A refitting experiment on long bone identification

Abstract

Refitting is an important analytical tool in archaeology that can yield valuable information on site formation processes and on the range of activities practiced at a site, including tool production, tool curation, and discard behavior, among others. In the present paper, we use refit data from a control assemblage of red deer (Cervus elaphus) long bones to assess problems of specimen identification and representation in an experiment where bones were processed for marrow. Three goals motivated this experiment: (i) to assess how different methods of NISP (number of identified specimens) calculation affect comparisons of the relative abundances of long bone regions, (ii) to evaluate whether long bone shaft regions vary with respect to the probability of identification, and (iii) to ascertain the potential refit rate for a well‐preserved and fully‐collected sample of faunal specimens. Our results show no statistical differences in terms of patterns of skeletal representation between the two methods of NISP calculation (single vs. multiple NISP counts) that we assessed. Our data also indicate that the shape, particularly the cross‐section, of fragments clearly impacts the probability of identification and refitting. Moreover, the refitting experiment reveals that, in ideal conditions, a majority of specimens (>95%) from the NISP sample can be refitted, which leads to largely reconstructed skeletal elements. Thus, the comparatively very low refit rates recorded in archaeological sites, including samples that are well preserved, suggest that the often limited extent of excavations, along with offsite discard and/or extensive sharing of parts, substantially reduce the possibility of finding refits in a faunal sample.

Four problems for archaeological refitting studies. Discussion from the Taï Site and its Neolithic pottery material (France)

“…work studying the abrasion (Schiffer and Skibo 1989) or salt erosion (P. O'Brien 1990) of pottery surfaces, or the morphometry of pottery sherds (Rutkoski 2019). Experimental approaches including fragmentation analysis are even rarer, e.g., refits of pottery sherds and bones (Villa and Courtin 1983), with focus on the weight, number, and arc of rims of pottery sherds (Chase 1985), on pottery (Malloy 2019) or bone (Morin et al 2021) dispersion. A qualitative study of fragmentation patterns has also been proposed (García Rosselló and Calvo Trias 2019).…”