Abstract
A faunal assemblage may be dominated by dense bones either because the soft ones have been transported away or because they have been gnawed beyond recognition. Archaeologists have often despaired of distinguishing between these hypotheses and have attributed the problem to equifinality-to the fact that different causes can produce identical outcomes. Yet under the models of transport and attrition studied here, these causes do not produce identical outcomes. It has been difficult to distinguish between them only because conventional statistical methods lack power. Using the new method of abcml (Analysis of Bone Counts by Maximum Likelihood), it is easy to distinguish assemblages that were deposited by different agents. It is also possible to distinguish between assemblages that have suffered differing degrees of attritional damage, but this distinction is more difficult to make. It is also shown that the conventional method for recognizing attritional damage in faunal assemblages is remarkably low in power. The paper closes with a discussion of the word "equifinality" itself.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archaeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Cited by
39 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献