201

Bar-Oz & Munro

Article JTa024. All rights reserved.

Beyond Cautionary Tales: A Multivariate
Taphonomic Approach for Resolving
Equifinality in Zooarchaeological Studies

Guy Bar-Oz

*
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa 31905, Israel

Natalie D. Munro

Department of Anthropology, Unit 2176, 354 Mansfield Road, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269, USA

Journal of Taphonomy 2 (4) (2004), 201-220.
Manuscript received 24 September 2004, revised manuscript accepted 10 December 2004.
We describe a multivariate approach that reconstructs the taphonomic histories of zooarchaeological
assemblages. The approach applies a sequence of zooarchaeological analyses to bone assemblages to
determine the most significant agents of assemblage formation. By examining the differential
survivorship of bones from subgroups within an assemblage, problems of equifinality in skeletal part
studies can be overcome. The multivariate approach follows three primary analytical stages including:
a) a descriptive stage that summarizes the representation of key taphonomic variables of each
assemblage; b) an analytical stage that investigates the completeness and fragmentation of skeletal parts;
and c) a comparative stage that evaluates taphonomic variation amongst subgroups within a
zooarchaeological assemblage. In a case study of six Epipaleolithic assemblages from the southern
Levant, the multivariate approach reveals that intensive bone processing by humans for marrow and
possibly grease was the primary determinant of gazelle bone survivorship, while small game taxa
experienced independent taphonomic histories.

Keywords: TAPHONOMY, SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION, EQUIFINALITY,
MULTIVARIATE APPROACH, GAZELLE, EPIPALEOLITHIC, LEVANT, GREASE AND
MARROW PROCESSING; DENSITY-MEDIATED ATTRITION
Introduction

Over the past two decades, analyses of
ungulate skeletal part representation have
become staples of zooarchaeological
research. Skeletal part studies address
diverse zooarchaeological questions ranging
from resource availability, human
subsistence strategies, and depositional
histories to recovery and methodological
biases. Recently, some influential studies
have stimulated an ongoing debate
* E-mail:guybar@research.haifa.ac.il
2004

Journal of Taphonomy
PROMETHEUS PRESS/ PALAEONTOLOGI CAL NETWORK FOUNDATI ON (TERUEL)

Available online at www.journaltaphonomy.com
VOLUME 2 (ISSUE 4)


202
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
regarding the quantification of prey skeletal
parts and the conclusions that can be drawn
from their analysis (Pickering et al., 2003;
Stiner, 2002; and references therein). At
the heart of this debate is the problem of
equifinality. Because different analytic
procedures and depositional events can lead
to the same end result, the use of skeletal
part representation as a tool to reconstruct
human behavior is becoming increasingly
complex. A growing body of literature has
established that equifinality is common in
zooarchaeological assemblages and can be
produced by a wide range of taphonomic
agents, in particular those whose effects are
mediated by bone density. (see review in
Lyman, 1994).
Here, we focus on resolving
problems of equifinality created by
attritional processes that act before and
after bone deposition, but prior to
excavation. Because there are many
attritional agents and their effects may
differ substantially across time and space,
taphonomic research aims to discern the
most influential processes acting on bone
assemblages and to distinguish natural
forces from human behavior. We suggest
implementing a multivariate approach that
subjects a bone assemblage to a series of
zooarchaeological analyses to pinpoint the
most likely formation agents. By
multivariate approach we refer to the
application of multiple taphonomic
analyses to a bone assemblage in a series of
three analytical stages (see below). The
analyses focus on differential representation
of prey skeletal parts within a single species
or between subgroups of an assemblage.
We define assemblage following Lyman
(1994: 8) as some analytically defined set
of faunal remains usually, but not always
from a particular spatio-temporal context.
Many taphonomic analyses take place at the
scale of the assemblage, however higher
resolution results can be generated through
comparisons of groups of bones categorized
by different attribute states of a given
assemblage variable. Variables of interest
include taxon, prey body size, prey age
group, bone shape, bone tissue type, and
bone density among others. These
variables have multiple attribute states (i.e.,
gazelle, tortoise, and other taxonomic
groups are attributes of the variable taxon,
while compact and cortical bone are
attributes of the variable bone tissue type)
here called subgroupsthat may be
differentially impacted by taphonomic
agents of interest. For example, the variable
age is characterized by the attribute states
juvenile, adult and senescent, and the
skeletal parts belonging to these age groups
should be differentially affected by
taphonomic factors such as diagenesis or
human butchering. Dividing a bone
assemblage into subgroups allows fine-
grained comparisons that can peel away the
taphonomic layers and reveal meaningful
patterns in zooarchaeological data.
Subgroup comparisons allow us to
circumvent equifinality because pre- and
post-depositional taphonomic agents,
including those that are density-mediated,
often do not act equally on all subgroups of
an assemblage. If attrition is examined at
the assemblage level or in only one
subgroup in an assemblage, an average
signal of the agents impact is obtained. If
we divide assemblages into subgroups and
evaluate them independently, differences in
the impact of the taphonomic agent often
correspond to differences in subgroup
properties. For example, bone grease
203
Bar-Oz & Munro
PROCEDURE FOR A MULTIVARIATE APPROACH

I. SUMMARY OF TAPHONOMIC VARIABLES
1. Primary quantitative data (e.g., NISP, MNI, diversity indices)
2. Spatial distribution of bones (e.g., orientation, context)
3. Bone surface damage from natural agents (e.g., weathering, root etching, carnivore
gnawing, rodent gnawing, abrasion)
4. Bone surface damage by human subsistence behaviors (e.g., cutmarks,
hammerstone impact notches, percussion marks, burning)

II. INVESTIGATION OF ASSEMBLAGE COMPLETENESS AND FRAGMENTATION
1. Analyses of in situ attrition
i. Ratio of cranial bones to teeth
ii. Analyses of element completeness (e.g., carpal and tarsal bones)
2. Analyses of density-mediated attrition
i. Relationship between bone survivorship (%MNI) and bone mineral
density
ii. Relative representation of bones of different densities (e.g., proximal to
distal humerus and tibia)
3. Analyses of fragmentation
i. Analyses of body-part completeness (e.g., bone portions, bone elements,
anatomical units)
ii. Mode of bone fragmentation (e.g., fracture angle, fracture outline, shaft
circumference)
iii. Fragmentation index (NISP/MNI)
iv. Relationship between bone survivorship (%MNI) and fragmentation
index (NISP/MNI)
4. Analyses for relationship with utility indices
i. Relationship between bone survivorship (%MNI) and food utility index
ii. Relationship between rate of bone shaft fragmentation (NISP/MNI) and
marrow index

III. ASSEMBLAGE SUBGROUP COMPARISONS
1. Comparison of bone survivorship (%MNI) and bone mineral density of
different prey types (i.e., different taxa; large vs. small; domestic vs. wild)
2. Comparisons of body part representation of taxa of different ages (e.g.,
completeness of long bone shafts and toes)
3. Comparisons of different bone tissue types (e.g., cortical versus cancellous
bone)
Table 1. Outline of the procedure of the multivariate approach to taphonomic analysis. The list
provided here is not inclusive and the selection of taphonomic variables can be altered depending on
the research questions. References for various analyses can be found in the text.
204
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
extraction is expected to preferentially
destroy the grease-rich cancellous bone of
healthy adult ungulates. However, grease
processing will not impact low-density
bones that contain little or no grease, such
as the cancellous bones of juvenile animals
or small prey species. Subgroup
comparisons thus provide a straightforward
method to increase the resolution of the
signatures of taphonomic agents and
decrease the potential for equifinality.
Previously, we applied a
multivariate approach to five assemblages
originating in the same general time period
(21-11.5 cal. kya) and ecological and
geographical setting (Mediterranean region
of northern Israel) to assess the role of bone
fat processing in the Levantine
Epipaleolithic (Munro & Bar-Oz, 2005).
The goal of the current paper is to expand
on that previous work by providing some
new data and a comprehensive outline of
the multivariate approach and subgroup
analyses, and their ability to resolve issues
of equifinality.


A Multivariate Taphonomic Approach

The multivariate approach requires the
admi ni st rat i on of a seri es of
zooar chaeol ogi cal anal yses t hat
systematically reconstruct the taphonomic
history of a faunal assemblage. The
analyses should proceed in a roughly
hierarchical fashion designed to exclude
potential taphonomic agents at each stage.
The multivariate approach follows three
primary stages (Table 1). First, relevant
taphonomic variables are identified,
quantified, and summarized in tabular or
graphic form. Summarized values most
often include frequency or relative
abundance data that indicate the magnitude
of the expression of a given variable in an
assemblage. Variables that are appropriate
for the summary table include surface
modifications created by natural and
cultural agents expressed as the frequency
(%) of their occurrence in an assemblage,
and zooarchaeological counting units (i.e.,
NISP, MNE, MNI and MAU). This stage is
akin to the multivariate technique proposed
by Behrensmeyer (1991). Examples of
variables to be considered are listed as
specimen attributes by Lyman (1994: Table
13.1). The second stage involves analyses
which evaluate the quality of an
assemblages preservation and identify
patterns of attrition and fragmentation by
comparing the differential survivorship of
various skeletal parts. This stage quantifies
the completeness of an assemblage and may
compare it to other bone assemblages. The
third and final stage refines the conclusions
drawn from the first two stages by
comparing skeletal completeness, surface
damage, and other taphonomic variables
amongst subgroups that are expected to be
differentially impacted by the taphonomic
processes of interest.
Recently, there has been much
debate over which zooarchaeological
methods are the most accurate for
distinguishing human foraging behavior
from natural taphonomic processes. In
particular, some researchers have argued
that the frequency of bone surface damage
and its anatomical location is the most
accurate indicator of Plio-Pleistocene
hominid foraging, due to its strong
foundation of actualistic research (i.e.,
Blumenschine, 1988; Domnguez-Rodrigo,
2002 and references therein). It has been
205
Bar-Oz & Munro
argued that these methods should be used to
the exclusion of other techniques. The
strength of the multivariate approach lies in
i t s i n t e g r a t i o n o f mu l t i p l e
zooarchaeological analyses and its
flexibility to cope with the demands of
different research questions. The strength
and appropriateness of analogical models
and analytical methods will vary with the
research question and its placement in time
and space. It is important that the researcher
weigh the strength of analogical models to
explain patterns generated by various
zooarchaeological analyses as well as their
suitability to address specific research
questions before selecting appropriate
analyses for each of the three research
stages presented below.


Summary of Taphonomic Variables

The first stage of the multivariate
taphonomic approach describes the
expression of taphonomic variables in a
given assemblage using a table or graph for
easy reference (see Bar-Oz & Dayan, 2003;
Behrensmeyer, 1991; Lyman, 1994; and
Stiner, 1992, 1994 for examples). The
presentation of data from multiple variables
allows easy assessment of the degree of
influence of various taphonomic agents.
Furthermore, it facilitates comparison of
assemblages by standardizing the
presentation of selected taphonomic
variables. The taphonomic variables can be
divided into four primary subsets: (1) basic
quantitative information regarding the
taxonomic or skeletal part breakdown of the
assemblage using measures such as NISP,
MNE, or MNI; (2) spatial (contextual and
distributional) data; (3) damage caused by
natural taphonomic agents such as
carnivore gnawing (including gross
gnawing, pitting, punctures, scoring and
digestion), rodent gnawing, abrasion, root
etching, and weathering; and (4) damage
inflicted by human subsistence behavior
such as cutmarks, impact and percussion
fractures, and burning. The interpretation
of much of the summary data is facilitated
by a strong foundation of actualistic
research on the production of bone surface
damage by various taphonomic agents
(carnivores and human butchery in
particular) often under controlled
experimental conditions (Blumenschine,
1988, 1995; see Dominguez-Rodrigo, 2002
for additional references). Patterns
identified in the summary table can be
compared to actualistic data to derive
secure interpretations that can be used to
direct investigation in the second and third
research stages.


Investigations of Assemblage Completeness
and Fragmentation

The next stage employs a series of problem-
oriented analyses that assess the quality of
preservation, the nature of attritional biases,
and the fragmentation of the faunal
assemblage. Attrition is assessed by
comparing the representation of skeletal
parts to a complete skeletal model to
determine what bones or bone portions are
missing from an assemblage. The most
common patterns of attrition in bone
assemblages are density-mediatedbones
with the lowest mineral density are missing
because they were destroyed due to their
low resistance to mechanical or other
processes. Because so many taphonomic
206
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
processes can create density-mediated
biases, a fruitful starting point for
identifying attritional agents is to compare
the survivorship of prey skeletal parts to
their bone mineral density. This may
involve measuring bone mineral density
with photon densitometry (PD; e.g., Lyman,
1984, 1994) or computed tomography (CT;
Lam et al., 1999, 2003), evaluating the
ratios of proximal and distal long bone ends
with differential mineral densities (Binford,
1981), comparing the MNEs of cranial
bones to teeth (Stiner, 1994), or examining
the completeness of dense bone elements
(Lyman, 1994; Marean, 1991) among other
methods. If the results of these analyses
indicate density-mediated attrition then a
detailed taphonomic analysis should be
carried out to determine the leading causes
of attrition. Productive analyses at this
stage also include those that compare
skeletal part representation with frequencies
of taphonomic damage (i.e., carnivore
gnawing, cutmarks, fragmentation; Lyman,
1994; Marshall & Pilgram, 1991), or the
nutritional value of individual skeletal
elements or anatomical units (i.e., utility
indices; Binford, 1978; Metcalfe & Jones,
1988). If a significant relationship exists
then influential agents of assemblage
attrition can be identified.


Assemblage Subgroup Comparisons

The third stage of analysis allows the
investigator to move beyond issues of
equifinality to refine and further investigate
the role of influential agents identified in
previous stages of analysis using
independent lines of evidence. This stage
compares patterns of attrition, bone
fracture, and the frequency of bone surface
damage amongst subgroups of an
assemblage that are expected to be
differentially affected by the taphonomic
agent of interest. In fact, any of the
taphonomic variables evaluated in stages 1
and 2 can be re-evaluated for different
subgroups. The contribution of a
taphonomic agent can be confirmed or
rejected using subgroup comparisons
according to the following procedure: (1)
establish what kind of signature an agent
will leave on bones (i.e., will it fragment,
erode, crush, burn, cut, or differentially
destroy bones based on mineral density);
(2) specify how different subgroups (e.g.,
elements of different prey type, age, or
bone density) of an assemblage will be
affected by the agent; and (3) compare the
signatures of the taphonomic agent across
subgroups. It is this final analytical stage
that allows us to circumvent equifinality
and gain high-resolution insight into the
taphonomic histories of zooarchaeological
assemblages.


An Epipaleolithic Case Study from the
Southern Levant

We illustrate the multivariate approach
using data collected from six
zooarchaeological assemblages from five
Epipaleolithic sites in northern Israel (Table
2). The sites are similar in that they are
semi-sedentary habitations located within
50 kilometers of one another in the
Mediterranean zone. All sites are located
within 10 kilometers of the present
coastline, but differ in their chronological
position within the Epipaleolithic period.
Nahal Hadera V dates to the Kebaran (21-
207
Bar-Oz & Munro
17 cal. kya), Hefzibah and Neve-David to
the Geometric Kebaran (17-14.5 cal. kya),
Hayonim Cave to the Early (14.5-13 cal.
kya) and Late Natufian (13-11.5 cal. kya),
and el-Wad Terrace to the Late Natufian
period. All assemblages are from open-air
sites, except those from Hayonim Cave, and
contain high densities of cultural remains
including animal bone. Each assemblage
was collected using rigorous recovery
methods and was sorted and analyzed by
the authors using similar protocols (see
Munro & Bar-Oz 2005, for details).
Although relative abundances vary,
mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) is the
dominant taxon in all assemblages and is
followed by varying proportions of other
ungulates including fallow deer (Dama
mesopotamica), red deer (Cervus elaphus),
roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar
(Sus scrofa), wild goat (Capra aegagrus),
and wild cattle (Bos primigenius). All
assemblages also include variable
proportions of small prey taxa, namely
Mediterranean spur-thighed tortoise
(Testudo graeca), hare (Lepus capensis),
partridge (Alectoris chukar), and other birds
(mainly waterfowl). Although the types of
prey are similar, there are gradual increases
in the frequencies of gazelle and small
game across the Epipaleolithic sequence. A
previous study of five of these assemblages
used a multivariate approach to investigate
the intensity of gazelle carcass use in the
Levantine Epipaleolithic. The research
concluded that the survivorship of gazelle
skeletal parts in each of the assemblages
was determined first and foremost by the
extraction of bone fats (grease and marrow;
Munro & Bar-Oz, 2005).


Table 2. The six Epipaleolithic (21-11.5 cal. Kya) assemblages from the southern Levant case
study. Sites are arranged in chronological order.
Site Cultural phase Geographic location Reference
Nahal Hadera V Early Kebaran



Northern coastal Plain
Bar-Oz & Dayan
2002
Hefzibah 7-18 Geometric Kebaran Bar-Oz & Dayan,
2003
Neve-David Geometric Kebaran Northern coastal Plain
western slopes of Mt. Carmel
Bar-Oz et al., 1999
Hayonim Cave Early Natufian


Lower Galilee
Mediterranean foothills
Munro 2001, 2004
Hayonim Cave Late Natufian

Munro 2001, 2004
el-Wad Terrace Late Natufian

Northern coastal Plain
western slopes of Mt. Carmel
Bar-Oz et al., 2004
2
0
8










M
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
i
a
t
e

T
a
p
h
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h


Quantitative data NHV KEB HEF G-KEB ND G-KEB HAYC LN HAYC EN EWT LN
NISP 19513 8507 2516 7354 8159 2899
MNI 385 140 95 118 205 73
Ungulate Evenness 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
% Gazelle of total ungulate NISP 68 76 65 90 89 97
% Small game of total NISP 4.2 3.6 4.7 64.0 61.0 17.4
Gazelle bone damage of natural taphonomic agents
% Weathered stage 3 or higher 12.9 11.9 3.0 0.7 0.6 2.8
% Root etching 9.5 3.0 2.6 4.1 5.8 0.6
% Abrasion <1.0 2.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
% Carnivore gnawed 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4
% Rodent gnawed 0.1 0 0 1.5 1.5 0.3
Gazelle bone damage by human subsistence behavior
% Gazelle long bone NISP with cut marks 0.6 1.1 3.8 1.6 2.4 3.8
% Gazelle long bone shaft fragment NISP with
hammerstone impact notches
1.4 2.5 - 7.0 6.3 2.4
% Burned gazelle NISP 8.1 16.5 - 23.5 11.0 15.2
Table 3. Values of key taphonomic variables for Levantine Epipaleolithic assemblages. Unless otherwise noted, % refers to the
percentage of gazelle bone fragments (NISP) affected by the variable of interest.
209
Bar-Oz & Munro
Taphonomic Summary of the Epipaleolithic
assemblages

Table 3 summarizes frequency
counts of relevant taphonomic variables
from the Levantine Epipaleolithic
assemblages. Taphonomic variables were
selected based on their relevance for
Levantine Epipaleolithic site formation, the
quality of available actualistic models for
comparison, and their general applicability
to larger taphonomic issues (Table 3). The
selected variables include carnivore
gnawing (punctures, scoring, and
dragmarks), weathering, rodent gnawing,
and root etching, among others.
Taphonomic variables were also selected by
their potential to address the intensity of
gazelle carcass use (i.e., gazelle cutmarks,
impact notches, percussion marks,
fractures, fragmentation, burning, and
completeness indices of small dense
elements).
The frequency of most taphonomic
surface damage types is similar among
sites, although a few informative
differences exist (Table 1). First, the
relative abundance of small game and the
frequency of gazelle relative to other
ungulate species are highest in the Natufian
assemblages. Similar differences in prey
relative abundances exist between Natufian
and earlier Epipaleolithic assemblages from
across the southern Levant. The shifts have
been interpreted as signals of intensified
hunting in response to increased human
population size, climatic instability and
increased sedentism beginning in the Early
Natufian (Bar-Oz, 2004; Davis, 1991;
Munro, 2004; Tchernov, 1993; Stiner et al.,
1999, 2000). Second, at the open air sites
of Nahal Hadera V and Hefzibah the
frequency of bones weathered to
Behrensmeyers (1978) stage 3 or higher
exceed those from the other sites. This
difference is likely attributable to the
location of these sites in a sand dune
environment (Bar-Oz, 2004). Third, the
frequency of burning in the Late Natufian
gazelle assemblage from Hayonim Cave is
much greater than that of the other
assemblages. This pattern extends to all
animal taxa from Hayonim Cave which are
characterized by higher frequencies of
burning in the Late than in the Early
Natufian (Munro, 2001). High frequencies
of burning in the Late Natufian assemblage
were caused by the construction of a
Byzantine glass furnace which was dug into
the Late Natufian deposits (Bar-Yosef,
1991) and subsequently burned all
archaeological bones in its vicinity.
The differences (Table 3) result
from long term changes in subsistence
behaviors and different depositional
settings. Both of these factors have the
potential to substantially impact the
structure of zooarchaeological assemblages,
but the similar expression of most
taphonomic variables in our assemblages
indicate that this is not the case here.
Instead, our assemblages appear to have
experienced fairly uniform depositional
histories. The multivariate table also
facilitates comparison of the relative
contribution of the effects of various
taphonomic processes. The low
frequencies of natural damage types
indicate that although non-cultural factors
affected our assemblagesin some cases
more than othersthe bones are in good
condition overall. Table 3 does not reveal
the effects of a dominant taphonomic agent,
although the presence of cutmarks,
210
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
hammerstone impact notches, and high
frequencies of fresh fractures clearly
designate humans as important agents of
assemblage formation.
The comparison of taphonomic
summaries from multiple assemblages may
reveal informative differences that highlight
local variation in a site or regions
taphonomic history. For example, carnivore
damage has been shown to be common in
Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages
in Africa, Europe and even the southern
Levant, but is rare or absent in our
assemblages. The low frequency of
carnivore modification including gross
gnawing, tooth scoring, pitting, puncturing
and digestion indicates that Epipaleolithic
assemblages were not accumulated or
significantly altered by carnivores. This
observation is strongly supported by data
from other Levantine Epipaleolithic and
Neolithic assemblages (L. Horwitz personal
communication, 2004; Martin, 1994:330;
Rabinovich, 1998a, 1998b; Rabinovich &
Hovers, 2004; and references in
Rabinovich, 2002). The paucity of
carnivore gnawing in Levantine
Epipaleolithic assemblages is likely
attributable to a combination of several
factors. First, if animal bones were cooked,
boiled and/or thoroughly processed for
marrow prior to disposal (see below), their
reduced nutritional value likely made them
less attractive to carnivores (Bernabeu et
al., 2001; Lupo, 1995; Morey & Klippel,
1991; Speth, 2000). Actualistic experiments
using wild carnivores and captive hyenas
(Crocuta crocuta) have identified few
carnivore tooth marks on human-processed
assemblages (Blumenschine, 1986, 1988;
Marean & Spencer, 1991; Marean et al.,
1992), since bones become undesirable to
predators once bone fats have been
removed. Intensive fragmentation caused
by grease extraction (Outram, 2001; Speth
& Spielmann, 1983) may further reduce the
attractiveness of bones to carnivores.
Second, acceleration of the trend toward
sedentism in the early Epipaleolithic likely
further discouraged carnivores from
scavenging bone from human collected
assemblages. By occupying their sites for
longer periods, humans may have
inadvertently protected their trash from
scavengers (Bunn, 1993; Speth, 2000;
Yellen, 1991). Furthermore, bones have
been shown to lose their attractiveness to
scavengers after they have been exposed on
the surface for a few days or more (Binford,
et al. 1988; Blumenschine, 1986; Yellen,
1991). Ethnographic evidence from long-
term occupations indicates low exposure to
carnivores (Bunn, 1991, 1993). Finally, it
appears that several of the larger carnivores
such as the hyenas (Hyaena hyaena,
Crocuta crocuta) and other bone-collectors
including wolves (Canis lupus) and big cats
(Panthera leo, Panthera pardus), are rare
or absent in the Levant by the
Epipaleolithic (Dayan, 1994; Kurtn, 1965;
Rabinovich, 2002). By this time (ca 21 kya
cal), the Mediterranean carnivore guild was
dominated by small taxa (e.g., Vulpes
vulpes, Felis chaus, Meles meles, Martes
foina, Vormela perugusna), few of which
scavenge and/or consume bone (Dayan,
1994; Kurtn, 1965). Undoubtedly, a
combination of these factors contributed to
the lack of carnivore damage in our
assemblages. This observation is of great
importance given the major role that
carnivore gnawing has been attributed in
assemblages that have provided evidence
for both density-mediated biases and
2
1
1











B
a
r
-
O
z

&

M
u
n
r
o


Analyses of density-mediated
attrition
NHV KEB HEF G-KEB ND G-KEB HAYC EN HAYC LN EWT LN
Spearman's r gazelle bone survivor-
ship vs. bone density (n=25)
r
s
=0.50;
p=0.01
r
s
=0.46;
p=0.02
r
s
=0.52;
p<0.01
r
s
=0.41;
p =0.04
r
s
=0.65;
p <0.001
r
s
=0.40;
p=0.04
Ratio of proximal to distal gazelle
humerus
0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.22
Tooth to cranial bone-based MNI
(mammals)
92 98 87 65 100 88
Fragmentation analyses (gazelle)
% Complete astragalus 75 79 77 87 88 79
% Complete central fourth tarsal 68 60 65 83 88 70
% Fresh fracture angle on long bone
shafts
64 64 54 60 59 52
Fragmentation index (NISP/MNI) 62 74 - 140 98 74
Spearman's r bone survivorship
(NISP/MNI) vs. fragmentation index
(n=28)
r
s
=0.63;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.62;
p<0.001
- r
s
=0.57;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.66;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.44;
p=0.02

Spearman's r gazelle bone survivor-
ship vs. food utility index (n=23)
r
s
=0.24;
p=0.25
r
s
=0.10;
p=0.60
r
s
=0.25;
p=0.24
r
s
=0.29;
p=0.18
r
s
=0.37;
p=0.07
r
s
=-0.17;
p=0.38
Spearman's r gazelle shaft fragmen-
tation (NISP/MNI) vs. marrow index
(n=14)
r
s
=0.63;
p<0.05
r
s
=0.84;
p<0.001
- r
s
=0.54;
p=0.05
r
s
=0.80;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.80;
p<0.001
Spearman's r gazelle bone survivor-
ship (NISP/MNI) vs. fragmentation
index (n=28)
r
s
=0.63;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.62;
p<0.001
- r
s
=0.57;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.66;
p<0.001
r
s
=0.44;
p=0.02
Analyses of food utility (gazelle)
Table 4. Results of analyses of completeness and fragmentation for the Epipaleolithic Levantine assemblages
212
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
carnivore damage (e.g., Marean and Kim,
1998; Pickering et al., 2003).


Investigations of Epipaleolithic Assemblage
Completeness and Fragmentation

The investigations of skeletal completeness
and fragmentation are designed to
determine patterns of skeletal part attrition
and its most probable cause. Analyses of in
situ attrition are good starting points
because they assess an assemblages quality
of preservation and determine the effects of
processes that occurred after skeletal parts
were disposed of by humans. We applied
two analyses of attrition to our
assemblages; both demonstrate that
attritional processes played a minor role in
assemblage formation. High representation
of cranial bones in relation to teeth (based
on MNI; after Stiner, 1994) suggests minor
in situ loss of bones by decomposition or
advanced fragmentation. Similar results for
post-burial attrition were obtained using
Mareans (1991) completeness index for the
tarsal bones. The percentage of complete
astragals and central fourth tarsals ranges
from 60-70% at the open-air sites of
Hefzibah and Nahal Hadera V to 92% in
the Early Natufian assemblage of Hayonim
Cave. In combination with the low
frequencies of natural damage shown in
Table 3, these results suggest that the
Epipaleolithic assemblages did not suffer
considerably from post-depositional decay.
Next the assemblages were
examined for evidence of density-mediated
attrition. We found a positive and
significant relationship between gazelle
bone survivorship (%MNI; Lyman, 1994)
and bone structural density (based on
BMD
1
values for Rangifer tarandus; Lam
et al., 1999; Table 4). In all cases, the
representation of gazelle skeletal elements
was affected by density-mediated attritional
processes. The low ratio of low-density
proximal to dense distal gazelle humeri
(based on MNE, data from Munro & Bar-
Oz, 2005) also points to density-mediated
attritional processes that occurred prior to
or following deposition as the primary
determinant of gazelle bone loss.
Further exploration of bone
survivorship was undertaken through
detailed inspection of our gazelle skeletal
part profiles. Figure 1 shows that the
representation of gazelle skeletal elements
(%MAU) is similar in five of the studied
assemblages. All skeletal part profiles are
biased against the vertebral column and
ribs, but are rich in heads, limbs including
the pelvis and scapula, and toes, except at
Hayonim Cave where heads are
underrepresented. Compression of
individual elements into anatomical units
allows consideration of skeletal biases that
may have resulted from the transport of
prey. We have color coded our elements to
distinguish Stiners (1994, 2002) nine
anatomical regions (horn, head, neck, axial
skeleton, upper forelimb, lower forelimb,
upper hindlimb, lower hindlimb, and toes).
The fairly complete representation of
skeletal elements with the exception of
vertebrae and ribs suggests that entire
skeletons were transported to the sites and
that the differential representation does not
result from variation in transport decisions.
The relationship between gazelle bone
survivorship and the food utility index
(FUI; Metcalfe & Jones, 1988) provides
negative and insignificant results, with a
low margin of observed variance (Table 4).
213
Bar-Oz & Munro
Figure 1. Skeletal part representation of gazelle from five Levantine Epipalaeolithic assemblages. Data is not
available from Neve David.






0
20
40
60
80
100
H
o
r
n
S
k
u
l
l
M
a
n
d
i
b
l
e
V
e
r
.

C
e
r
v
i
c
a
l
V
e
r
.

T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
V
e
r
.

L
u
m
b
a
r
R
i
b
s
S
c
a
p
u
l
a
H
u
m
e
r
u
s
R
a
d
i
u
s
U
l
n
a
M
e
t
a
c
a
r
p
u
s
C
a
r
p
a
l
s
P
e
l
v
i
s
F
e
m
u
r
T
i
b
i
a
P
a
t
e
l
l
a
T
a
r
s
a
l
s
M
e
t
a
t
a
r
s
a
l
T
o
e
s
%
M
A
U
0
20
40
60
80
100
H
o
r
n
S
k
u
l
l
M
a
n
d
i
b
l
e
V
e
r
.

C
e
r
v
i
c
a
l
V
e
r
.

T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
V
e
r
.

L
u
m
b
a
r
R
i
b
s
S
c
a
p
u
l
a
H
u
m
e
r
u
s
R
a
d
i
u
s
U
l
n
a
M
e
t
a
c
a
r
p
u
s
C
a
r
p
a
l
s
P
e
l
v
i
s
F
e
m
u
r
T
i
b
i
a
P
a
t
e
l
l
a
T
a
r
s
a
l
s
M
e
t
a
t
a
r
s
a
l
T
o
e
s
%
M
A
U
0
20
40
60
80
100
H
o
r
n
S
k
u
l
l
M
a
n
d
i
b
l
e
V
e
r
.

C
e
r
v
i
c
a
l
V
e
r
.

T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
V
e
r
.

L
u
m
b
a
r
R
i
b
s
S
c
a
p
u
l
a
H
u
m
e
r
u
s
R
a
d
i
u
s
U
l
n
a
M
e
t
a
c
a
r
p
u
s
C
a
r
p
a
l
s
P
e
l
v
i
s
F
e
m
u
r
T
i
b
i
a
P
a
t
e
l
l
a
T
a
r
s
a
l
s
M
e
t
a
t
a
r
s
a
l
T
o
e
s
%
M
A
U
0
20
40
60
80
100
H
o
r
n
S
k
u
l
l
M
a
n
d
i
b
l
e
V
e
r
.

C
e
r
v
i
c
a
l
V
e
r
.

T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
V
e
r
.

L
u
m
b
a
r
R
i
b
s
S
c
a
p
u
l
a
H
u
m
e
r
u
s
R
a
d
i
u
s
U
l
n
a
M
e
t
a
c
a
r
p
u
s
C
a
r
p
a
l
s
P
e
l
v
i
s
F
e
m
u
r
T
i
b
i
a
P
a
t
e
l
l
a
T
a
r
s
a
l
s
M
e
t
a
t
a
r
s
a
l
T
o
e
s
%
M
A
U
0
20
40
60
80
100
H
o
r
n
S
k
u
l
l
M
a
n
d
i
b
l
e
V
e
r
.

C
e
r
v
i
c
a
l
V
e
r
.

T
h
o
r
a
c
i
c
V
e
r
.

L
u
m
b
a
r
R
i
b
s
S
c
a
p
u
l
a
H
u
m
e
r
u
s
R
a
d
i
u
s
U
l
n
a
M
e
t
a
c
a
r
p
u
s
C
a
r
p
a
l
s
P
e
l
v
i
s
F
e
m
u
r
T
i
b
i
a
P
a
t
e
l
l
a
T
a
r
s
a
l
s
M
e
t
a
t
a
r
s
a
l
T
o
e
s
%
M
A
U
NHV KEB








HEF G-KEB








HAYC EN








HAYC LN








EWT LN

214
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
Lack of association between bone
abundance and utility coupled with a
significant relationship between bone
abundance and density indicate that the
Epipaleolithic bone assemblages were
affected by density-mediated destruction
but not by selective transport. It looks,
instead, as though most skeletal parts were
transported and that survivorship was
largely determined by human activities at
each site.
The presence of a density-
mediated bias in the gazelle assemblages,
despite the good quality of preservation and
the lack of evidence for human transport
biases, pinpoints human processing as the
major formation agent. We investigated the
influence of human processing in our
assemblages by initiating a series of tests on
bone fragmentation. Analysis of the
breakage patterns of gazelle long bone
shafts (following Villa & Mahieu, 1991)
revealed a predominance of fresh (green)
bone fractures and low proportions of dry
bone fractures (Table 4). The high
frequencies of green breaks suggest that
bones were broken when fresh, possibly for
marrow extraction. We found a significant
positive relationship between bone shaft
fragmentation (NISP/MNE of bone shafts)
and marrow values (based on domestic
sheep; Binford, 1978). Similarly, we found
a strong negative relationship between
gazel l e bone survi vor shi p and
fragmentation (NISP/MNI) in all of the
Epipaleolithic assemblages (Munro & Bar-
Oz, 2005). This suggests that low-density
cancellous bone is underrepresented
because it was highly fragmented, perhaps
due to grease processing.
The preceding exploration of
skeletal part representation enabled us to
characterize the attritional patterns in our
assemblages and to identify humans as a
likely agent of bone fragmentation. This
led us to select analyses to evaluate human
processing, but the nature of the
multivariate approach provides the
flexibility to choose from many other
analyses if the outcome had been different.
For example, if we had discovered that our
skeletal part patterns were determined
largely by human transport decisions we
may have chosen to investigate the
relationship between skeletal part
representation of taxa with different body
size and a variety of utility indices
(Binford, 1978; Klein, 1989). Likewise, if
there had been strong evidence for
carnivore gnawing we may have selected
analyses that examined the skeletal
distribution of carnivore damage
(Blumenschine, 1986), the correspondence
between human cutmarks and carnivore
gnawing, or the angle of our green fractures
to distinguish humans from carnivore
agents (Pickering et al., 2004). The
investigations of skeletal completeness
indicate the human processing of bones for
marrow and possibly grease were the
leading cause of attrition in our
assemblages.


Comparisons of Subgroups of the Natufian
Assemblages from Hayonim Cave

We used intrasite comparisons to evaluate
if marrow extraction was responsible for
the fragmentation and survivorship of
gazelle cortical bones. Actualistic data
indicate that marrow extraction
preferentially fragments bones that contain
the most marrow. Results of our earlier
215
Bar-Oz & Munro
analyses indicate that the degree of
fragmentation (NISP/MNE) of gazelle
marrow-bearing bones was indeed linked to
bone marrow content. However, because
attrition in the gazelle assemblages was also
density-mediated, we wished to confirm
that marrow extraction was a leading cause
of fragmentation using additional lines of
evidence. We thus compared the gazelle
data to subgroups of our assemblage that
yielded lower quantities of bone marrow,
and had lower bone densities. We
specifically chose groups that differed in
both bone mineral density and marrow
content to distinguish the influence of
density-mediated attrition from marrow
extraction. It is the inverse relationship
between marrow content and bone density
that makes this analysis especially
informative. First, we compared the
fragmentation of gazelle long bone shafts to
those of hare and partridge. Gazelle long
bone shafts contain more marrow and are
composed of thick, dense cortical bone in
comparison to hare and partridge. Second,
we compared the fragmentation of adult
versus juvenile gazelle long bone shafts.
Because of their porous nature, juvenile
bone is both less dense and more fragile
than adult bone, but it contains much lower
quantities of fat-rich yellow marrow
(Currey, 2002). In both cases we found that
the bone shafts that encased the greatest
marrow stores (gazelle and adult gazelle)
were the most fragmented, despite higher
mineral densities (Munro & Bar-Oz, 2005).
These results confirm that gazelle long
bone shaft breakage is not mediated by
Table 5. Taphonomic data for gazelle, hare and partridge subgroups from the Early and Late Natufian
assemblages of Hayonim Cave.
HAYC EN HAYC LN
Gazelle Hare Partridge Gazelle Hare Partridge
NISP 2527 1560 1228 1773 417 449
MNI 18 26 25 18 7 9
% Assemblage (NISP) 31 19 15 24 7 6
% Burned (NISP) 11 29 17 24 35 19
% Survivorship versus
bone mineral density
r
s
=0.41;
p=0.04;
n=25
r
s
=0.31;
p=0.16;
n=21
n.a. r
s
=0.65;
p<0.001;
n=25
r
s
=0.17;
p=0.46;
n=21
n.a
NISP/MNI 140 60 49 99 60 50
% Complete bones 21 37 20 20 25 19
Average fragment length
(cm)
2.7+/-1.7 1.8+/-1.2 2.1+/-1.2 2.8+/-2.1 2.1+/-1.4 2.0+/-1.1
% Complete long bone
shafts (MNE)
13 (71) 42 (284) 97 (65) 16 (79) 38 (95) 78 (27)
216
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
HAYC EN
Gazelle Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult
NISP 387 804 333 599
MNI 5 15 5 16
NISP/MNI 77.4 53.6 66.6 37.4
% of Aged Specimens 33 68 36 64
% Burned 7 11 11 26
% Long bones with cutmarks (NISP) 4 (147) 8 (281) 3 (141) 4 (219)
% Complete elements 29 29 26 28
Average fragment length (cm) 3.0+/-2.1 2.7+/-1.4 2.6+/-1.8 2.7+/-1.9
% Complete long bone shafts (NISP) 20 (147) 1 (281) 12 (141) 3 (219)
% Complete phalanx 1 and 2 (MNE) 76 (80) 53 (166) 82 (55) 51 (138)
HAYC LN
bone density but by preferentially targeted
marrow content. Although our gazelle
assemblages are characterized by
statistically significant density-mediated
biases, the recognition that other subgroups
of the assemblages were not affected by this
bias enabled us to isolate human processing
as the most likely agent of gazelle
assemblage formation.
To further demonstrate the utility
of the intrasite comparisons we present
additional multivariate tables that compare
the expression of taphonomic variables in
subgroups of the Hayonim Cave
assemblage. Table 5 compares the skeletal
parts of different prey taxagazelle,
partridges and harewhich vary in body
size, nutritional yields, and cortical bone
thickness. Table 6 compares juvenile and
adult gazelle skeletal parts which also differ
in body size, bone density (Munson &
Garniewicz, 2003), and the yield of in-bone
nutrients. The taphonomic variables
recorded in Tables 5 and 6 include aspects
of bone fragmentation and frequencies of
surface damage caused by natural and
cultural agents. Intertaxonomic
comparisons highlight variability in the
extent of fragmentation and the frequency
of surface damage types that were not
apparent in our examinations of a single
taxon (gazelle). These comparisons can
inform us about differential treatment of
prey taxa and animals of different ages.
They thus allow us to eliminate agents that
are expected to treat all bones equally and
to focus on those that are expected to
differentially affect bones of different ages
or from different taxa.

Table 6. Taphonomic data for adult and juvenile gazelle subgroups from the Early and Late Natufian
assemblages from Hayonim Cave. Unless otherwise noted, % refers to the percentage of juvenile and
adult gazelle bone fragments (NISP) affected by the variable of interest.
217
Bar-Oz & Munro
Differential fragmentation and
burning of hare, partridge and gazelle bones
suggest that different processing and food
preparation strategies were applied to
different species, and that this difference
was related to more than just prey body
size. More detailed comparisons of
butchering data (i.e., prey skeletal part
representation, cutmarks, hammerstone
impact notches, and burning by skeletal
part; Munro, 2001) are not reported here,
but indicate that hare and partridge bones
were less intensively processed than those
of gazelle, despite the fact that all three
animals display evidence for meat
processing. These observations are
supported by data in Table 5 which indicate
that hare and partridge bones are less
fragmented than those of gazelle, despite
greater fragility. A similar interpretation
can be put forth for juvenile versus adult
gazelle, which have similar cut mark
patterns, although the adult long bone shafts
are more fragmented than the juveniles.
This suggests that although only adult
skeletons were butchered for bone fats,
juvenile animals were still hunted for their
meat. This observation has special
implications for intensification trends at
Hayonim Cave where progressively larger
proportions of juvenile gazelles were
hunted over time, despite the fact that these
animals yielded less meat and could not be
exploited for their bone fat. Clearly, the
subgroup comparisons play a crucial role in
refining the observations drawn at earlier
stages of taphonomic research and allow us
the detection of patterns in our
assembl ages ot herwi se compl ex
taphonomic histories.


Discussion and Conclusions

Using the multivariate approach we
conclude that human processing for marrow
and possibly grease is the primary
determinant of gazelle bone survivorship
and the key source of density-mediated
attrition in the assemblages from our
Epipaleolithic case study. Furthermore, our
assemblages were only minimally impacted
by natural post-depositional processes
including carnivore gnawing, and human
transport was not a factor in biasing
assemblage composition. These results are
supported by multiple lines of independent
evidence derived from several subroups in
our assemblages.
Our case study focused on
assemblages that were formed largely by
human processing. Clearly, there is great
variability in the influence and combination
of taphonomic factors that may affect
assemblages originating from different time
periods and geographic regions. The
multivariate taphonomic approach can be
applied to all types of bone assemblages,
and will improve knowledge of the range of
possible depositional histories that originate
from human or natural processes or a
combination thereof. Sites that are
particularly relevant for the multivariate
approach are those with strong
representation of multiple subgroups. Good
candidates include bone assemblages with
large samples of domestic and wild animals
(Bernabeu et al., 2001), two or more
different prey types (Klein, 1989), or
juvenile and adult age groups. These
studies allow us to fine-tune our
understanding of the depositional history
and economic structure of a given
assemblage and will lead to meaningful
218
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
A final benefit of the multivariate
approach is its ability to examine
zooarchaeological data on multiple scales.
The intrasite analyses which compare
subgroups within an assemblage allow
high-resolution reconstructions of
taphonomic processes that acted on
subgroups of the assemblage. These enable
us to reconstruct local-scale taphonomic
histories that are specific to individual sites.
The multivariate approach also provides a
framework to undertake broad-scale
intersite comparisons of taphonomic data.
This facilitates the construction of a larger
regional picture which can take us beyond
cautionary tales and enable us to address
substantial questions regarding human
behavior.


Acknowledgements

We thank Annat Haber, R. Lee Lyman, and
an anonymous reviewer for their careful
reading and thoughtful comments on earlier
drafts of this paper. GBOs research was
supported by the Irene Levi Sala CARE
Archaeological Foundation and was carried
out when GBO was a Clore Doctoral
Fellow at the Department of Zoology, Tel-
Aviv University. NDMs research was
supported by grants from the National
Science Foundation (Dissertation
Improvement Grant SBR-9815083), the
Levi Sala CARE Archaeological
Foundation, and doctoral fellowships from
the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and
the Department of Anthropology at the
University of Arizona (Haury Dissertation
Fellowship).

conclusions concerning issues of
equifinality and skeletal part representation.
The wealth of knowledge
accumulated over thirty years of
taphonomic research has taught us about
the limitations and complexities of
zooarchaeological data (Gifford-Gonzalez,
1991; Lyman, 1994; and others). At the
forefront of these limitations has been the
problem of equifinalitysince many
taphonomic processes have been shown to
produce similar attritional biases, in
particular those mediated by bone mineral
density. The papers in this volume indicate
that equifinality in skeletal part
representation must be resolved at different
stages in the taphonomic pathway, in
particular during pre- and post-depositional
and analytical stages. We recognize the
significance of the methodological issues,
but have focused specifically on the
attritional sources of equifinality. The
leading attritional cause of equifinality in
taphonomic studies is the density-mediated
bias, which can result from the action of
numerous taphonomic factors. The density-
mediated agents that have received the most
attention in the Paleolithic literature include
carnivore ravaging and fluvial transport
(e.g., Marean & Cleghorn, 2003; Pickering
et al., 2003; Behrensmeyer, 1975).
Detailed assessment of our Levantine
Epipaleolithic assemblages, however,
reveals that neither of these agents played
substantial roles in assemblage formation,
although we have significant evidence for
density-mediated attrition. The multivariate
approach established that the source of
density-mediated biases were not the result
of a single taphonomic agent, but of a
combination of human activities, namely
marrow and grease processing
219
Bar-Oz & Munro
References

Bar-Oz, G. (2004). Epipalaeolithic subsistence
strategies in the Levant: a zooarchaeological
perspective. American School of Prehistoric
Research (ASPR) Monograph Series, Brill
Academic Publishers Inc., Boston.
Bar-Oz, G. & Dayan, T. (2002). After twenty years:
a taphonomic re-evaluation of Nahal Hadera V, an
Epipalaeolithic site on the Israeli coastal plain.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 29:145-156.
Bar-Oz, G. & Dayan, T. (2003). Testing the use of
multivariate inter-site taphonomic comparisons:
the faunal analysis of Hefzibah in its
Epipalaeolithic cultural context. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 30:885-900.
Bar-Oz, G., Dayan, T. and Kaufman, D. (1999). The
Epipalaeolithic faunal sequence in Israel: a view
from Neve-David. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 26:67-82.
Bar-Oz, G., Dayan, T., Weinstein-Evron, M. &
Kaufman, D. (2004). The Natufian economy at el-
Wad Terrace with special reference to gazelle
exploitation patterns. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 31:217-231.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). The archaeology of the Natufian
layer at Hayonim Cave. In (Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla,
F. R., eds.) The Natufian culture in the Levant.
Ann Arbor: International Monographs in
Prehistory, pp. 81-92.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1975). The taphonomy and
paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene vertebrate
assemblages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bulletin
of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 146:473-
578.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1978). Taphonomic and
ecological information from bone weathering.
Paleobiology, 4:150-162.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1991). Terrestrial vertebrate
accumulations. In (Allison, P. A & Briggs, D. E.
G., eds.) Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in
the fossil record. Topics in Geobiology Vol. 9.
New York: Plenum Press, pp. 291-335.
Bernabeu, J., Barton, M. C. & Perez Ripoll, M. (2001).
A taphonomic perspective on Neolithic
beginnings: theory interpretation, and empirical
data in the western Mediterranean. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 28:597-612.
Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology.
Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: ancient men and modern
myths. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R., Mills, L. G. L. & Stone, N. M. (1988).
Hyena scavenging behavior and its implication for
the interpretation of faunal assemblages from FLK
22 (the Zinj floor) at Olduvai Gorge. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 7:99-135.
Blumenschine, R. J. (1986). Early hominid scavenging
opportunities: implications of carcass availability
in the Serengeti and Ngorongoro ecosystems. BAR
International Series, 243. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
Blumenschine, R. J. (1988). An experimental model of
the timing of hominid and carnivore influence on
archaeological bone assemblages. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 15:483-502.
Blumenschine, R. J. (1995). Percussion marks, tooth
marks and the experimental determination of the
timing of hominid and carnivore access to long
bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution, 29: 21-51.
Bunn, H. T. (1991). A taphonomic perspective on the
archaeology of human origins. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 20:433-467.
Bunn, H. T. (1993). Bone assemblages at base camps:
a further consideration of carcass transport and
bone destruction by the Hadza. In (Hudson, J., ed.)
From bones to behavior: ethnoarchaeological and
experimental contributions to the interpretation of
faunal remains. Center for archaeological
investigations. Occasional paper No. 21, Illinois:
Southern Illinois University, pp. 156-168.
Currey, J. D. (2002). Bone structure and mechanics.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Davis, S. J. M. (1991). When and why did prehistoric
people domesticated animals? Some evidence from
Israel and Cyprus. In (Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F.
R., eds.) The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann
Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, pp.
381-390.
Dayan, T. (1994). Carnivore diversity in the late
Quaternary of Israel. Quaternary Research,
41:343-349.
Domnguez-Rodrigo, M. (2002). Hunting and
scavenging by early humans: the state of the
debate. Journal of World Prehistory, 16: 1-54.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. (1991). Bones are not enough:
analogues, knowledge and interpretive strategies in
zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 10:215-254.
Klein, R. G. (1989). Why does skeletal part
representation differ between smaller and larger
bovids at Klasies River Mouth and other
archaeological sites? Journal of Archaeological
220
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach
Science, 16:363-381.
Kurtn, B. (1965). Canivora of the Palestine caves.
Acta Zoologica Fennica, 107:1-74.
Lam, Y. M., Chen, X., & Pearson, O. M. (1999).
Intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone
density and the differential representation of bovid,
cervid, and equid elements in the archaeological
record. American Antiquity, 64:343-362.
Lam, Y. M., Pearson, O. M., Marean, C. W. & Chen,
X. (2003). Bone density studies in zooarchaeology.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 30 1701-1708.
Lupo, K. D. (1995). Hadza bone assemblages and
hyena attrition: an ethnographic example of the
influence of cooking and mode of discard on the
intensity of scavenger ravaging. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 14:288-314.
Lyman, R. L. (1984). Bone density and differential
survivorship of fossil classes. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 3:259-299.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate taphonomy.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marean, C. W. (1991). Measuring the postdepositional
destruction of bone in archaeological assemblages.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 18:677-694.
Marean, C. W. and Cleghorn, N. (2003). Large
mammal skeletal element transport: applying
foraging theory in a complex taphonomic system.
Journal of Taphonomy, 1:15-42.
Marean, C. W. & Kim, S. Y. (1998). Mousterian large
mammal remains from Kobeh cave: behavioral
implications for Neanderthals and Early Modern
Human. Current Anthropology, 39:S79-S113.
Marean, C. W. and Spencer, L. M. (1991). Impact of
carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures
of element abundant. American Antiquity, 56:645-
658.
Marean, C. W., Spencer, L. M., Blumenschine, R. J. &
Capaldo, S. (1992). Captive hyena bone choice and
destruction, the Schlepp Effect, and Olduvai
archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science,
19:101-121.
Marshall, F. & Pilgram, T. K. (1991). Meat versus
within-bone nutrients: another look at the meaning
of body part representation in archaeological sites.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 18:149-163.
Martin, L. A. (1994). Hunting and herding in semi-arid
region: an archaeozoological and ethological
analysis of the faunal remains from the
Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of the eastern
Jordanian steppe. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of
Sheffield, Sheffield.
Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration
of animal body part utility indices. American
Antiquity, 53:486-504.
Morey, W. F & Klippel, W. E. (1991). Canid
scavenging and deer bone survivorship at an
Ar chai c per i od si t e i n Tennessee.
Archaeozoologica, 4:12-28.
Munro, N. D. (2001). A prelude to agriculture: game
use and occupation intensity during the Natufian
period in the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Munro, N. D. (2004). Zooarchaeological measures of
human hunting pressure and occupation intensity
in the Natufian implications for agricultural
origins. Current Anthropology 45(S4):S5-S34.
Munro, N. D. & Bar-Oz, G. (2005). Gazelle bone fat
processing in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 223-239.
Munson, P. J. & Garniewicz, R. C. (2003). Age
mediated survivorship of ungulate mandibles and
teeth in canid ravaged faunal assemblages. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 30:405-416.
Outram, A. K. (2001). A new approach to identifying
bone marrow and grease exploitation: why the
intermediate fragments should not be ignored.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 28:401-410.
Pickering, T. R., Marean, C. W. & Dominguez-
Rodrigo, M. (2003). Importance of limb bone shaft
fragments in zooarchaeology: a response to "On in
situ attrition and vertebrate body part profiles", by
M.C. Stiner. Journal of Archaeological Science,
31:588-583.
Pickering, T. R., Domnguez-Rodrigo, M. Egeland, C.
P. & Brain, C. K. (2004). The contribution of limb
bone fracture patterns to reconstructing early
hominid behavior at Swartkrans Cave (South
Africa): Archaeological application of a new
analytical method. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology, in press.
Rabinovich, R. (1998a). Patterns of animal
exploitation and subsistence in Israel, during the
Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic (40,000-
12,500 BP), based upon selected case studies.
Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel.
Rabinovich, R. (1998b). Taphonomical aspects of the
recent excavations at El-Wad (appendix III). In
(Weinstein-Evron, M., ed.) Early Natufian el-Wad
revisited, Lige: ERAUL 77, pp. 199-224.
Rabinovich, R. (2002). Man versus carnivores in the
Middle-Upper Palaeolithic of the southern Levant.
221
Bar-Oz & Munro
In (Buitenhuis, H., Al-Shiyab, A. H., Mashkour,
M. & Choyke, A., eds.) Archaeozoology of the
Near East V. Groningen: Groningen Institute for
Archaeology, pp. 22-39.
Rabinovich, R. & Hovers, E. (2004). Faunal analysis
from Amud cave: preliminary results and
interpretations. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology, 14:287306.
Speth, J. D. (2000). Boiling vs. baking and roasting: a
taphonomic approach to the recognition of
cooking techniques in small mammals. In
(Rowley-Conwy, P., ed.) Animal bones human
societies. Oxford: Oxbow books, pp. 89-105.
Speth, J. D. & Spielmann, K. A. (1983). Energy
source, protein metabolism, and hunter-gatherer
subsistence strategies. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 2:1-34.
Stiner, M. C. (1992). Overlapping species choice by
Italian Upper Pleistocene predators. Current
Anthropology, 33:433-451.
Stiner, M. C. (1994). Honor among thieves: a
zooarchaeological study of Neanderthal ecology.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Stiner, M. C. (2002). On in situ attrition and vertebrate
body part Profiles. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 29:979-991.
Stiner, M. C., Munro, N. D., Surovell, T. A.,
Tchernov, E. & Bar-Yosef, O. (1999). Paleolithic
population growth pulses evidenced by small
animal exploitation. Science, 283:190-194.
Stiner, M. C., Munro, N. D. & Surovell, T. A. (2000).
The tortoise and the hare: small-game use, the
broad-spectrum revolution, and Paleolithic
demography. Current Anthropology, 41:39-73.
Tchernov, E. (1993). From sedentism to domestication
- a preliminary review for the southern Levant. In
(Clason, A., Payne, S. and Uerpmann, H-P., eds.)
Skeletons in her cupboard. Oxford: Oxbow
Monograph 34, pp. 189-233.
Villa, P. & Mahieu, E. (1991). Breakage patterns of
human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution,
21:27-48.
Yellen J. E. (1991). Small mammals: !Kung San
utilization and the production of faunal
assemblages. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 10:1-26.
222
Multivariate Taphonomic Approach