On bad terms: Problems and solutions within zooarchaeological bone surface modification studies

Abstract

The identification of butchery marks in the zooarchaeological record has consistently been debated. Much experimental work has been done to understand the causal agents behind some bone surface modifications, but recent controversies show that there is still no consensus. Terminology is not consistent between researchers, and there is ambiguity in how characteristics of marks are described and interpreted. There is also a lack of understanding of what causes individual variables within marks made by different agents, which is compounded by mark morphologies being described in terms that imply their causality. This paper examines these two problems in light of historic and current trends in the taphonomic literature, and recommends ways to describe marks that will facilitate more effective communication between researchers. It is proposed that greater standardisation within zooarchaeology is needed in seven key areas, and that this is the best avenue for moving into a new phase of taphonomic research.

Keywords:

• Terminology
• Taphonomy
• Bone surface modifications
• Zooarchaeology
• Standardisation
• Experimental

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jean-Jacques Hublin and Shannon McPherron from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany for allowing EJ access to the Nanofocus 3D laser scanning confocal microscope. We also want to thank Curtis Marean and Jake Harris from Arizona State University for allowing us access to their BSM collections for 3D scanning. Many thanks to Erik Otárola-Castillo who has helped clean up and make sense of the 3D scans upon which we have based our solutions. This manuscript benefitted from suggestions by two anonymous reviewers. Finally, big thanks to UQ for the use of lab space and storage.