Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:Micromammal taphonomy of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel: distinguishing cultural from natural depositional agents in the Late Natufian

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Digestion of postcranial elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (frequencies are based on NISP)

Table 5 Digestion of postcranial elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (frequencies are based on NISP)

Related Figures (20)

Fig. 1. Map of Israel showing the location of el-Wad Terrace.
Fig. 1. Map of Israel showing the location of el-Wad Terrace.
Species frequencies in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (based on molar counts) Table 1
Species frequencies in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (based on molar counts) Table 1
Distribution of molars in the Site assemblage according to jaw placement for species with large sample sizes
Distribution of molars in the Site assemblage according to jaw placement for species with large sample sizes
Fig. 2. The relationship between NISP and MNI in the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (empty circle represents mice datum point; notice scale differences).
Fig. 2. The relationship between NISP and MNI in the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (empty circle represents mice datum point; notice scale differences).
Fig. 3. The relationship between NISP and dentary completeness index in the Site assemblage (empty circle represents mole rat datum point).
Fig. 3. The relationship between NISP and dentary completeness index in the Site assemblage (empty circle represents mole rat datum point).
Fig. 4. %MNE based patterns of skeletal element frequencies for the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (Mol. and Inc. represent only the isolated teeth).
Fig. 4. %MNE based patterns of skeletal element frequencies for the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (Mol. and Inc. represent only the isolated teeth).
Fig. 5. MNE based patterns of skeletal element frequencies for the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages plotted on a log-difference scale (Mol. and Inc. represent only the isolated teeth).
Fig. 5. MNE based patterns of skeletal element frequencies for the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages plotted on a log-difference scale (Mol. and Inc. represent only the isolated teeth).
Fig. 6. Correlation between hydraulic equivalences (Ref. [41]: Table 2) and frequencies of skeletal elements (Y%MNE) in the Site assemblage (empty circles represent outliers).
Fig. 6. Correlation between hydraulic equivalences (Ref. [41]: Table 2) and frequencies of skeletal elements (Y%MNE) in the Site assemblage (empty circles represent outliers).
Fig. 7. Correlation between marmot structural densities (Ref. [49]: Table 2) and frequencies of skeletal elements (%MNE) in the Site assemblage (empty circles represent outliers).
Fig. 7. Correlation between marmot structural densities (Ref. [49]: Table 2) and frequencies of skeletal elements (%MNE) in the Site assemblage (empty circles represent outliers).
Fragmentation intensity of the major skeletal elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (excluding complete elements following Ref. [49])
Fragmentation intensity of the major skeletal elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (excluding complete elements following Ref. [49])
Fig. 8. Distributions of breakage divisions (following Reef. [1]: Fig. 3.7) for the major limb elements in the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (based on NISP; totals include complete elements and/or 2/3 segments, not shown here; numbers represent sample sizes).
Fig. 8. Distributions of breakage divisions (following Reef. [1]: Fig. 3.7) for the major limb elements in the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (based on NISP; totals include complete elements and/or 2/3 segments, not shown here; numbers represent sample sizes).
Indices of jaw breakage in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages Table 4
Indices of jaw breakage in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages Table 4
Fig. 9. Distributions of breakage categories (following Ref. [1]: Figs. 3.11, 3.12) for (a) mandible and (b) maxilla elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (based on NISP; numbers represent sample sizes). 4.4. Digestion marks
Fig. 9. Distributions of breakage categories (following Ref. [1]: Figs. 3.11, 3.12) for (a) mandible and (b) maxilla elements in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (based on NISP; numbers represent sample sizes). 4.4. Digestion marks
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of skeletal specimens. (a) Vole molar from the Site assemblage showing rounding and enamel loss at edge of occlusal surface. (b) Vole molar in situ from the Site assemblage showing rounding and removal of enamel along the salient angles. (c) Distal humerus from the Site assemblage showing localized digestion. (d) Femur head from the Niche assemblage showing localized digestion. (e) Femur head from the Barn Owl assemblage showing localized digestion. (f) Femur head from the Site assemblage showing parallel grooves resulting from rodent gnawing (scale bars represent ~1 mm).
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of skeletal specimens. (a) Vole molar from the Site assemblage showing rounding and enamel loss at edge of occlusal surface. (b) Vole molar in situ from the Site assemblage showing rounding and removal of enamel along the salient angles. (c) Distal humerus from the Site assemblage showing localized digestion. (d) Femur head from the Niche assemblage showing localized digestion. (e) Femur head from the Barn Owl assemblage showing localized digestion. (f) Femur head from the Site assemblage showing parallel grooves resulting from rodent gnawing (scale bars represent ~1 mm).
Fig. 11. Weathering profiles for vole and mouse molar subsets from the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (numbers represent sample sizes). We detected conspicuous, exceptionally smooth and parallel grooves on two of the mole rat femur heads from the Site assemblage (Fig. 10f). These grooves approximate in width that of the sharpened edge of a mouse size incisor (<1 mm). A few of the other larger femur heads were missing substantial chunks of bone, some on opposite sides of the head, yielding an
Fig. 11. Weathering profiles for vole and mouse molar subsets from the (a) Site and (b) Niche assemblages (numbers represent sample sizes). We detected conspicuous, exceptionally smooth and parallel grooves on two of the mole rat femur heads from the Site assemblage (Fig. 10f). These grooves approximate in width that of the sharpened edge of a mouse size incisor (<1 mm). A few of the other larger femur heads were missing substantial chunks of bone, some on opposite sides of the head, yielding an
Fig. 12. Distributions of charred mole rat and all other limb bone breakage segments in the Site assemblage (based on NISP; category ‘other’ refers to detached articular portions: femur head, capitulum/ trochlea of the humerus, and lunar notch of the ulna; numbers represent sample sizes). We further examined the occurrence of charred limb bone specimens, separating those of mole rats from t others, by inspecting various limb bone brea bly, the two distribution their distribution among t s differ (y? = 15.33, p = 0.00 Over 70% of the mole rat specimens are in the catego of smallest identifiable imb bone segments. It can expected that an increased exposure to fire would indu a greater degree of fragmentation [73]. In contrast, t frequencies of charred s kage segments (Fig. 12). Nota- ne ne ). ry be ce he pecimens are nearly evenly dis- ributed across limb bone elements. Deliberate roasting by humans as part of food preparation practices is a conceivable cause for these divergent patterns. The economic significance of mole rats could be accounted for by their large size (average adult weight: ~ 200 g) and by the fact that these exclusively fossorial animals are conspicuous above ground by the mounds created by their extensive tunnel digging activity.
Fig. 12. Distributions of charred mole rat and all other limb bone breakage segments in the Site assemblage (based on NISP; category ‘other’ refers to detached articular portions: femur head, capitulum/ trochlea of the humerus, and lunar notch of the ulna; numbers represent sample sizes). We further examined the occurrence of charred limb bone specimens, separating those of mole rats from t others, by inspecting various limb bone brea bly, the two distribution their distribution among t s differ (y? = 15.33, p = 0.00 Over 70% of the mole rat specimens are in the catego of smallest identifiable imb bone segments. It can expected that an increased exposure to fire would indu a greater degree of fragmentation [73]. In contrast, t frequencies of charred s kage segments (Fig. 12). Nota- ne ne ). ry be ce he pecimens are nearly evenly dis- ributed across limb bone elements. Deliberate roasting by humans as part of food preparation practices is a conceivable cause for these divergent patterns. The economic significance of mole rats could be accounted for by their large size (average adult weight: ~ 200 g) and by the fact that these exclusively fossorial animals are conspicuous above ground by the mounds created by their extensive tunnel digging activity.
Epiphyseal fusion data in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (frequencies are based on MNIs) produce the number of juvenile individuals. These are highest in the Barn Owl assemblage for all four articular regions inspected (Table 6), with a maximum of 87.8%. Excluding the proximal femur, proportions are lower in he Niche assemblage (maximum of 66.7%) and still ower in the Site assemblage (maximum of 41.6%). These ower percentages of juvenile individuals could result from selective loss of their skeletal elements, which are more susceptible to the various taphonomic processes of destruction [61]. Inconsistency in rank order of articular regions within assemblages indicates that the pattern does not primarily reflect a preservation bias. Table 6
Epiphyseal fusion data in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (frequencies are based on MNIs) produce the number of juvenile individuals. These are highest in the Barn Owl assemblage for all four articular regions inspected (Table 6), with a maximum of 87.8%. Excluding the proximal femur, proportions are lower in he Niche assemblage (maximum of 66.7%) and still ower in the Site assemblage (maximum of 41.6%). These ower percentages of juvenile individuals could result from selective loss of their skeletal elements, which are more susceptible to the various taphonomic processes of destruction [61]. Inconsistency in rank order of articular regions within assemblages indicates that the pattern does not primarily reflect a preservation bias. Table 6
Fig. 13. Age structures of mice in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (numbers represent sample sizes).
Fig. 13. Age structures of mice in the Site, Niche, and Barn Owl assemblages (numbers represent sample sizes).
Fig. 14. Age structures of mole rats in the el-Wad Terrace assemblage and recent barn owl pellet collections (recent data taken from Ref. [38]; numbers represent sample sizes). We identified significant taphonomic patterns in the el-Wad Terrace micromammal assemblage through its
Fig. 14. Age structures of mole rats in the el-Wad Terrace assemblage and recent barn owl pellet collections (recent data taken from Ref. [38]; numbers represent sample sizes). We identified significant taphonomic patterns in the el-Wad Terrace micromammal assemblage through its
Fig. 15. Reconstructed taphonomic history of the micromammal remains from el-Wad Terrace.
Fig. 15. Reconstructed taphonomic history of the micromammal remains from el-Wad Terrace.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved