Skeletal Part Representation in Archaeofaunas: Comments on “Explaining the ‘Klasies Pattern’: Kua Ethnoarchaeology, the Die Kelders Middle Stone Age Archaeofauna, Long Bone Fragmentation and Carnivore Ravaging” by Bartram & Marean

• Published in: Journal of archaeological science 1999-09, Vol.26 (9), p.1225-1234
• Main Authors: Klein, Richard G, Cruz-Uribe, Kathryn, Milo, Richard G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: FAUNAL ANALYSIS, KLASIES RIVER MOUTH, SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
• ISSN: 0305-4403; 1095-9238
• DOI: 10.1006/jasc.1999.0460

In many archaeological faunas, relative to smaller ungulates, larger ones are more poorly represented by proximal limb bones (humeri, radioulnae, femora and tibiae) and better represented by bones of the feet and skull. In a recent issue of this journal, Bartram & Marean refer to the contrast as the “Klasies Pattern” for its occurrence at the Klasies River Mouth Middle Stone Age site in South Africa. However, they argue that it exists only because archaeologists often fail to identify small midshaft fragments to skeletal part and taxon. They believe that most archaeological faunas have been heavily ravaged by carnivores that selectively removed proximal limb bone epiphyses and left the associated shaft fragments behind. In support, they cite analyses by Marean and his co-workers in which proximal limb bone numbers increased significantly when shaft fragments were refitted to produce identifiable specimens. The dramatic increase in proximal limb bone numbers at Kobeh Cave, Iran is particularly compelling, but Bartram & Marean must spell out their procedure for identifying and counting shafts to ensure that others can produce comparable results and to exclude the possibility that the results are an artefact of their procedure. The refitting of small shaft fragments is extremely tedious and time-consuming, but may be justified wherever there is independent evidence for substantial carnivore ravaging. There is essentially no evidence for carnivore ravaging at Klasies River Mouth nor is there evidence that it can produce the contrast between smaller and larger ungulates that comprises the “Klasies Pattern”. We conclude that the contrast mainly reflects differences in carcass size as these influence (1) the likelihood that particular skeletal elements will be transported from a carcass to a base camp and (2) the likelihood that parts will survive in identifiable condition.