Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and archaeological interpretation

$Page 1: Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and archaeological interpretation$
lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e10

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in North America: Bonefracture, taphonomy, and archaeological interpretation

Landon P. KarrDepartment of Art and Anthropology, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD 57197, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

E-mail address: [email protected].

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.017

Please cite this article in press as: Karr, L.Parchaeological interpretation, Quaternary In

a b s t r a c t

The remains of Terminal Pleistocene megafauna in North America represent a continent-wide case studyin understanding the taphonomic processes that affect bones, and the use and reuse of bones amongsome of North America’s earliest inhabitants. The complex dynamics of bone fracture, bone degradation,and the effects of natural and cultural taphonomic processes present a challenge for interpreting thenature of fractured and fragmented zooarchaeological material in North America. The role of the envi-ronment in affecting bones and their suitability for use and reuse is profound. Natural processes affectthe preservation of bones and their suitability for use, which presents an interpretive challenge for ar-chaeologists examining fractured and fragmented remains. This paper seeks to explain, describe, andresolve some of the problems inherent in assessing and understanding the use and reuse of bones as rawmaterials, using evidence from two Terminal Pleistocene sites in North America (Owl Cave in Idaho, andthe Inglewood site in Maryland) as case studies that highlight the cultural, environmental, and inter-pretive differences that are manifest in zooarchaeological (and paleontological) assemblages.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.

1. Introduction

Understanding the use and reuse of bones lies at the heart ofunderstanding the zooarchaeological past. Early scholars recog-nized the significance of bones in the archaeological record fortheir ability to demonstrate the antiquity of humankind though theassociation of human remains and cultural artifacts with the bonesof extinct species (Pengelly, 1868). Breuil (1932, 1939) theorizedthat adaptations for bone toolmaking and tool use stemmed fromobservations of animals better “equipped” with horns, antlers,tusks, teeth, and other such “tools”, while Pei’s (1938) study of therole of animals in the breakage of bones provides the basis forstudies of post depositional processes. By 1940, Efremov haddefined “taphonomy” as the “laws of burial” that affect bones indepositional environments. These and other seminal studies pro-vide the basis for studies of bone assemblages, and demonstrate theantiquity of interest in understanding the significance of bones andbone tools.

The significance of the use and reuse of bones in prehistory ismultifaceted, and is affected by significant cultural considerationsas well as important material differences. Often, bones weremodified specifically for the creation of bone tools, some expedient,and others formal (Semenov 1964; Villa, 1991; Gaudzinski et al.

nd INQUA.

., Human use and reuse of mternational (2013), http://dx.

2005; Boschain and Saccá, 2010; Blasco et al. 2013). On other oc-casions, bonemodificationwas a byproduct of efforts aimed at bonemarrow and bone grease exploitation, processes that can berecognized in many archaeological contexts (e.g. Vehik, 1977;Outram, 1998, 2001; Karr et al. 2010).

Though stone tools and bone tools are often found in associationwith one another, they represent radically different materials thatrequire the application of different technologies. Perhaps mostimportantly, the environment has a profound effect on bones,altering their fracture morphologies, strength, chemical composi-tion, and suitability for toolmaking and use (Bonfield and Li, 1966,1968; Behrensmeyer, 1978; Morlan, 1984; Johnson, 1985; Karr andOutram, 2012a, in press). The ever-changing nature of bones sub-jected to varying environmental conditions requires an under-standing of dynamic natural and cultural processes.

Identifying modifications to bones that result from these taph-onomic processes can pose interpretive problems for archaeolo-gists. The use and reuse of bones is widely acceptedwhere evidencefor modified and flaked bones in early archaeological contexts isclear, such as remarkable examples of proboscidean bones flakedinto clearly identifiable handaxes from Europe (Semenov 1964;Villa, 1991; Radmilli and Boschian, 1996; Gaudzinski et al. 2005).In North America, however, the debate surrounding the use ofbones in early archaeological contexts is more contentious (Binford,1981; Bonnichsen, 1979; Cinq-Mars and Morlan, 1999; Johnson,1985; Hannus, 1989, 1990; Haynes, 1991, 2000, 2002; Holen,

egafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, anddoi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.017

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.017



L.P. Karr / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e102

2006, 2007). The complex dynamics of bone fracture, bone degra-dation, and the effect of taphonomic processes present a challengefor interpreting the nature of fractured and fragmented zooarch-aeological materials at early sites in North America. Understandingthe interaction of human groups with Terminal Pleistocene mega-fauna in North America requires the application of nuanced taph-onomic knowledge and innovative approaches for assessing thenature of archaeological (and paleontological) assemblages.

To answer the questions posed by fractured and fragmentedbone assemblages, it is necessary to apply broad-based taphonomicknowledge in consistent ways across time and space. The accurateidentification of cultural bone modification relies on differentiatingthe effects of numerous cultural and natural processes, and un-derstanding the condition of bones at the time they were broken.This paper seeks to explain, describe, and resolve some of theproblems inherent in assessing and understanding the use andreuse of bones as raw materials, using evidence from two conten-tious Late- and Terminal Pleistocene sites in North America as casestudies that highlight the cultural, environmental, and interpretivedifferences that are manifest in zooarchaeological and paleonto-logical assemblages.

2. Bone fracture, taphonomy, and the environment

Complex interrelationships between fractured bones, thetaphonomic processes that affect bone assemblages over time, andthe environments to which bones are exposed represent criticalaspects that need to be understood in order to assess broken boneassemblages. Of primary interest to zooarchaeologists, is the abilityto differentiate cultural bone modification from the effects of themany natural taphonomic processes that affect bone assemblagesduring their deposition. These processes include carnivore gnaw-ing, trampling, sediment loading, chemical processes, fluvial action,weathering, and others.

Importantly, bones degrade over time (Karr and Outram,2012a, in press). Fresh bones exhibit fracture morphologies thatdiffer radically from dry and mineralized bones (Morlan, 1984;Johnson, 1985; Villa and Mahieu, 1991; Lyman, 1994; Outram,1998, 2001), however, the speed of bone degradation variesdependent upon the environmental conditions to which bonesare exposed (Karr and Outram, 2012a, in press). As the process ofdegradation begins to affect assemblages, a variety of physicaland chemical processes alter the condition of bones. Moistureloss affects bones exposed to any open-air environment(Behrensmeyer, 1978; Johnson, 1985), and occurs even in frozenbones (Karr and Outram, 2012a). Changes in the chemicalcomposition of bones can occur through replacement andmineralization when bones are exposed to groundwater (Hedgesand Millard, 1995) and soils (White and Hannus, 1983), andfurther changes to the water and collagen composition of boneoccur when the flesh covering bones undergoes bacterial decay.

As bones degrade, their fracture morphologies change inconsistent and predictable ways, resulting in a variety of potentialbone fracture morphologies. These differences allow for the eval-uation of fractured bone assemblages, and provide an interpreta-tive basis for understanding the time at which bones werefractured.

Though cultural bone modification is not restricted to freshbones, it is normally assumed that cultural activity is most likely toaffect bones that are fresh. This relies on the assumptions that 1)fresh bones are frequently available to early humans, 2) fresh bonesare more easily worked than relatively friable dry and mineralizedbones, and 3) fresh bones contain nutrients, and are thereforemorelikely to be used first for the exploitation of bone fats, and later foruse in toolmaking.

Please cite this article in press as: Karr, L.P., Human use and reuse of marchaeological interpretation, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx

The extraction of fats is a primary motivation for the prehistoricmodification of bones. The medullary cavities of mammalian longbones contain quantities of bone marrow that can be accessed byfracturing the diaphyseal shaft of bones, while the epiphyses oflong bones contain bone grease embedded within cancellous bone.The processing of relatively fresh bones containing fats results inthe extensive modification of bone assemblages.

A variety of analytical methods have been devised for assessingthe degree to which assemblages were fractured and fragmentedwhen fresh (Outram,1998, 2001; Karr and Outram, 2012a, in press).Other methods identify a variety of characteristics that suggestcultural bone modification, such as impact scars (Johnson, 1985;Blumenschine and Selvaggio, 1988, 1991; Blumenschine, 1995),rebound scars (Outram, 1998), cutmarks and scraping marksresulting from the removal of periosteum (Binford, 1978, 1981),human toothmarks and percussion marks (Domínguez-Rodrigoand Barba, 2006; Pickering et al. 2013), and others.

Outram (1998, 2001) devised the Fracture Freshness Index (FFI)as a quantified measure of the degree to which bones were frac-tured when fresh, based on previous work by Morlan (1984),Johnson (1985), and Villa and Mahieu (1991). The FFI measuresthree criteria indicative of fresh fracture: the angle of fracture to thecortical surface of the bone, the texture of the fracture surface, andthe fracture outline. Any bone fragment is scored between 0 and 2on each criterion, resulting in a total score of between 0 and 6. LowFFI scores reflect assemblages fractured and fragmented whenbones remain fresh, while high FFI scores suggest assemblages inwhich considerable degradation has occurred before the boneswere fractured.

Recent studies have investigated the effect of various controlledenvironmental conditions on bone assemblages (Karr and Outram,2012a,b, in press). Varying rates of bone degradation in assem-blages exposed to different environmental conditions providetemporal specificity to interpretations of fractured and fragmentedbone assemblages, and allow for a more nuanced understanding ofthe relationship between archaeologically visible bone fracturemorphologies, taphonomic processes, and the human environ-ment. Previously published literature (Karr and Outram, 2012a,b, inpress) has demonstrated that bones degrade consistently andpredictably at differential rates depending upon their exposure to avariety of environment conditions.

Bone degradation has considerable implications for the inter-pretation of the archaeological record. As bones degrade, the fatscontained within those bones also degrade, and the attractivenessof those bones to humans is also reduced. Bone toolmaking stra-tegies are also affected by bone degradation, as many bone tools aremost effectively produced on fresh bones, especially flaked bonetools (Villa, 1991; Gaudzinski et al. 2005; Boschain and Saccá, 2010;and others). Differential rates of bone degradation and bone fatdegradation present interpretative challenges because in somecases, bonesmay retain nutritional fat stores while exhibiting semi-dry or dry fracture morphologies. In spite of these complexities,there is a clear relationship between the utility of bones for tool-making, their fat content, and their exposure to the naturalenvironment.

3. Implications for archaeological interpretation of bone Useand reuse

Archaeologists have often posited interpretations of bone as-semblages that do not adequately consider the effects of a widerange of taphonomic processes (including the effects of the naturalenvironment on the preservation of remains). The nature of theseinterpretations and the effect they have had on understandings ofarchaeological remains necessitates new approaches for clearly

egafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.017

L.P. Karr / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e10 3

identifying, defining, and interpreting archaeological remains inthe light of clear taphonomic evidence.

In North America, the interpretation of cultural bone modifica-tion in early contexts has remained a contentious topic for decades.In the 1970s and 1980s, fractured and fragmented bones revealed ata number of sites across North America were interpreted as theproduct of cultural activity (e.g. Irving and Harington, 1973;Stanford, 1979b; Johnson, 1982; Miller, 1983, 1989; Irving et al.1989; Steele and Carlson, 1989; Hannus, 1989, 1990), however, thevariety of evidence presented at these sites, spread across thegeographic expanse of North America and chronologically sepa-rated by millennia, precludes accepting their validity withoutfurther scrutiny.

Binford (1981) questioned these interpretations, focusing hiscriticism on the occasional disregard of some scholars for the effectof various taphonomic processes, especially carnivore gnawing (e.g.Frison, 1970, 1978; Johnson, 1978; Stanford, 1979a,b). Binford’s callfor middle-range taphonomic research has been answered by avariety of scholars, and frequently underlies modern in-terpretations of zooarchaeological assemblages.

Johnson’s (1985) seminal work on bone technology provided thebasis for early scientific understandings of the nature of bone as amaterial, bone fracture, fracture morphology, and the effect of theenvironment on bone assemblages. At the same time, Morlan(1984) produced a series of criteria for assessing broken bone as-semblages. Since that time, interpretations of fractured and frag-mented zooarchaeological assemblages have in many cases beengreatly improved. Some early interpretations, however, remainrelatively unchallenged, and other interpretations that have sinceemerged lack a clear understanding of the taphonomic principleshighlighted in this paper.

4. Case studies: Owl Cave and Inglewood

The remainder of this article focuses on two remarkable cases ofarchaeological interpretation involving fractured and fragmentedmammoth bones from Late- and Terminal Pleistocene sites in NorthAmerica. The evidence reported below from Owl Cave and theInglewood site suggests that previous interpretations of these as-semblages are inadequate.

Fig. 1. Column graph displaying the frequency of FFI scores for the Owl Cave longbones. The majority of long bone fragments exhibit dry fracture morphologies (FFI 3-FFI 6), while a smaller number exhibit fresh and semi-fresh/semi-dry fracture mor-phologies (FFI 0-FFI 2).

4.1. Owl Cave, the Wasden site, Idaho

The Owl Cave (Wasden) site was investigated in the 1960s and1970s (Dort, 1968; Guilday, 1969; Butler, 1969, 1972; Miller andDort, 1978; Miller, 1982, 1983, 1989). Owl Cave is one of threesections of a collapsed lava tube at the Wasden site, in the SnakeRiver Plain of southeastern Idaho. The collapsed lave tube sectionspreserve evidence of repeated animal and human activity in thepast. The lowest levels of the cave consisted of an intermingleddeposit of Folsom points and mammoth bone fragments. Thoughtraditional interpretations of North American chronology havesuggested the generalized extinction of mammoths across NorthAmerica before rise of the Folsom complex (Boldurian and Cotter,1999; Bement, 2007; Kornfeld et al. 2010; and others), Miller(1982, 1983, 1989) interpreted the Owl Cave remains as evidencethat Folsom people had hunted or scavenged a mammoth, trans-ported its bones, exploited them for marrow, and produced andutilized flaked mammoth bone tools. This interpretation of Folsomperiod mammoth exploitation and bone flaking either extends thetime period during which mammoths inhabited North America,pushes the Folsom period deeper into the past than previouslyunderstood, or both. Such fundamental contentions require thatthe evidence be critically assessed.

Please cite this article in press as: Karr, L.P., Human use and reuse of marchaeological interpretation, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.

Miller’s (1982, 1983, 1989) interpretation is based on threemajor premises: 1) that mammoths and Folsom people werecontemporaneous and that Folsom people hunted or scavenged theOwl Cavemammoth, 2) that the fractured and fragmented nature ofthe bone assemblage is the result of cultural activity aimed at theprocurement of bone fats and the production of bone tools, and 3)that no natural process is capable of fracturing and fragmentingmammoth bones like those found in Owl Cave. Interpretations suchas those forwarded by Miller (1982, 1983, 1989) need to be chal-lenged in the light of new taphonomic research and methods foranalysis.

4.2. Methods: Owl Cave

The Owl Cave assemblage, housed at the Idaho Museum ofNatural History in Pocatello, Idaho, was examined in order to ach-ieve a more complete understanding of the formation of the de-posits at the site and their significance within the archaeologicalrecord. Specifically, bone fracture and taphonomic evidence wereanalyzed in order to understand the nature of the broken boneevidence from Owl Cave. All mammoth bone fragments wereinspected for evidence relevant to their taphonomic histories,including bone fracture morphology, cutmarks, use-wear, andother taphonomic evidence. Each long bone and rib fragment wasassigned an FFI score following Outram (1998, 2001) and Outramet al. (2005). The principal aim of this analysis was to better un-derstand the processes that led to their present condition, to un-derstand how they became fractured and fragmented, and toconsider the implications of these realities for the interpretation ofthe activities that occurred at the site.

4.3. Evidence: Owl Cave

The Owl Cave assemblage contains the partial, fragmented re-mains of one mammoth. Only a small fraction of the total bonematerial from a mammoth is represented, and no element remainscomplete. The recovered assemblage consists of about 54 long bonefragments, 13 ribs sections and rib fragments, and a variety offragments of scapulae, vertebrae, teeth, and cancellous bone.Additional remains may be contained within unexcavated depositsin Owl Cave.

Figs. 1 and 2 graphically depict the frequency of FFI scoresassigned to long bone and rib fragments from the Owl Caveassemblage. Small minorities of the fragments of each type repre-sent episodes of fresh or relatively fresh fracture. The majority (83%


Fig. 2. Column graph displaying the frequency of FFI scores for the Owl Cave ribfragments. Though the sample size is small, nearly all of the ribs exhibit dry fracturemorphologies.

Fig. 3. A long bone fragment from Owl Cave that displays three relative fresh fracturescars. The propagation of the fracture scar to the left is clearly interrupted by a splitline crack that formed in the bone while it dried. The same split line crack cuts throughthe fresh fracture scar on the right, suggesting that the apparently “fresh” fractureswere formed at different points in the taphonomic history of the bone fragment.

Fig. 4. Two views of refitting long bone fragments from Owl Cave. Miller (1989)interpreted these specimens as a core and a flake. The smaller fragment removedfrom the medullary surface of the long bones has no apparent striking platform, bulbof force, or useful cutting edge, and exhibits no evidence of having been used.


of long bone fragments and 92% of rib fragments) of the preservedspecimens exhibit dry or mineralized fracture morphologies. Themean FFI score of long bone fragments is 4.0, while the mean FFIscore for rib fragments is 4.6 (though caution should be heeded ininterpreting the rib evidence given the small number of rib frag-ments within the assemblage). Of course, the effect of taphonomicprocesses on bone assemblages over long periods of time is likely toresult in the addition of dry and mineralized fractures that obscureevidence of previous episodes of fresh fracture. In order to addressthis problem, specific analysis of individual fragments provides forthe improved interpretation of the sequence of events at the site.

Several lines of evidence suggest that the Owl Cave bones arethe product of natural depositional and taphonomic processesrather than cultural bone modification. Owl Cave suffers fromserious dating problems. Most dates derived for the site are eitherbased on unreliable obsidian hydration dating, or appear out ofchronological-stratigraphic sequence. Table 1 is a summary ofradiocarbon dates from Owl Cave.

Table 1Radiocarbon (14C) dates from Owl Cave arranged by age.

Number Depth below datum Radiocarbon age Specie

WSU 2483 5.10 m 9735 � 115 BisonWSU 2485 4.52e4.54 m 10,145 � 170 BisonWSU 2484 4.70e4.80 m 10,470 � 100 BisonAA 6833 5.20e5.40 m 10,640 � 85 CharcoalWSU 1786 5.09e5.14 m 10,910 � 150 MammothWSU 1259a 4.80e5.10 m 12,250 � 200 MammothWSU 1281a 5.20 m 12,850 � 150 Mammoth

a No humic acid pretreatment.

Fig. 5. A rib segment from the Owl Cave collection exhibits a series of small gnawingmarks, as well as a relatively fresh fracture scar. The propagation of the fracture isclearly interrupted by one of the gnawing marks, suggesting that the rib was exposedto the natural environment for a period of time sufficient to allow for its flesh to beremoved, and for small carnivores to gnaw on its bone before it was fractured.

The dates for mammoth remains and the dates for non-mammoth remains appear to be distinct, nonoverlapping clusters.This is complicated by the presence of mammoth remains togetherwith Folsom period artifacts. In traditional Paleoindian chronology,the Folsom period follows the Clovis period across North America.The end of the Clovis period is associated with the end of thePleistocene and the extinction of the mammoths across the conti-nent. While the three dates on mammoth bones do not overlap,methodological considerations including a lack of humic acid pre-treatment may explain the discrepancies between the dates.

Cryoturbation of the Owl Cave deposits may explain the me-chanical mixing of Folsom artifacts and mammoth remains, andmay explain some of the issues with dating (Dort, 1968; Miller andDort, 1978; Grayson and Meltzer, 2002: 331). Rockfall is another


significant taphonomic process activewithin the cave. Butler (1971:5) reports

among the roof fall blocks.fragments of an elephant[mammoth] vertebra and long bone have been encounteredalong with a bison tooth. Just underneath the roof fall.part ofan elephant [mammoth] scapula was recovered.

Rockfall is capable of fracturing and fragmenting bones such asthose preserved in Owl Cave, and may serve as a causal explanationfor the condition of the mammoth bones recovered from beneathrockfall debris.



Evidence from Owl Cave suggests that the bones were exposedto the natural environment and carnivores, and became partiallydried, before they were fractured and fragmented. Miller (1982,1983, 1989) suggests the Owl Cave mammoth long bones werebroken by humans, exploited for marrow, and then used as a rawmaterial source for the production of bone tools. The bones thatsurvived at Owl Cave, however, demonstrate no evidence of suchactivity. While cutmarks would support the human modification ofthe Owl Cave bones, no cutmarks are apparent on the bones. Themajority of the episodes of bone fracture occurred on dry bonesthat likely contained no marrow suitable for consumption. That thebones had dried before they were fractured is attested by thepresence of several fracture scars that are interrupted by preex-isting split line cracks (e.g. Fig. 3). This suggests that the cracksformed as the bones dried, and that later episodes removed semi-fresh (or semi-dry) bone fragments. Fig. 3 also demonstrates thatsplit line cracks affect the morphology of some apparently freshfractures (i.e. on the left of Fig. 3), but not others (i.e. on the right ofFig. 3). This suggests that different fracturing episodes occurred atdifferent points in time, some before the bones began to crack, andothers after the bones formed split line cracks. This contradicts theprevious interpretation of a single cultural episode of bone fractureand fragmentation at the site.

Some fragments described by Miller (1982, 1983, 1989) as“flakes” are fragments of mammoth long bones that were fracturedafter they had become dry. They exhibit no clear evidence of cul-tural bone modification, and might be classified as spalls or thinfragments of mammoth bone. Fig. 4 illustrates one such example,which includes a small fragment of the medullary surface of amammoth long bone removed from a long bone fragment.

Another line of evidence is present on a mammoth rib (Fig. 5).One end of the rib exhibits a fresh or semi-fresh fracture scar. At theend of the fracture scar, several small gnawingmarks are present onthe bone surface. One of these gnawing marks interrupts the frac-ture scar. This indicates that the gnawing marks must have beenpresent on the bone surface before the bone was fractured. Theimplication is that the bones must have been exposed to the actionof natural taphonomic processes for a period of time sufficient toallow for the removal of the mammoth flesh. Later, a small animalgnawed the rib, and subsequently, the rib was fractured. This is anindication that the Owl Cave mammoth was not hunted, and afurther line of evidence to suggest that the fractured and frag-mented remains within Owl Cave are the product of natural taph-onomic processes rather than cultural bone modification. Ifhumans modified the bones, it was only after the bones had beencleaned of their flesh, dried, and exposed to carnivores.

The reanalysis of the Owl Cave mammoth remains providesseveral lines of evidence to suggest that the mammoth boneassemblage is naturally rather than culturally derived. At Owl Cavethe process of rockfall likely played a significant role in the for-mation of the fractured and fragmented mammoth bone assem-blage. Mechanical mixing and cryoturbation likely explain theintermingling of the mammoth bones with Folsom artifacts.Together, these lines of evidence provide a clearer explanation forthe nature of the remains preserved within Owl Cave, anddemonstrate the utility of taphonomic analysis for the interpreta-tion of fractured and fragmented assemblages.

4.4. The Inglewood site, Maryland

The Inglewood site was discovered in 1982 while a drainageditch was being excavated in Maryland. A team led by Frank C.Whitmore and Dennis Stanford investigated the site and recoveredthe partial, fragmented remains of a Pleistocene proboscidean fromwaterlogged clay sediments (Haynes,1991, 2000, 2002). A complete


rib from the animal was radiocarbon dated to 20,070 � 265 14C ybp(SI-5357) (Haynes, 1991: 199). Haynes (1991: 235) reported that“one long bone and the skull were fragmented and flaked by heavyequipment being used to dig a drainage ditch”, but did not produceclear evidence to support his claim. Since then, the Inglewoodspecimen has been cited as an instance in which the bones of anancient animal have been flaked by a modern taphonomic agen-cydin this case, heavy machinery (Haynes, 1991, 2000, 2002). TheInglewood specimen represents a unique opportunity to distin-guish between natural and cultural processes and the relationshipbetween bone fracture, fracture morphology, and taphonomy.

A clearer understanding of the Inglewood remains has the po-tential to contribute to the broader debate surrounding the natureof terminal Pleistocene mammoth bone modification. Haynes’(1991, 2000, 2002) interpretation is based on two major pre-mises, 1) that the bones of the Inglewood specimen were perfectlypreserved for >20,000 years, and 2) that modern heavy machineryfractured and fragmented the Inglewood bones. This analysis seeksto test these premises, and to offer interpretations based on taph-onomic evidence rather than speculation.

4.5. Analytical and experimental methods and materials:Inglewood

All of the mammoth bone fragments were inspected for evi-dence relevant to their taphonomic histories, including bone frac-ture morphology, cutmarks, use-wear, and other cultural andnatural taphonomic evidence. Because the sample size is small andnecessarily limited by the number of bones recovered from the site,quantitative and statistical analyses were deemed inappropriate forthis study. The principal aim of this analysis was to better under-stand the processes that resulted in the fracture and fragmentationof the bones, to determine when the bones were fractured, and toconsider the implications of the taphonomic evidence preserved atthe site for the interpretation of this and other assemblages.

The Inglewood specimen raises questions concerning bonedegradation and the effect of waterlogged environments on bonepreservation. Previous studies have demonstrated the degradationof bones over time when they are exposed to a variety of envi-ronmental conditions (Karr and Outram, 2012a,b, in press), how-ever, the effect of waterlogged conditions on bones has not beenreported, but is directly relevant to the interpretation of theInglewood site.

To test the effect of such environments, 24 cattle (Bos) longbones were obtained from a commercial butcher. The bones weredivided into three groups of eight bones, each consisting of twohumeri, two radio-ulnae, two femora, and two tibiae. The boneswere subjected to different waterlogged environments for differingperiods of time. Sample #1 was cleaned of its flesh using steelknives, and the bones were submerged in a water-filled plasticcontainer for 21 days. During that time, the water was stagnant.Sample #2was prepared identically, and the boneswere exposed tothe same waterlogged environment. The water within the tub,however, was drained and replaced every 48 h for the duration ofthe experiment. Each of these two samples was left outdoors, andduring the 21 day period was exposed to environmental tempera-tures ranging from 6 �C to 30 �C. Sample #3 was prepared identi-cally and exposed to the same waterlogged environment for 300days. The water remained stagnant during this time. The boneswere left outdoors from September until July in South Dakota, andwere exposed to temperatures ranging from �27 �C to 32 �C.

After the stated period of time had passed, each bone wasremoved from its waterlogged environment, immediately placedon a stone anvil, and fractured with a hammerstone. Its fracturemorphology was assessed using an FFI scoring system (Outram,


Fig. 6. Anterior and posterior views of a modern cattle radius subjected to 300 days inexperimental waterlogged conditions. The fracture morphology of the fragmentssuggests that the bones experienced considerable degradation in their waterloggedenvironment. The propagation of the fracture through the proximal epiphysis of thecattle radius suggests radical changes to bone properties as a result of waterlogging.


1998, 2001) modified to a fracture length weighted system(Method A in Karr and Outram, 2012a). This method ascribed an FFIscore to each bone based on a length-weightedmean of the fracturemorphologies apparent on its fragments. A mean FFI score for eachsample was then derived as a mean of the score ascribed to eachbone in that sample.

4.6. Experiment results and discussion

This experiment produced results that aid in the interpretationof archaeological and paleontological specimens that are exposedto waterlogged environments. After 21 days in stagnant water, thebones in Sample #1 produced amean FFI score of 1.61. After 21 daysin periodically replaced water, Sample #2 produced a mean FFIscore of 1.50. After 300 days in stagnant water, Sample #3 produceda mean FFI score of 2.86. A control sample of “fresh” bones (bonesobtained from the same butcher, that were considered “fresh” butthat had been hung while covered with flesh for twoweeks prior tomeat removal) produced a mean FFI score of 0.56 (slightly higherthan an identical control sample, reported in Karr and Outram,2012a; which scored 0.50).

All archaeological experiments are imperfect, especially thosethat are designed to mimic conditions from the past that cannot beprecisely determined. This experiment was not designed to pre-cisely imitate the environmental conditions of the past, but rather,to demonstrate the effect of waterlogged environments of bones.The results demonstrate that degradation occurs in bones exposedto waterlogged conditions. Other factors certainly play a role in thedegradation of bones in some waterlogged environments, such asthe presence of natural soils, minerals and organic matter, and thepH of the water and soils. Hedges and Millard (1995) posited acausal explanation for the effect of groundwater on archaeologicalbones, but as early as the mid-19th century, Warren (1855: 152)described the mineralization process in buried bones. Certainly,the degradation of bones in these environments is affected bychanges in the collagen and fat content of bones, and mineralreplacement.

The degree of degradation in the bones that remained water-logged for 300 days was considerably greater than the degree ofdegradation observed on bones that were waterlogged for shorterperiods of time. An FFI score of 2.86 indicates degradation com-parable to that exhibited by bones exposed to room temperatureenvironments for a period of several weeks, or to hot (40 �C), dryconditions for 24 h (Karr and Outram, in press). Importantly, inseveral cases in which bones left waterlogged for 300 days werefractured using a typical hammerstone and anvil approach, frac-tures that began at the midshaft areas of bones propagated to andthrough the epiphyses of those bones (Fig. 6). Morlan (1984) notedthat the epiphyses of bones are only fractured if those bones arevery dry or mineralized. Among hundreds of bones subjected to avariety of experimental environmental conditions for varying pe-riods of time, none exhibited a fracture that propagated throughthe epiphysis of a long bone (Karr, 2012; Karr and Outram 2012a,b,in press). Further, many of the long bone shafts required moreforceful impacts than would be expected for bones in other con-ditions. Combined, these observations suggest that bones exposedto waterlogged environments for 300 days experienced consider-able changes in terms of their bone fat content and degree ofhardness. The fragments produced by these bones when they werebroken were considerably more friable than normal bones.

Bones preserved in any depositional environments degradepredictably over time. In some environments, bones rarely preservein the archaeological record as a result of many taphonomic pro-cesses. Frozen, extremely dry, and waterlogged locations are typi-cally among the environments most likely to preserve


archaeological and paleontological remains. While bones in theseconditions may remain preserved in the archaeological record forlong periods of time, their fracture morphologies do not remainstatic, and the effect of each of these environments on the fracturemorphologies of bones is considerable. In frozen environments,bones lose moisture content, and their fracture morphologies beginto change over periods as short as months (Karr and Outram, 2012a,in press). In very dry environments, bones lose moisture andcollagen content, and dry fracture morphologies can indicateconsiderable bone degradation after periods as short as hours (Karrand Outram, 2012a, in press). In waterlogged environments, bonespreserve moisture content because they are constantly surroundedby water, but water and collagen content is replaced as it is liber-ated from the bones, and replaced by water and/or minerals. Asthose changes occur, the fracture morphologies that result whenbones are broken demonstrate significant evidence of bonedegradation, even in waterlogged environments. Bones cannot bepreserved for thousands of years in a waterlogged depositionalenvironment and fracture as fresh bones would. This information iscritical for assessing the claims made by Haynes (1991, 2000, 2002)concerning the Inglewood specimen and the events that led to itspresent condition.

4.7. Evidence: Inglewood

The Inglewood specimen can be characterized as partial andfragmentary. The Inglewood assemblage consists of:

1) about 25 long bone shaft fragments, 11 of which refit to oneanother.

2) Twenty ribs, 12 of which are complete.3) One partial scapula.4) Parts of at least 13 vertebrae.5) One half of the innominate.6) Cranial fragments, and fragments of ivory.7) A variety of small fragments of rib, flat bone, and vertebrae,

along with a variety of cancellous (epiphyseal) bone fragments.8) A mandible, tooth fragments, and a tusk section, all of which

were unavailable for study.


Fig. 8. A vertebra from the Inglewood site exhibits a clear carnivore puncture, furthersuggesting that the Inglewood bones were exposed to significant taphonomic pro-cesses between the time of death of the animal, and the time of its permanentdeposition.


Along with experimental evidence that suggests bones cannotremain preserved indefinitely in waterlogged environments,several additional lines of evidence suggest the need for revisedinterpretations of the Inglewood specimen. The disarticulated andpartial nature of the skeleton, differential discoloration on thesurfaces of some refitting bone fragments, and bone fracture pat-terns that allow for the reconstruction of the sequence of events atthe site are all critical for an accurate understanding of the Ingle-wood specimen. These lines of evidence provide for a coherentinterpretation of the Inglewood bones that applies principles ofbone fracture and taphonomy for the purposes of reconstructingthe events of the past.

While Haynes (1991: 235) reported “about half of the skeleton,lacking all of the limb bones except one, was found in anatomicalorder”, a sketch map preserved in the field notes of Frank C.Whitmore (Fig. 7) suggests that the Inglewood bones wereconsiderably displaced from their original anatomical order. Thismap suggests that taphonomic processes during the last 20,000years removed or deleted many bones from the site.

Many taphonomic agencies likely affected the Inglewood spec-imen. In one instance, a carnivore tooth puncture is apparent onone of the preserved Inglewood bones (Fig. 8). This suggests thatthe bones were defleshed before they were buried, a process thatinevitably exposed them to the natural environment for anextended period of time. Other processes may have also affectedthe Inglewood specimen between the death of the animal and thetime of its permanent deposition. Those processes resulted in thedispersal of many of the bones across the site, and the effectivearchaeological destruction or significant displacement of manyelements.

Another line of evidence derives from the patterns of discolor-ation on the Inglewood bones, especially those that refit. As bonesare exposed to depositional environments, minerals within localsoils often stain their surfaces. The Inglewood bones exhibit blackstaining on some of their surfaces, allowing for the reconstructionof the sequence of events of the past. Fragments that exhibitidentical and matching patterns of discoloration when refit musthave become stained before they were fractured, while fragmentsthat can be refit but exhibit dramatically different patterns of

Fig. 7. A digital rendering of a sketch map produced by Frank C. Whitmore of theInglewood site. The sketch map demonstrates the disarticulation of the skeleton, andthe deletion or displacement of many of its elements, suggesting that the bones wereexposed to taphonomic processes before they reached their final depositionalenvironment.


surface coloration must have been separated before they weresubject to the discoloration. Fig. 9 depicts a series of refitting longbone fragments, including those interpreted as “fractured andflaked by heavy equipment” by Haynes (1991: 235). By inspectingthe discoloration patterns on each side of the fracture line, it be-comes obvious that the small central bone fragment must havebeen detached from the larger bone unit before the discolorationoccurred. In order for this to be true, the fragment must have beendetached in the distant past, long before 1982.

An additional line of evidence comes from the analysis of bonefracture patterns (Outram,1998, 2001; Karr and Outram, 2012a,b, inpress). When bones are fresh, they exhibit helical fractures. Asbones become dry or mineralized, they fracture along straight lines.Fresh bone fractures exhibit smooth fracture surfaces, while dryand mineralized bone fractures exhibit rough fracture surfaces.Fresh bones fracture at sharp angles to the cortical surface of bones,while dry and mineralized bones fracture at right angles to thecortical surface. In some instances, the fracture patterns apparenton the Inglewood bones allow for the reconstruction of thesequence of events in the past. Fresh bone fractures must haveformed before dry bone fractures, so in any instance in which thetwo fracture types occur together, the order of the formation ofthose fractures can be determined. Fig. 10 presents one such ex-amples. Two fresh fracture scars can be easily identified on therefitting bone fragments. Those fresh fracture scars each have veryclear dry fracture lines that run through them. In order for this tohappen, the fresh fractures must have occurred when the bonesremained fresh, >20,000 years ago, and the events of dry fracturemust have occurred after the episodes of fresh fracture. This evi-dence precludes the possibility that the Inglewood bones were“fractured and flaked” by heavy earthmoving equipment in 1982.

The reanalysis of the Inglewood mammoth provides an over-whelming body of evidence to suggest the Inglewood bones werefractured and fragmented in the distant past. Over the course of thelast >20,000 years, they also incurred additional fractures that canbe easily morphologically differentiated from those fractures thatoccurred when the bones remained fresh. What remains to beexplained is the process that fractured the bones while theyremained fresh in the distant past. Both cultural modification andthe action of natural taphonomic processes should be considered aspossibilities; however, the nature of the preserved evidence may beinadequate to permit a clear conclusion.

5. Conclusions

New World archaeological and paleontological assemblagesprovide new perspectives on bone use and reuse during the Old


Fig. 9. A series of fresh-fractured, refitting bone fragments from the Inglewood siteexhibit differential discoloration of their surfaces. This differential discolorationdemonstrates that the bones were broken in antiquity, not by the modern earthmovingequipment used at the site.

Fig. 10. A series of refitting long bone fragments from the Inglewood site exhibits twoclear fresh fracture scars. While the fresh fracture scars must have formed while thebones remained fresh, the dry fracture lines that run through them must have formedafter the bones had become dry. This provides further evidence that the Inglewoodbones were fractured and fragmented in the distant past.


World Palaeolithic. The ability to accurately assess the nature ofthese assemblages allows for a clearer perspective on the past.Though human groups in the New World were dramaticallygeographically, biologically, and culturally removed from the peo-ple and events of the Old World Palaeolithic, taphonomic evidencefrom sites in the New World provides a mechanism for under-standing the site formation processes that affect bone assemblagesover time. Taphonomic evidence provides a key component thatelucidates the scant evidence for the use and reuse of bones duringthe earliest occupation of the New World. Before one can considerthe reuse of bones in archaeological contexts, it is necessary to firstunderstand the natural processes that affect the preservation ofbones. At both sites discussed in this article, previous in-terpretations concerning the formation of bone deposits have beenpredicated on untested assumptions concerning the nature of bonefracture and taphonomy.

The megafaunal bones preserved at Owl Cave and Inglewoodhave been differentially interpreted as the result of cultural activityin the pastdat Owl Cave,w11,000 years ago; at Inglewood, scarcely30 years ago. The application of techniques of taphonomic analysisallows for a more nuanced interpretation of bones that have beensubject to a variety of taphonomic processes.

At Owl Cave, this evidence suggests that new interpretations ofthe site must be considered. Previous interpretations of a latemammoth/early Folsom encounter are refuted by an absence ofclear evidence for the contemporary presence of humans andmammoths at Owl Cave. Taphonomic evidence suggests thatevents of rockfall and other post depositional processes accountfor the state of the Owl Cave bones. Gnawing evidence suggeststhat the bones were cleaned of their flesh and gnawed by smallanimals before they were fractured, an assertion that is supportedby the generally dry bone fracture morphologies present on thepurported Owl Cave artifacts. Rather than being the product of anextensive bone tool manufacturing industry, the evidence sug-gests that human occupation of Owl Cave postdated the eventsthat placed a mammoth within the cave. Though Folsom humangroups likely witnessed the bones within the cave, there is littleevidence that those bones would have provided any meaningfulnutritional substance or toolmaking material, and as a result,there is little evidence to suggest that the humans modified theOwl Cave bones.


At Inglewood, physical evidence preserved at the site and newexperimental evidence require a reinterpretation of the events thatoccurred at the site. Though Haynes (1991) suggests that some ofthe Inglewood bones were fractured, fragmented, and “flaked” byheavy earthmoving equipment being used at the site, modern un-derstandings of bone fracture and taphonomy demonstrate thatsuch a hypothesis is untenable. Bones in all environments tested todate exhibit degradation over time (Karr and Outram, 2012a, inpress). Evidence for the degradation of waterlogged bones pre-sented in this article precludes the possibility that the Inglewoodbones were preserved in a condition that would allow them tofracture as if fresh after >20,000 years. Other lines of taphonomicevidence include the differential discoloration of the surfaces ofsome of the bone fragments, which allows for a reconstruction ofthe sequence inwhich the bones became fractured and fragmented.Though Haynes claimed the presence of half of a mammoth inanatomical order at the site, a map of the site suggests the absenceof a large number of bone elements, and the disarticulation of theanimal, which can only have occurred as the result of taphonomicprocesses that are also likely to have affected the preservation ofthe bones. In order for the bones to become defleshed, dis-articulated, and relocated across the site, the bones must have beenexposed to the natural environment for a considerable period oftime, as well as having been subject to the action of other tapho-nomic processes, including carnivores. The nature of the Inglewoodassemblage suggests that some of the fracture and fragmentation ofthe bones occurred >20,000 years ago, and that any damage thatthe bones incurred as a result of the earthmoving equipment at thesite is easily differentiable from ancient fractures. Though recentspeculation that humans may have arrived in the New Worldthousands of years before previously thought opens the door to thepossibility that the Inglewood specimen is the product of culturalbone modification (Stanford and Bradley, 2012), the Inglewoodassemblage is more likely the product of natural taphonomic pro-cesses affecting a paleontological specimen. In either case, thisreinterpretation of the Inglewood site allows for a clearer under-standing of the events of the past based on tested taphonomicevidence.

At numerous sites in North America, various instances of the useand reuse of mammoth bones during the terminal Pleistocene havebeen reported. In many instances, these interpretations have beenmade in the absence of clear taphonomic evidence. Taphonomyplays a profound role in the formation of bone assemblages. Con-siderations of bone fracture morphology, taphonomy, and envi-ronment are critical for assessing the nature of the use and reuse of



bones in the past. In order to understand the nature of early recy-cling, wemust first understand the nature of taphonomic processesthat affect the preservation of archaeological and paleontologicalremains.

Acknowledgements

Some of this research was conducted while I was a PhD studentunder the guidance of Alan K. Outram and Bruce Bradley at theUniversity of Exeter. The Idaho State Museum of Natural Historypermitted me to study the Owl Cave collections at their facility,where Amber Tews and Amy Comendador were especially helpfuland accommodating. The Smithsonian National Museum of NaturalHistory provided access to the Inglewood assemblage. DavidBohaska, Dennis Stanford, and Michael Brett-Surman were veryhelpful in locating the specimen and making it available for study.Mike Rouillard reproduced Fig. 7 from Whitmore’s original hand-drawn sketch map. Many thanks are due to Ran Barkai, Avi Go-pher, and colleagues at Tel Aviv University for arranging aworkshopon Paleolithic recycling in Tel Aviv, where this research was pre-sented, and for inviting me to participate.

References

Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from boneweathering. Paleobiology 4 (2), 150e162.

Bement, L.C., 2007. Bonfire Shelter: a jumping off point for comments for Byerlyet al. American Antiquity 72, 366e372.

Binford, L.R., 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New

York.Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Lozano, S., Pastó, I., Riba, D.,

Vaquero, M., Fernández Peris, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,Carbonell, E., 2013. Learning by heart: cultural patterns in the faunal processingsequence during the Middle Pleistocene. Plos One 8 (2), e55863.

Blumenschine, R.J., 1995. Percussion marks, tooth marks, and experimental de-terminations of the timing of hominid and carnivore access to long bones at FLKZinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 29, 21e51.

Blumenschine, R.J., Selvaggio, M.M., 1988. Percussion marks on bone surfaces as anew diagnostic of hominid behavior. Nature 333, 763e765.

Blumenschine, R.J., Selvaggio, M.M., 1991. On the marks of marrow bone possessingby hammerstones and hyenas: their anatomical patterning and archaeologicalimplications. In: Clark, J.D. (Ed.), Cultural Beginnings: Approaches to Under-standing Early Hominid Life Ways in the African Savanna. R. Habelt, Bonn,pp. 17e32.

Boldurian, A.T., Cotter, J.L., 1999. Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on PaleoindianAdaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. University of PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeology, Philedelphia.

Bonfield, W., Li, C.H., 1966. Deformation and fracture of bone. Journal of AppliedPhysics 37, 869e875.

Bonfield, W., Li, C.H., 1968. The temperature dependence of the deformation ofbone. Journal of Biomechanics 1, 323e329.

Bonnichsen, R., 1979. Pleistocene Bone Technology in the Beringian Refugium.Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 89. In: National Museum of Man Mer-cury Series. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Boschain, G., Saccá, D., 2010. Ambiguities in human and elephant interactions?Stories of bones, sand and water from Castel di Guido (Italy). Quaternary In-ternational 214, 3e16.

Breuil, A.H., 1932. Pointe d’épieu en os du Moustérien de la caverne du Castillo(Santander). L’Anthropologie 42, 679e680.

Breuil, A.H., 1939. Bone and Antler Industry of the Choukoutien Sinanthropus Site.In: Palaeontologica Sinica, vol. 6.

Butler, B.R., 1969. More information on the frozen ground features and furtherinterpretation of the small mammal sequence at the Wasden site (Owl Cave),Bonneville County, Idaho. Tebiwa 12, 56e63.

Butler, B.R., 1971. The origin of the Upper Snake Country buffalo. Tebiwa 14, 1e20.Butler, B.R., 1972. The Holocene or postglacial ecological crisis on the eastern Snake

River Plain. Tebiwa 15, 49e63.Cinq-Mars, J., Morlan, R.E., 1999. Bluefish caves and old Crow Basin: a new rapport.

In: Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K.L. (Eds.), Ice Age Peoples of North America.Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americans. Oregon StateUniversity Press, Corvallis, pp. 200e212.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., 2006. New estimates of tooth mark and per-cussion mark frequencies at the FLK Zinj site: the carnivore-hominid-carnivorehypothesis falsified. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 170e194.

Dort, W., 1968. Paleoclimatic implications of soil structures at the Wasden site (OwlCave). Tebiwa 11, 31e38.


Efremov, I.A., 1940. Taphonomy: new branch of paleontology. Pan-American Geol-ogist 74 (2), 81e93.

Frison, G.C., 1970. The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48CO304. In: Plains AnthropologistMemoir, vol. 7.

Frison, G.C., 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, SanDiego.

Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E., Anzidei, A.P., Alvarez-Fernandez, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J.,Cinq-Mars, J., Dobosi, V.T., Hannus, A., Johnson, E., Munzel, S.C., Scheer, A.,Villa, P., 2005. The use of Probocidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life.Quaternary International 126-128, 179e194.

Grayson, D.K., Meltzer, D.J., 2002. Clovis hunting and large mammal extinction: acritical review of the evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 16, 313e359.

Guilday, J.E., 1969. Small mammal remains from the Wasden site (Owl Cave),Bonneville County, Idaho. Tebiwa 2, 47e57.

Hannus, L.A., 1989. Flaked mammoth bone from the Lange/Ferguson site, WhiteRiver badlands area, South Dakota. In: Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M. (Eds.), BoneModification. The Center for the Study of the First Americans, Orono, pp. 395e412.

Hannus, L.A., 1990. Mammoth hunting in the new world. In: Davis, L., Reeves, B.O.K.(Eds.), Hunters of the Recent Past. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 47e67.

Haynes, G., 1991. Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants: Biology, Behavior, and theFossil Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Haynes, G., 2000. Mammoths, measured time and mistaken identities. Radiocarbon42 (2), 257e269.

Haynes, G., 2002. The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Hedges, R.E.M., Millard, A.R., 1995. Bones and groundwater: toward the modeling ofdiagenetic processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (2), 155e165.

Holen, S.R., 2006. Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in thecentral Great Plains of North America: a preliminary report on La Sena andLovewell. Quaternary International 142-143, 30e43.

Holen, S.R., 2007. The age and taphonomy of mammoths at Lovewell Reservoir,Jewell County, Kansas, USA. Quaternary International 169-170, 51e63.

Irving, W.N., Harington, C.R., 1973. Upper Pleistocene radiocarbon-dated artefactsfrom the Northern Yukon. Science 179, 335e340.

Irving, W.N., Jopling, A.V., Klitsch-Armstrong, I., 1989. Studies of bone technologyand taphonomy, Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory. In: Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M.(Eds.), Bone Modification. The Center for the Study of the First Americans,Orono, pp. 347e379.

Johnson, E., 1978. PaleoIndian Bison Procurement and Butchering Patterns on theLlano Estacado. In: Plains Anthropologist Memoir, vol. 14, pp. 98e105.

Johnson, E., 1982. Paleo-indian bone expediency tools: Lubbock Lake and BonfireShelter. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2 (2), 145e157.

Johnson, E., 1985. Developments in bone technology. In: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Ad-vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8Academic Press, New York,pp. 157e235.

Karr, L.P., 2012. The Analysis and Interpretation of Fragmented Mammoth BoneAssemblages: Experiments in Bone Fracture with Archaeological Applications(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Karr, L.P., Outram, A.K., 2012a. Tracking changes in bone fracture morphology overtime: environment, taphonomy, and the archaeological record. Journal ofArchaeological Science 39, 555e559.

Karr, L.P., Outram, A.K., 2012b. Actualistic research into dynamic impact and itsimplications for understanding differential bone fragmentation and survivor-ship. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3443e3449.

Karr, L.P., Outram, A.K., 2013. Bone degradation and environment: understanding,assessing, and conducting archaeological experiments using modern animalbones. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (in press).

Karr, L.P., Outram, A.K., Hannus, L.A., 2010. A chronology of bone marrow and bonegrease exploitation at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village. Plains Anthro-pologist 55, 215e223.

Kornfeld, M., Frison, G.C., Larson, M.L., 2010. Prehistoric HuntereGatherers of theHigh Plains and Rockies. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Miller, S.J., 1982. The archaeology and geology of an extinct megafauna/fluted point

association at Owl Cave, the Wasden site, Idaho: a preliminary report. In:Ericson, J.E., Taylor, R.E., Berger, R. (Eds.), Peopling of the New World. BallenaPress, Los Altos, CA, pp. 81e95.

Miller, S.J., 1983. Osteo-archaeology of the mammoth-bison assemblage at OwlCave, the Wasden site, Idaho. In: Le Moine, G.M., MacEachern, A.S. (Eds.), Car-nivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology.Proceedings of the 15th Annual Chacmool Conference. University of Calgary,Calgary, pp. 39e53.

Miller, S.J., 1989. Characteristics of mammoth bone reduction at Owl Cave, theWasden site, Idaho. In: Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M. (Eds.), Bone Modification. TheCenter for the Study of the First Americans, Orono, pp. 381e393.

Miller, S.J., Dort, W., 1978. Early man at Owl cave: current investigations at theWasden site, eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. Department of AnthropologyOccasional Paper 1. In: Bryan, A.L. (Ed.), Early Man in America from a Circum-pacific Perspective. University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Morlan, R.E., 1984. Toward the definition of criteria for the recognition of artificialbone alterations. Quaternary Research 22, 160e171.

Outram, A.K., 1998. The Identification and Palaeoeconomic Context of PrehistoricBone Marrow and Grease Exploitation (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). TheUniversity of Durham, Durham.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(13)00943-9/sref1
















































































































































































Outram, A.K., 2001. A new approach to identifying bone marrow and greaseexploitation: why the “indeterminate” fragments should not be ignored. Journalof Archaeological Science 28, 401e410.

Outram, A.K., Knüsel, C., Harding, A.F., Knight, S., 2005. Understanding complexfragmented assemblages of human and animal remains: a fully integratedapproach. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1699e1710.

Pei, W., 1938. Le rôle des animaux et des causes naturelles dan la cassure des os.Palaeontologica Sinica 7, 1e32.

Pengelly, W., 1868. The literature of Kent’s Cavern, part I. Transactions of the Dev-onshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art 1, 469e522.

Pickering, T.R., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Heaton, J.L., Yravedra, J., Barba, R.,Bunn, H.T., Musiba, C., Baquedano, E., Díez-Martín, F., Mabulla, A., Brain, C.K.,2013. Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by1.2-million-year-old hominins at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 40, 1295e1309.

Radmilli, A.M., Boschian, G., 1996. Gli scavi a Castel di Guido. Istituto Italiano diPreistoria e Protostoria, ETS-Pisa, Firenze.

Semenov, S.A., 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the OldestTools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Cory, Adams, &Mackay, London.


Stanford, D.J., 1979a. Bison kill by Ice Age hunters. National Geographic 155 (1),114e121.

Stanford, D.J., 1979b. The Selby and Dutton sites: evidence for a possible pre-Clovisoccupation of the High Plains. In: Humphrey, R.L., Stanford, D. (Eds.), Pre-llanoCultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities. Anthropological Societyof Washington, Washington D. C, pp. 101e123.

Stanford, D.J., Bradley, B.A., 2012. Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s ClovisCulture. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Steele, D.G., Carlson, D.L., 1989. Excavation and taphonomy of mammoth remainsfrom the Duewall-Newberry site, Brazos County, Texas. In: Bonnichsen, R.,Sorg, M. (Eds.), Bone Modification. The Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Orono, pp. 413e430.

Vehik, S., 1977. Bone fragments and bone grease manufacturing: a review of theirarchaeological use and potential. Plains Anthropologist 22, 169e182.

Villa, P., 1991. Middle Pleistocene prehistory in Southwestern Europe: the state ofour knowledge and ignorance. Journal of Anthropological Research 47, 193e217.

Villa, P., Mahieu, E., 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of HumanEvolution 21, 27e48.

Warren, J.C., 1855. The Mastodon Giganteus of North America. John Wilson, Boston.White, E.M., Hannus, L.A., 1983. Chemical weathering of bone in archaeological

soils. American Antiquity 48, 316e322.























































Documents

Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and archaeological interpretation