Integrating taphonomy into the practice of zooarchaeology in China

Abstract

With the study of faunal remains (zooarchaeology) emerging as an increasingly prominent component of archaeological studies in China, the importance of studying processes of assemblage formation and preservation (taphonomy) is becoming evident. Remains of animals recovered from an archaeological site are a biased sample of the assemblage that was originally deposited because certain animal parts preserve better than others. Important characteristics of faunal assemblages, such as skeletal element representation and age profiles, can be affected by differential preservation caused by taphonomic agents, both cultural or natural. One primary goal of taphonomic studies is to provide an understanding of differential preservation of bone elements, allowing archaeologists to make more accurate assessments concerning the exploitation of different animal species by past peoples. Recent studies of the faunal assemblages from the Early Paleolithic site of Xujiayao and the Neolithic site of Taosi, both in Shanxi Province, provide examples of the effects that differential preservation can have on archaeological interpretations of skeletal element representation and age profiles, respectively. These examples illustrate how an understanding of taphonomy is critical to the future practice of zooarchaeology in China.

Introduction

Over the past decade, the analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites (zooarchaeology) has become increasingly important to the study of prehistoric and early state societies of China, providing information concerning the subsistence and ritual behavior of early Chinese peoples (Yuan, 2002, Yuan and Flad, 2005). This development has recently been accompanied by recognition of the importance of taphonomy, the study of the processes that affect the preservation of an organism's remains after death (Norton and Gao, 2008a, Norton and Gao, 2008b, Zhang, 2008). Paleontologists and zooarchaeologists have long recognized that the faunal remains recovered from a site are typically a small, biased sample of what was originally deposited. A faunal assemblage may undergo significant modification through time as it becomes subject to many different biological, chemical, geological, and cultural processes before recovery by archaeologists. As investigators strive to reconstruct aspects of the behavior of past peoples, they have devoted greater effort to understand how the differential preservation of different parts of the animal skeleton may affect their interpretations of the faunal record.

The importance of taphonomy can be illustrated from the perspective of the “life history” of a faunal assemblage. Table 1 shows the general similarity in how different researchers have defined the stages of this life history. The inverted triangle indicating sample size represents the loss of bones (i.e., data) from one stage to the next as an assemblage progresses from the animals that are potentially exploitable by the inhabitants of a site (Stage A) to the data eventually published from the study of that assemblage (Stage H). Zooarchaeologists are most interested in how ancient people selected and obtained the animals that they used (B) from all of the species available to them (A) and how the remains of these animals (C) reflect the manner in which they were used. Taphonomic studies have focused on determining how to reconstruct the death assemblage (B) from the preserved fossil assemblage (D). As it progresses through each stage, the assemblage, in its different manifestations, becomes smaller and smaller, and each stage of the assemblage may or may not be representative of the one that preceded it.

An important consideration, made explicit by researchers such as Meadow (1980) and Davis (1987), is that archaeologists play a role in shaping the life history of a faunal assemblage, making the decisions that determine the nature of each stage from E (bones in excavated volume) to H (published data). Archaeologists decide how a site is excavated (e.g., where to place excavation units), how bones are recovered from the excavated volume (e.g., the size of the mesh used for sieving), which of the recovered bones are recorded (e.g., how much time is spent in identifying a bone fragment), and what types of faunal data and what level of detail are presented in the eventual publication, if any. In the context of zooarchaeology, the role of taphonomy is to identify biases that affect the interpretation of the faunal record so that these can be discussed when presenting the results of an analysis. Taphonomic factors need to be taken into consideration in order to understand patterns documented in the faunal data and to assess how accurately these patterns represent the originally deposited faunal assemblage.

Archaeologists have long recognized that certain parts of the skeleton preserve better than others, and taphonomic studies have attempted to address this issue. In one of the most influential works in this field, The Hunters or the Hunted: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy, C. K. Brain reported on the collection and modification of bones by different species of prey animals (Brain, 1981). He also observed how pastoralists butchered animals and how their dogs consumed the discarded bones. He noted that the damage to and survival of different parts of the skeleton appeared to reflect their relative density. Some bone elements were denser, and therefore survived more frequently, than others. In addition, certain parts of a given element preserved better than other parts of the same element.

The remainder of this paper focuses on the effects of differential preservation on archaeological faunal assemblages by addressing the following questions:

• Which bones are most likely to be lost in the archaeological record (specifically, between Stage B and Stage D)?

• How does the differential preservation of bones affect our interpretation of the archaeological record?

• How may zooarchaeologists adapt their analytical methodology, during the recovery (F) and recording (G) of bone specimens, to deal with differential preservation?

The Early Paleolithic site of Xujiayao and the Neolithic site of Taosi, both in Shanxi Province (Fig. 1), are used as examples to address these questions and to demonstrate the potential significance of taphonomic analyses in Chinese zooarchaeology.