Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:16:43.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Bone Destruction: Some Comments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard W. Casteel
Richard W. Casteel*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of scavengers, especially dogs, with reference to archaeological faunal remains is not always clear. While distortion admittedly results from the activities of these animals, total destruction of all such evidence is questioned. Emphasis is placed upon fish remains in the examples and both ethnographic and archaeological data are used. It is argued that a more thorough knowledge of the nature of the food items themselves will greatly aid in assessing both their potential archaeological visibility and the information they may yield.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1971 , pp. 466 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boas, Franz 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Bureau of American Ethnology, 35th Annual Report (1913-1914), Part I, pp. 41–794.Google Scholar
Bö, könyi, S. 1969 Archaeological problems and methods of recognizing domestication. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by Peter J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 219–230. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Casteel, Richard W. 1970 Fish remains and their archaeological potential. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association and the Society for California Archaeology at Asilomar, California on March 26, 1970.Google Scholar
Colton, Harold S. 1970 The aboriginal southwestern Indian dog. American Antiquity 35:153–159.Google Scholar
Driver, Harold E. 1967 Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Driver, Harold E., and Massey, William C. 1957 Comparative studies of North American Indians. American Philosophical Society, Transactions 47:165–456.Google Scholar
Fitch, John E. 1967 Fish remains recovered from a Corona Del Mar, California, Indian midden (Ora-190). California Fish and Game 53:185–191.Google Scholar
Fitch, John E. 1969 Appendix A: Fish remains, primarily otoliths, from a Ventura, California, Chumash village site (Ven-3). Southern California Academy of Sciences, Memoirs 8:56–71.Google Scholar
Fitch, John E., and Brownell, Robert L. Jr. 1968 Fish otoliths in cetacean stomachs and their importance in interpreting feeding habits. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25:2561–2574.Google Scholar
Follett, W. I. 1965 Fish remains from the Conejo Rock Shelter site (Ven-69), Ventura County, California. Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey 1965:81–93.Google Scholar
Follett, W. I. 1967 Fish remains from coprolites and midden deposits at Lovelock Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey 70:94–115.Google Scholar
Follett, W. I. 1968 Appendix IV: Fish remains from Century Ranch site LAn-229, Los Angeles County, California. In The archaeological investigation of three sites on the Century Ranch, western Los Angeles County, California, by Chester King, Thomas Blackburn, and Ernest Chandonet. Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey 1968:132–143.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1916 Composition of California shellmounds. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 12.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A. 1965 The Conejo Rock Shelter: an inland Chumash site in Ventura County, California. Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey 1965:19–80.Google Scholar
Gove, Philip B. (Editor) 1967 Webster’s new international dictionary, 3rd Edition. G. and C. Merriam, Springfield.Google Scholar
Harrison, William M. 1965 Mikiw: a coastal Chumash village. Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey 1965:91–178.Google Scholar
Hole, Frank, and Heizer, Robert F. 1965 An Introduction to prehistoric archaeology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1941 Culture element distributions: XV salt, dogs, tobacco. Anthropological Record 6:1–20.Google Scholar
Lyon, Patricia J. 1970 Differential bone destruction: an ethnographic example. American Antiquity 35:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Movius, H. L. 1936 A neolithic site on the river Bann. Royal Irish Academy Proceedings 43:17–40.Google Scholar
Rivera, Trinita 1949 Diet of a food-gathering people, with chemical analysis of salmon and saskatoons. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 36:19–36.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A study of archeology. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Williams, L. R. 1970 Laboratory procedures, methods, and analysis of northern Chile coprolites. MS, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar