology: New Research.
> International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Special Issue http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.v24.3/issuetoc
>
>
>
> From: zooarch <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> on behalf of Flint Dibble <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Flint Dibble <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Wednesday, 2 December 2015 18:53
> To: zooarch <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Taphonomy and changes in assemblage interpretation
>
> Hi Kathy,
>
> One
> example of an article where a reconsideration of taphonomy led to new interpretations: Marean and Frey 1997.
> "Animal Bones from Caves to Cities: Reverse Utility Curves as Methodological Artifacts." American Antiquity
>
> This is a topic
> that interests me greatly b/c I am currently writing up a reinterpretation of the faunal assemblage from Bronze Age and Iron Age Nichoria in Greece where the taphonomic history is causing me to reinterpret the initial results. So, please share any other suggestions you receive!
>
> Thanks,
> Flint
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:30
> AM, Katheryn Twiss <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Thank you! No particular region or time period at this stage, although she's eventually intending to work on Malagasy material.
>
> As of right now, I've got the Dart/Brain; Behrensmeyer, etc.., on hunting vs. scavenging; and Binford’s Bones.
> I also have (thank you,
> ZOOARCH, for all of this!) Rich Madgwick's recent work on UK taphonomy, Marean & Kim on Kobeh Cave, and a referral to Enghoff's "Viking Age fishing in Denmark..." Everyone, please let me know if you'd like me to pass anything along?
>
> These will all be relevant-- and I'm
> thoroughly enjoying hearing what people recommend.
>
> I deeply appreciate the email,
> and the advice!
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> Madgwick, R. In Press. New light on feasting and deposition: Exploring accumulation history through taphonomic analysis at later prehistoric middens in Britain.
> Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.
>
> Madgwick, R., Mulville, J.
> 2015. Reconstructing depositional histories through bone
> taphonomy: Extending the potential of faunal data.Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 255-263.
>
> Madgwick, R. 2010. Bone modification and the conceptual relationship between humans and animals in Iron Age Wessex. In J. Morris, M. Maltby (eds.) Integrating Social and Environmental Archaeologies: Reconsidering Deposition. B.A.R. International Series 2077. pp. 66-82.
> Oxford: Archaeopress.
>
> Enghoff, Inge Bødker. "Viking Age fishing in Denmark, with a particular focus on the freshwater site Viborg, methods of excavation and smelt fishing."
> Viking Age fishing in Denmark, with a particular focus on the freshwater site Viborg, methods of excavation and smelt fishing (2005): 69-76.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Madrigal, Cregg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> Kathy,
>
> The book that really got modern taphonomic analysis going was C.K. Brain’s The Hunters or the Hunted on the South African australopithecine sites. There’s also all the work in the 1980s and 1990s on the hunting vs.
> scavenging debate in African paleoanthropology – especially at the FLK Zinj site. See the works by Kay Behrensmeyer, Robert Blumenschine, Henry Bunn, and many others, including Binford’s Bones book.
>
> Are you interested in any
> particular region or time period?
>
> Cregg
>
>
> T. Cregg Madrigal, Ph.D.
> Environmental Specialist 3 – Archaeology New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Municipal Finance and Construction Element Mail Code 401-03D PO Box 420 Trenton, NJ
> 08625-0420
> 609-633-1170<tel:609-633-1170>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
> From: Analysis of animal
> remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> On Behalf Of Katheryn Twiss
> Sent: Wednesday,
> December 02, 2015 4:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [ZOOARCH] Taphonomy and changes in assemblage interpretation
>
> Dear All:
>
> I
> have a student looking for faunal assemblages whose interpretation changed significantly once researchers began to consider their taphonomic histories.
> Does
> anyone have any recommendations re interesting examples, please?
>
> Thank you, all! I
> appreciate any thoughts you might have!
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>
> --
> Katheryn C. Twiss
> Associate
> Professor
> Stony Brook University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> --
> Katheryn C. Twiss
> Associate Professor
> Stony Brook
> University
> Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|