1989
DOI: 10.1002/j.1834-4453.1989.tb00200.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial analysis on a dugong consumption site at Princess Charlotte Bay, North Queensland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This problem was overcome by attributing a fragmentation category (whole, large, medium, small; see above) to each bone attributable to an anatomical category, and to then calculate the proportion of diagnostic bones from each of the three major cranial bone‐groups (forward, middle and rear cranial regions) falling into each of the four fragmentation categories (Table 3). Other studies elsewhere in Australia have successfully used minimum number of elements (MNE) (Lyman, 1994, p. 290) to characterise dugong bone assemblages, but unlike this one these studies were focused on questions of subsistence rather than of internal mound structure or processes of accumulation, construction, fragmentation and ritual engagement (Minnegal, 1984a, p. 65 [NISP = 253], Minnegal, 1984b, p. 16 [NISP = 56]; Cribb & Minnegal, 1989, p. 2 [MNI = 3]).…”
Section: Dugong Bone Identification and Quantificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This problem was overcome by attributing a fragmentation category (whole, large, medium, small; see above) to each bone attributable to an anatomical category, and to then calculate the proportion of diagnostic bones from each of the three major cranial bone‐groups (forward, middle and rear cranial regions) falling into each of the four fragmentation categories (Table 3). Other studies elsewhere in Australia have successfully used minimum number of elements (MNE) (Lyman, 1994, p. 290) to characterise dugong bone assemblages, but unlike this one these studies were focused on questions of subsistence rather than of internal mound structure or processes of accumulation, construction, fragmentation and ritual engagement (Minnegal, 1984a, p. 65 [NISP = 253], Minnegal, 1984b, p. 16 [NISP = 56]; Cribb & Minnegal, 1989, p. 2 [MNI = 3]).…”
Section: Dugong Bone Identification and Quantificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies of intrasite spatial patterning are important in archaeology because they contribute towards an understanding of spatial behaviour at the finest scale of resolutionactivity areas. Many intrasite studies infer that clusters of archaeological material represent foci of human activities (for example, Simek and Larick 1983, 167;Cribb & Minnegal 1989;Fontana 1998;Ranson 1978, Blankholm 1991. This is particularly evident in the archaeological studies of hunter-gatherer groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That research concerned archaeological evidence for patterns of butchering and consumption of the large marine mammal Dugong dugon by people at Princess Charlotte Bay, on the east coast of Cape York Peninsula in Australia (Minnegal 1982(Minnegal , 1984aCribb & Minnegal 1989). The focus on butchering and consumption meant leaving to one side any questions to do with the people's decision to hunt dugong in the first place.…”
Section: Prologuementioning
confidence: 99%