Lyman, R. L. (2005). Analyzing cut marks:. J Archaeol Sci 32 (12). Vol 32(12), pp. 1722-1732.
Title The title of the publication or report |
Analyzing cut marks: | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Subtitle The sub title of the publication or report |
lessons from artiodactyl remains in the northwestern United States | |||
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
J Archaeol Sci 32 (12) | |||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Journal of Archaeological Science | |||
Volume Volume number and part |
32 (12) | |||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
1722 - 1732 | |||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
The ADS have no files for download on this page but further information is available online, normally as an electronic version maintained by the Publisher, or held in a larger collection such as an ADS Archive. Please refer to the DOI or URI listed in the Relations section of this record to locate the information you require. In the case of non-ADS resources, please be aware that we cannot advise further on availability. | |||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | |||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
The author argues that many studies of the human behavioural significance of frequencies of cut-marked mammal bones focus on determining the so-called `butchering pattern', and that few analysts comment on the tremendous range of variation in frequencies and anatomical distributions of cut marks across multiple assemblages of remains of a taxon. Such variation is evident even when faunal remains are associated with technologically, temporally, and environmentally similar cultures. This kind of variation is illustrated with frequencies of cut marked bone specimens comprising major limb joints of two artiodactyl genera from two sites in the northwestern United States. Three hypotheses are tested. The first and second hypotheses (one per genus) predict that the frequencies of cut-marked remains of a taxon from one site will match those frequencies evident on the remains of the same taxon at the other site. Both hypotheses are falsified. The third hypothesis is that remains of the larger taxon at each site will display more cut marks than the remains of the smaller taxon at each site. This hypothesis is statistically falsified at one site but not the other. Refutation of the hypotheses suggests that well-founded interpretations of frequencies of cut-marked remains may require unique kinds of contextual data. | |||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2005 | |||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
|||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
|||
Relations Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report |
|
|||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
14 Mar 2006 |