Editing Taphonomy (section)

=== Archaeology ===
Taphonomy is an important study for archaeologists to better interpret archaeological sites. Since the archaeological record is often incomplete, taphonomy helps explain how it became incomplete. The methodology of taphonomy involves observing transformation processes in order to understand their impact on archaeological material and interpret patterns on real sites.<ref name=":8">{{Cite book |last1=Grant |first1=Jim |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317541110 |title=The Archaeology Coursebook |last2=Gorin |first2=Sam |last3=Fleming |first3=Neil |date=2015-03-27 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-54111-0 |edition=0 |language=en |doi=10.4324/9781315727837}}</ref> This is mostly in the form of assessing how the deposition of the preserved remains of an organism (usually animal bones) has occurred to better understand a deposit.

Whether the deposition was a result of human, animals and/or the environment is often the goal of taphonomic study. Archaeologists typically separate natural from cultural processes when identifying evidence of human interaction with faunal remains.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lyman |first=R. Lee |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781139878302/type/book |title=Vertebrate Taphonomy |date=1994-07-07 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-45215-1 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/cbo9781139878302}}</ref> This is done by looking at human processes preceding artifact discard in addition to processes after artifact discard. Changes preceding discard include butchering, skinning, and cooking. Understanding these processes can inform archaeologists on tool use or how an animal was processed.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rainsford |first1=Clare |last2=O’Connor |first2=Terry |date=June 2016 |title=Taphonomy and contextual zooarchaeology in urban deposits at York, UK |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12520-015-0268-x |journal=Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences |language=en |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=343–351 |doi=10.1007/s12520-015-0268-x |bibcode=2016ArAnS...8..343R |s2cid=127652031 |issn=1866-9557|url-access=subscription }}</ref> When the artifact is deposited, [[abiotic]] and [[Ecosystem#Definition|biotic]] modifications occur. These can include thermal alteration, rodent disturbances, gnaw marks, and the effects of soil pH to name a few.

While taphonomic methodology can be applied and used to study a variety of materials such as buried ceramics and lithics, its primary application in archaeology involves the examination of organic residues.<ref name=":1" /> Interpretation of the post-mortem, pre-, and post-burial histories of faunal assemblages is critical in determining their association with hominid activity and behaviour.<ref>{{Citation |last=Forbes |first=Shari |title=Taphonomy in Bioarchaeology and Human Osteology |date=2014 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_137 |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology |pages=7219–7225 |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=Claire |access-date=2023-05-12 |place=New York, NY |publisher=Springer New York |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_137 |isbn=978-1-4419-0426-3|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

For instance, to distinguish the bone assemblages that are produced by humans from those of non humans, much [[Ethnoarchaeology|ethnoarchaeological]] observation has been done on different human groups and carnivores, to ascertain if there is anything different in the accumulation and fragmentation of bones. This study has also come in the form of [[Excavations, Archaeological|excavation]] of animal dens and burrows to study the discarded bones and experimental breakage of bones with and without stone tools.<ref name=":9">{{Cite book |last1=Renfrew |first1=Colin |title=Archaeology Theory Methods and Practice |last2=Bahn |first2=Paul |publisher=Thames & Hudson |year=2020 |isbn=9780500843208 |edition=8th |location=London |pages=89–90 |language=en-gb}}</ref>
[[File:Australopithecus africanus - Cast of taung child.jpg|thumb|265x265px|Taphonomic study of the Taung child skull claims they were likely killed by a large bird, indicated by traces of talon cuts.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Berger |first=Lee R. |date=October 2006 |title=Brief communication: Predatory bird damage to the Taung type-skull ofAustralopithecus africanus Dart 1925 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20415 |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |language=en |volume=131 |issue=2 |pages=166–168 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.20415 |pmid=16739138 |issn=0002-9483|url-access=subscription }}</ref>]]
Studies of this kind by [[C.K. Brain]] in South Africa have shown that bone fractures previously attributed to "[[Killer ape theory|killer man-apes]]" were in fact caused by the pressure of overlying rocks and earth in limestone caves.<ref name=":9" /> His research has also demonstrated that early hominins, for example [[australopithecine]]s, were more likely preyed upon by carnivores rather than being hunters themselves, from cave sites such as [[Swartkrans]] in South Africa.<ref name=":9" />

Outside of Africa [[Lewis Binford]] observed the effects of wolves and dogs on bones in Alaska and the American Southwest, differentiating the interference of humans and carnivores on bone remains by the number of bone splinters and the number of intact articular ends. He observed that animals gnaw and attack the [[Articular bone|articular]] ends first leaving mostly bone cylinders behind, therefore it can be assumed a deposit with a high number of bone cylinders and a low number of bones with articular ends intact is therefore probably the result of carnivore activity.<ref name=":9" /> In practice John Speth applied these criteria to the bones from the [[Garnsey kill site|Garnsey]] site in New Mexico. The rarity of bone cylinders indicated that there had been minimal destruction by scavengers, and that the bone assemblage could be assumed to be wholly the result of human activity, butchering the animals for meat and marrow extraction.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Speth |first1=John D. |url=https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/6t053h67j |title=Late Prehistoric Bison Procurement in Southeastern New Mexico: The 1977 Season at the Garnsey Site |last2=Parry |first2=William J. |date=1978 |publisher=U OF M MUSEUM ANTHRO ARCHAEOLOGY |isbn=978-0-932206-73-2 |location=Ann Arbor, MI |language=en |doi=10.3998/mpub.11395480}}</ref>

One of the most important elements in this methodology is replication, to confirm the validity of results.<ref name=":8" />

There are limitations to this kind of taphonomic study in archaeological deposits as any analysis has to presume that processes in the past were the same as today, e.g that living carnivores behaved in a similar way to those in prehistoric times. There are wide variations among existing species so determining the behavioural patterns of extinct species is sometimes hard to justify. Moreover, the differences between faunal assemblages of animals and humans is not always so distinct, hyenas and humans display similar patterning in breakage and form similarly shaped fragments as the ways in which a bone can break are limited.<ref name=":9" /> Since large bones survive better than plants this also has created a bias and inclination towards [[big-game hunting]] rather than gathering when considering prehistoric economies.<ref name=":8" />

While all of archaeology studies taphonomy to some extent, certain subfields deal with it more than others. These include [[zooarchaeology]], [[geoarchaeology]], and [[paleoethnobotany]].