Fluvial transport of bovid long bones fragmented by the feeding activities of hominins and carnivores

Actualistic research into dynamic impact and its implications for understanding differential bone fragmentation and survivorship

“…That some elements can be effectively deleted from bone assemblages contradicts the generalization made by some zooarchaeologists that greater density directly correlates with greater survivorship in nearly all archaeological assemblages (Lyman, 1994:239;Marean and Frey, 1997:701). While it is true that a relationship between density and destruction exists when some taphonomic processes are involved, rockfall on fresh, frozen, and dried bones represents at least one process that contradicts the concept of density-mediated attrition, though other research suggests that the processes of heating and cooling, wetting and drying, and fluvial transport may result in similar patterning (Conard et al, 2008;Pante and Blumenschine, 2010). The density of different epiphyses correlates negatively with their rate of fragmentation, such that the most likely epiphyses to be broken include both high-density and low-density examples.…”

“…Some scholars have demonstrated that density does not mediate archaeological bone survivorship when a certain taphonomic agencies are in action (Conard et al, 2008;Pante and Blumenschine, 2010), while others have suggested that conclusions inferred by bone density studies suffer from logical flaws and equifinality (Beaver, 2004;Outram, 2004). Though greater density may correlate positively with greater archaeological survivorship in Fig.…”

“…Recent research, however, has demonstrated that when certain taphonomic processes are in action, density is not the principal factor mediating bone destruction. A recent study by Pante and Blumenschine (2010) has demonstrated that density is not the critical factor in the fluvial transport of broken bone elements, suggesting that bone destruction caused by the movement of elements in flowing water does not necessarily correlate with the density of those elements. Stiner (2002Stiner ( , 2004 has utilized the methods of both Lyman (1984Lyman ( , 1994 and Lam et al (1998) to demonstrate that her methods for bone identification circumvent the problems of density variation among element parts when constructing body part profiles.…”

Taphonomy of fossils from the hominin-bearing deposits at Dikika, Ethiopia

“…Small fragments may travel farther during post-depositional fluvial transport (Behrensmeyer, 1988;Pante and Blumenschine, 2010), so assemblages from localities with a lot of fish may represent autochthonous accumulations of fish in lacustrine deposits or allochthonous concentrations of small fragments dominated by fish that were transported from elsewhere. The sedimentological data suggest that the former possibility is more likely, and the fragment size and edge rounding data provide further support for this.…”

Fluvial dispersal potential of guanaco bones (Lama guanicoe) under controlled experimental conditions: the influence of age classes to the hydrodynamic behavior

“…These studies indicated that the different intrinsic properties bone have, such as global density, shape, and size influence significantly their hydric transport potential. In later experimental studies additional variables were added such as bones in articulated state, fractured, saturated in water, and variation of the channel bed (Aslan and Behrensmeyer, 1996;Coard, 1999;Coard and Dennell, 1995;Pante and Blumenschine, 2010;Trapani, 1998); and later on, the number of taxa studied was increased (Frison and Todd, 1986;Kaufmann and Gutiérrez, 2004;Trapani, 1998). The most used fluvial transport model is still the one proposed by Voorhies (1969), who evaluated the potential hydric transport of different disarticulated bones of domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and coyote (Canis latrans) and proposed three skeletal groups with differential behavior.…”