Society for American Archaeology

The Analysis of Cutmarks on Archaeofauna: A Review and Critique of Quantification

Procedures, and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach
Author(s): Yoshiko Abe, Curtis W. Marean, Peter J. Nilssen, Zelalem Assefa, Elizabeth C. Stone
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 643-663
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593796 .
Accessed: 08/08/2011 13:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 REPORTS

THE ANALYSIS OF CUTMARKS ON ARCHAEOFAUNA:

A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF QUANTIFICATIONPROCEDURES,
AND A NEW IMAGE-ANALYSIS GIS APPROACH

YoshikoAbe, CurtisW. Marean,Peter J. Nilssen, Zelalem Assefa, and ElizabethC. Stone

Zooarchaeologists utilize a diverse set of approachesfor quantifyingcutmarkfrequencies. The least quantitativemethodfor

cutmarkanalysis relies on composite diagrams of cutmarksoverlain on drawings of skeletal elements (diagramaticmethods).
Todate, interpretationsof these data have generally relied on qualitativeand subjectiveassessments of cutmarkfrequencyand
placement. Many analysts count the numberof fragments that have a cutmark,regardless of the numberof cutmarkson the
fragments (fragment-countdata). Others count the numberof cutmarks(cutmark-countdata). Both can be expressed as sim-
ple counts (NISP data), or as a count of some more-derivedmeasure of skeletal element abundance (MNE data). All of these
approachesprovide differenttypes of data and are not intercomparable.Several researchershave shown thatfragmentation of
specimens impacts thefrequency of cuts, and we show here thatfragmentation impacts all these currentapproaches in ways
that compromisecomparative analysis whenfragmentation differs between assemblages. Weargue that cutmarkfrequencies
from assemblages with differing levels offragmentation are most effectively made comparable by correcting thefrequency of
cutmarksby the observed surface area. Wepresent a new method that allows this surface area correction by using the image
analysis abilities of GIS. Thisapproachovercomesthefragmentationproblem. Weillustratethepower of this techniqueby com-
paring a highlyfragmented archaeological assemblage to an unfragmentedexperimentalcollection.

Los zooarque6logosutilizandiversos me'todospara cuantificarla frecuencia de huellas de corte. El me'todomenos cuantitativo

para el andlisis de huellas de corte utilizadiagramascompuestosde este tipo de huellas que se sobreponena dibujosde elemen-
tos esquele'ticos(me'tododiagramdtico).Hasta el dfa de hoy, la interpretaci6nde estas observaciones se ha basado en evalua-
ciones cualitativas y subjetivasde la frecuencia y posici6n de huellas de corte. Muchos investigadorescuentan el nu'merode
fragmentos 6seos con huellas de corte, sin considerarel numerode huellas en los mismosfragmentos(me'todode conteo defrag-
mentos). Otrosinvestigadorescuentansimplementeel nu'merode huellas de corte (metodode conteo de huellas de corte). Ambos
se pueden expresarya sea como cuantificaci6nsimple (datos de NISP), 6 como una medidaderivadade abundanciade elemen-
tos 6seos (datos de MNE). Todosestos metodosofrecendistintostipos de observaciones,los cuales nos son comparablesentresf.
Variosinvestigadoreshan mostradoque la fragmentaci6nosea afecta la frecuencia de huellas de corte. Nosotros mostramosen
este articulo que lafragmentaci6n6sea influyenotablementeen todos los metodosusados hasta el momento,y que, debido a ello,
se arriesgan los andlisis comparativoscuando el grado defragmentaci6n6sea es distintoentre las colecciones a comparar.Pro-
ponemos que cuandoel grado defragmentaci6n6sea varfaentrelas colecciones, lafrecuencia de huellasde cortepodrfa ser com-
parada en forma mds efectiva al corregir la referidafrecuencia con la medida del drea de la superficieobservada. Nosotros
presentamosun metodonuevo que permite estandarizarla frecuencia de huellas de corte por drea de superficiea travesdel uso
de andlisis de imagencon GIS.Este me'todosupera el problemade la fragmentaci6n6sea. Aqufmostramossu potencial al com-
parar una colecci6n 6sea altamentefragmentadacon otra coleccion experimentalnofragmentada.

T he analysisof cutmarks
on skeletalelements been used to reconstructbutcherystrategies,which
is a standardresearch endeavor in zooar- then are used to addressmore wide-rangingtopics
chaeology and has been used to addressa of greaterinterest.Weusetheterm"butchery" to refer
varietyof topics.Generally,studiesof cutmarkshave to the actionstakento rendera carcassinto usable

Yoshiko Abe and Zelalem Assefa * Interdepartmental DoctoralProgramin AnthropologicalSciences, SUNY at Stony Brook,
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364
Curtis W. Marean * Instituteof HumanOrigins,Departmentof Anthropology,PO Box 872402, Arizona State University,
Tempe,AZ 85287-2402
Peter J. Nilssen * Departmentof Archaeology,Iziko - SouthAfricanMuseum, P.O. Box 61, Cape Town, 8000, SouthAfrica
Elizabeth C. Stone * Departmentof Anthropology,SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364

AmericanAntiquity,67(4), 2002, pp. 643-663

Copyright? 2002 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

643
644 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
portions(Lyman1987), often for consumption,but
theproductionof rawmaterialsfortool manufacture
can also be a single or relatedgoal.
Butcheryby cutting for consumptiontypically
involvesskinning,disarticulation, defleshing,andin
some cases removalof periosteum.Hammerstone
percussionof skeletal elements is also technically
butchery,but thatprocess generallyhas the goal of
fragmentingskeletalpartsto accessmarrowor make
themmoreeasily boiled for greaserendering.Ham-
merstonepercussionleaves a markthat,to a trained
analyst,is distinctfroma cutmark(Blumenschineet
al. 1996). Our focus here is on cutmarksand their
analysis.
Studiesof cutmarksfigureprominentlyin human
originsresearchwherezooarchaeologistshavestud-
ied patterningin cutmarksto investigatewhether
Plio-Pleistocene hominids were hunters or scav-
engers(Binford1981,1985,1988;Bunn1981,1991;
BunnandKroll 1986, 1988;Potts 1983, 1988;Potts
and Shipman1981; Shipman1986, 1988; Shipman
and Rose 1983). Over time this dichotomous
approachgavewayto usingcutmarkingto helpiden-
tify where in the sequenceof carcassconsumption
hominidsregularlyfit (Capaldo1995, 1998b;Sel-
vaggio 1994, 1998). Studiesof cutmarkshave also
been used in modernhumanoriginsresearchto test
Binford'ssuggestionsthateven late-occurringnon-
modernhominidswereprimarilyscavengersof large
ungulates(Chase1986, 1988;GraysonandDelpech
1994; Marean1998; Mareanet al. 2000a; Marean
andAssefa1999;MareanandKim 1998;Milo 1994,
1998; Stiner 1994).
However,cutmarkstudieshave been conducted
in manyotherresearchendeavorswherethe recon-
structionof butcheryprocessesis seen as relevantto
other behavioraltraits.The optimisticview is that
the butcheryprocessvarieswith the intendeduse of
a carcass,andthatthis variationwill be expressedin
the placement and frequency of cutmarkson the
skeleton,allowingus to infer carcassuse from cut-
markstudies.For example,it has been arguedthat
butcheryshould vary between contexts where the
goals are immediate consumptionversus storage
(Binford1978).Binford'swell-knownutilitymodel
haddifferingpredictionsforskeletalelementchoice,
and researchershave anticipatedthat cutmarking
should also vary widely between, for example, an
unselectiveor "gourmetstrategy"versusmoreinten-
sive utilization(Binford 1984). Zooarchaeologists
(Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]
havehopedto identifyfilletingversusskinning(Bin-
ford 1981;Shipman1981;ShipmanandRose 1983;
Wilson 1982). Yellen (1991) has arguedthat some
butcherypatternshave a "style"that could be cul-
turallydetermined,thus holdingout the possibility
thatbutcherypatternsmayprovideways to examine
ethnicity.
This high promisehas been frustratedby several
factors.First is a lack of detailed observationsof
butcheryandits resultantpatterning.Therearemany
studiesof butcheredmodernbones (Binford 1981,
1984;Crader1983;Gifford-Gonzalez1989;Gifford
andCrader1977),butnoneof theseactuallyobserved
the act of butcherythat producedmarks,and then
linkedthose specificactionsto specificcutmarks.A
recentstudy that filmed butcheryactionsclose-up,
thusprovidingthisunambiguouslinkage,foundthat
manyof thedisarticulation ordefleshingmarksillus-
tratedin Binford (1981), and regularlyused as a
guide to butcheryanalysis, are not unambiguous
indicatorsof specificactivities(Nilssen2000). Thus
the strictcausal linkagebetweenobservedspecific
behaviors(such as cuttingfor disarticulationor for
defleshing) and their traces (such as cutmarkson
articularends versusshafts),called for by Gifford-
Gonzalez (1991), is not yet fully developedin the
literature.
Another critical problem is the diversity of
approachesfor recording the cutmarksand then
quantifyingtheirfrequency.Itis safeto saythatthere
is no acceptedmethodfor either.Ourreviewof the
literatureshows that recordingcutmarkscan take
two paths.One is to recorda countand description
of the cutmarksonto a database.This can be done
eitherat a grosslevel (how manyareon a specimen)
or a finer level (where on the specimenthey occur
along with a diagnosisof theircharacter).A second
approachis to drawcutmarksonto a diagramof a
bone, or what we will call a template. The two
approachescan be easily combined,and probably
often are.
Once the cutmarksarerecordedthe analystmust
choose a way to quantify,analyze,and presentthe
datain publication,andherethereis also a wide vari-
ety of approaches.This step is problematicdue to
the potentialfor wide interanalystvariationin con-
vention.This variationis a severeproblemfor com-
parativestudiesin zooarchaeologybecauseit makes
it difficult,if notimpossible,to comparedatabetween
researchers.Justas zooarchaeologistshave defined
 REPORTS
anatomicallandmarksandmeasurementsthatstan-
dardize their approachto osteometrics (Driesch
1976), zooarchaeologistsmust also strivefor stan-
dardizationin otherformsof data.Importantly,not
only shouldtherebe standards,we needto knowthat
these standardsareeffective.
In this paperwe begin with a briefreviewof the
main approachesused by analyststo quantifycut-
marking.We then review the impactof bone frag-
mentationon theeffectivenessof thesequantification
procedures.We arguethat these currentanalytical
approachesdo not adequatelyovercomeproblems
causedby differentialfragmentation.Recentdevel-
opmentsin graphicalorimage-analysissoftware,we
believe, hold promisefor solving manyof the prob-
lems inherentin quantifyingcutmarks.Finally,we
presenta new approachwith GIS softwarethatwe
thinkovercomesthe main problemsin quantifying
and analyzingcutmarks.We illustratethis method
with an applicationto two radicallydifferentcol-
lections, a fragmentedMiddle Stone Age (MSA)
faunalcollection and an unfragmentedexperimen-
tal collection.Ourintentis not to review the issues
of how to define a cutmark,because that has been
discussed in detail elsewhere(Blumenschineet al.
1996;Fisher1995;Shipman1981).Also, we do not
examinetheissue of how to diagnosehow manycut-
marksarepresenton a fragment,suchas whetherto
recordmultiplestriaeas one or moreindividualcut-
marks(Lyman1987). Rather,ourgoal is to address
the issue of how to recordandthenanalyzethe num-
bers afterone has diagnoseda cutmark,decidedon
a count,andis readyto recordandultimatelyquan-
tify the samplefor meaningfulbehavioralanalysis,
such as comparisonto moderncontrolassemblages
or otherarchaeologicalassemblages.
Review of Methods for
Quantifying Cutmark Frequency
The literatureon cutmarkanalysis is vast, and our
goal here is not to review it all but ratherto distill
from thatliteraturethe basic methodsfor quantify-
ing cutmark frequencies. The least quantitative
methodforcutmarkanalysisrelieson compositedia-
gramsof cutmarksoverlainon drawingsof skeletal
elements (Binford 1988; Grayson and Delpech
1994:Figure10;Landon1996; Marshall1990). We
call these"diagramatic methods,"and,to date,inter-
pretationsof thesedatahavegenerallyreliedon qual-
itative and subjective assessments of cutmark
645
frequencyandplacement.It is ourimpressionfrom
discussionswith many zooarchaeologiststhatthey
often begin theirrecordingof cutmarksby drawing
cutmarkson bonediagrams.However,in an attempt
to be more quantitativeand test for statisticalsig-
nificance, zooarchaeologiststypically use various
methodsforcountingandsummarizingcutmarkfre-
quencies,neveractuallyusingthediagrammatic data
for anythingother than presentationand impres-
sionableanalysis.
When analystspresentcutmarkdata,they typi-
cally choose to count one of two observations(see
Table 1). Many analystscount the numberof frag-
mentsthathavea cutmark,regardlessof the number
of cutmarkson the fragments,andwe referto these
as "fragment-count" data.Thesecanbe expressedas
a simplecountof fragmentsthatarecutmarked,what
we call "NISPdata"(NISP= numberof identifiable
specimens),oras a countof some morederivedmea-
sure of skeletal element abundance,what we call
"MNEdata."The MNE (minimumnumberof ele-
ments)underliesmost otherderivedmeasuressuch
as the MNI (minimumnumberof individuals)or
MAU (minimumnumberof animalunits),so we use
thistermgenerallyto referto all MNE-derivedmea-
sures.Analystsoften choose to presentthe dataas a
proportion,andtypicallytheseoccuras theNISPcut-
markeddividedby the totalNISP,or the MNE cut-
markeddividedby the totalMNE.
Alternatively,
analystscan countthe frequencyof
individualcutmarkson specimenswithina skeletal
element,and/orwithina definedregion(suchas the
proximalend or the middleshaft).We referto these
as "cutmark-count" data.Cutmark-count dataareoften
expressedas botha raw value,or as a proportionor
index.As withfragment-count data,the analystmay
employthe NISPor MNE as the denominatorin the
proportioncalculation,resultingin the permutations
listedin Table1. Thereis no standardin zooarchae-
ology as to whatapproachto use, so as is indicatedin
our discussionbelow, much of the publishedlitera-
turepresentsdatathatis only directlycomparableto
a narrowsampleof otherstudies.
One of the simplest approachesto quantifying
cutmarks,and otherforms of surfacemodification,
has developed within the field of early hominid
research.This approachwas firstused by Blumens-
chine (1988) in his analysis of hammerstoneper-
cussion and carnivoretooth marks,and was later
extendedto cutmarks(Capaldo1995, 1997, 1998a,
646 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
Table 1. Approachesto CutmarkQuantification.
Expressed as NISP
Counts of Cutmarks NISP cutmark-countdata
Counts of Cut Fragments NISP fragment-countdata
1998b;Mareanet al. 2000a;Selvaggio 1994, 1998).
The goals in these studiesareprimarilytwo: identi-
fying the position of hominids within the carcass
consumption sequence (early access versus late
access), and measuringthe amountandintensityof
carnivoreactionon thefaunalassemblagefollowing
hominid discard.These approachesfocus only on
long bone fragmentsthat are classified into three
types: epiphyseal (technicallyarticular),near-epi-
physeal,andshaft(see Blumenschine1988fora def-
inition).The fragmentsmay or may not be grouped
by skeletalelementfor analysis.Fragmentsareonly
assignedto body-sizeclasses(Brain1981),nottaxon,
and only ungulatelong bones are used. Fragments
are tabulatedas having a markof a certaintype or
not (numbersof marks per specimen are not uti-
lized), so this approachproducesNISP fragment-
countdata.
An example of NISP cutmark-count data is
Stiner's (1994) presentationof Paleolithic faunas
fromItaly.Stiner(1994) providesskeletaldiagrams
of anatomicallycompletetaxawith the frequencies
of cutmarksindicatedon the skeleton(by numbers
pointingto a skeletalelement).Such diagramspro-
vide a useful visual summaryof the intensityof cut-
ting at variousanatomicallocations. Stiner (1994)
alsoprovidestablesof cutmarkedfragmentspertotal
NISP assignedto a specific taxon, so her presenta-
tion includes both cutmark-countand fragment-
countdata,all in NISP.
Giffordet al. (1980) and Bunnand Kroll(1986)
provideskeletaldiagramsthataresuperficiallysim-
ilar to those in Stiner(1994), but the presentedval-
ues are frequenciesof cutmarkedfragments from a
particularskeletal element. These are NISP frag-
ment-countdata,andthusverydifferentfromStiner's
skeletaldiagrams,despitethe similarityin presenta-
tion.Giffordet al. (1980) also presentstablesof cut-
markedfragments,buttheyaresegregatedby skeletal
element and body-size category,not species, and
thus are not directlycomparableto Stiner'stables
(1994). NISP fragment-countdata are common in
the literaturesince the 1960s (BunnandKroll 1986;
Frison 1970; Gilbert 1969; Guilday et al. 1962;
(Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]
Expressed as MNE
MNE cutmark-countdata
MNE fragment-countdata
Marean1992; Parmalee1965;Wheat 1979). While
thedataarecarefullydescribedandpresentedin each
of thesestudies,thevariationin analyticalprocedures
makescomparativeanalysissomewhatdifficult.
It has become increasinglycommonfor analysts
to presentandanalyzecutmarkdatacorrectedby the
MNE, or a measurederivedfrom it (Binford1984;
Graysonand Delpech 1994; Milo 1998). Binford
(1984) was one of the firstanalyststo presentcut-
markdatain thismanner,andhis tableson theKlasies
River fauna provide an MNE on cutmarkedfrag-
mentsby bovid size class and skeletalelement,and
then a total MNE. Milo's analysis of the Klasies
River fauna provides similar data (1998:Table
2:104): the MNI calculatedfrom all fragmentsper
skeletalelementandportion,andtheMNIcalculated
fromjust those fragmentsthatarecutmarked.Milo
(1998) also employs an index of cutmarks per
anatomicalzone (in this case joints), and these are
clearlyindexedMNE cutmark-countdata.By pro-
vidingboth,he broadensthe potentialusefulnessof
his presenteddata. His reasons for calculatingthe
indexareclear(Milo 1998:109):"Absolutenumbers
of markscannotbe comparedbecauseof disparities
in skeletalpartrepresentation." Note thatin all cases
his denominatoris a derivedmeasureof skeletalele-
mentabundance,andhe uses it becausederivedmea-
sures "partly circumvent the problem posed by
differentialfragmentation"(Milo 1998:102). Milo
does not elaborateon this statement,but Bartram
(1993) provided a thoughtfuldiscussion, and we
buildon thatbelow.
The Fragmentation Problem
The use of derivedmeasuresis often undertakento
overcomeor at least minimizethe primaryanalyti-
cal problemfacing the analysis of cutmarks:cut-
markfrequenciesaresensitiveto fragmentation from
both human and nonhuman processes (Bartram
1993). Bartramdiscussed the problems with cut-
mark-countdata,andwe summarizethatbelow,but
not for fragment-countdata, so we extend his dis-
cussion to those approachesas well.
Figure 1 beginsthe illustrationof the fragmenta-
 REPORTS 647

A) ' [ B)

Hammerstone Percussion

Expressed as: Expressed as:

NISP MNE NISP MNE
Raw Proportion Raw Proportion Raw Proportion Raw Proportion

CutmarkCount 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 .375 3 3.0

FragmentCount 1 1.0 1 1.0 2 .25 1 1.0

Figure 1. a) Three cutmarks on a complete bovid femur, and b) the same femur fragmented by hammerstone percussion,
both showing the resulting counts and proportions using the various approaches discussed in the text. Small arrows on a)
indicate the position of cut marks.

tionproblem.Figure1a showsa femurthathas been ple fragmentbones at differentlevels of intensity

butcheredof its flesh, andtherearethreecuts on it.
At this pointin the taphonomichistoryof this spec-
imen, the frequency of cutmarksand cutmarked
fragmentsis 100 percent with either an NISP or
MNE approach.Thefrequencieswouldvaryby por-
tion (proximalend, proximalshaft,and so on) and
would be accuratelyreflectedby both an NISP and
MNE approach. Zooarchaeologists often create
experimental assemblages of skeletal elements
butcheredundercontrolledcircumstancesfor com-
parisonto archaeologicalcollections (Milo 1998),
and this example illustratesthe conditionof those
assemblages.
Figurelb showsthe samefemurbrokenby ham-
merstonepercussionfor marrowaccess. This sim-
ple, and almost universal,stage in the taphonomic
historyof a long bonelowersthe frequencyandpro-
portionof cutmarksand cutmarkedfragmentsdra-
maticallyif the NISP is used. It is safe to say that
evenminimalpostbutcheryfragmentation will lower
the frequencyof cuts with any NISP approachand
makesNISP approachesnearlyuseless for anytype
of comparativeanalysisbetweenarchaeologicalcol-
lectionsandunfragmented experimentalcollections.
Importantly, ethnographicaccountsshowus thatpeo-
depending on their ultimate goal (Bartram1993;
Binford 1978, 1981;Yellen 1991). For example,if
bone boiling for grease renderingis a goal, then
bones areoften moreintenselyfragmentedto expe-
ditetheboilingprocess(Binford1978, 1981).Bones
of largeranimalsmay be more heavily fragmented
to fitintopotsforboiling(Marshall1990).Ithas also
been shownthatbonesfromdifferent-sizedanimals
are differentiallyfragmentedduringhammerstone
percussion (Bartram1993; Bartramand Marean
1999): generally, the larger the animal the more
intensely the bones are fragmented for nutrient
extraction.ThismeansthatNISP-basedmethodswill
falsely illustratecutmarkfrequenciesacross body
sizes.
MNEapproachesworkbetterin thisexampleand
overcomethefragmentation problemas indicatedby
the equality between the proportioncalculations
before and afterhammerstonepercussion(see also
Bartram1993). If one were calculatingthe cutmark
frequency,eitheras fragment-countorcutmark-count
data, or by whole bone or portions, the MNE
approachprovidesanaccurateassessmentof thecut-
markfrequenciesin this situation.We can takethis
exampleevenfurther,andin twodirectionsthatmore
648 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]

A)

Expressed as:
NISP MNE
Raw Proportion Raw Proportion

CutmarkCount 5 1.66 5 1.66

FragmentCount 3 1.0 3 1.0

B) i

Expressed as:
NISP MNE
Raw Proportion Raw Proportion

CutmarkCount 2 .666 2 .666

FragmentCount 2 .666 2 .666

Figure 2. a) Cutmarks on 3 proximal bovid femora broken by hammerstone percussion prior to attrition by sedimentary
processes, and b) the same three proximal bovid femora after attrition by sedimentary processes. The surviving fragments
are shown in dark outline while the original bone is shown in gray outline as a ghost image. Small arrows on a) indicate the
position of cut marks.

realisticallyportraythe realitiesof the taphonomic impactedthe fragments.Figure2b shows an exam-

historyof archaeologicalbone assemblages.
Figure2a shows threeproximalfemorabroken
by hammerstonepercussion,two withtwo cutmarks
and one with one cutmark.This representsthe pre-
depositionalstate,beforesedimentary processeshave
ple of how the femorain 2a wouldtypicallysurvive
fragmentation and bone loss from sedimentary
processes.It is widely believed that fragmentation
by sedimentary processes is density mediated
(Grayson 1989; Klein 1989; Lyman 1984, 1985,
 REPORTS 649

1992)andthefemoralheadsurvivesbetterin archae-
ological sites than the greatertrochanter,probably
becausethefemoralheadis significantlydenserthan
thegreatertrochanter(Lamet al. 1999).Inthisexam-
ple, boththe NISP approachandthe MNE approach
fail to providecomparabledatabetweenthe prede-
positional and postdepositionalstates with either
fragment-countor cutmark-countdata.In all cases,
fragmentationlowersthe proportionof cutmarksor
cutmarkedfragments.
7 7
This resultis soberingfor anyoneattemptingto
conductcomparativeanalysesof cutmarkfrequency.
Wheninterpreting cutmarkfrequenciesfromarchae-
ological sites it is imperativeto have some type of B) DensityMediatedDestruction
controlassemblageto aid in interpretation. This is
often eitheran unfragmentedexperimentalsample,
or a humanlyfragmentedethnoarchaeological sam-
ple that was not fragmented by sedimentary
processes. Neitherof these two types of compara-
tive sampleswill providecomparablecutmarkfre-
quenciesto archaeologicalsamples,becauseof the
fragmentation problem.Thisproblemcanbe extrap-
olated to attemptsto comparetwo archaeological
sites of differing levels of fragmentation, and
betweenanimalsof differingbody size: the cutmark
Figure 3. a) Five fiat surfaces representing the bone surface
values simply will not be comparable. area of five bones of the same skeletal element, divided into
Thebasicproblemcanbe summarizedsimply.As four zones, each with one cutmark, but with zone 1 having
processes of bone destruction,such as postdiscard higher density than zones 2-4, and b) the survival of these
zones following density-mediated destruction.
carnivorescavengingand diagenesis, increasingly
fragmenta cutmarkedbone,fragmentation generally each a squarewith one cutmarkin it. Cutmarksare
decreasesthe numberof cutmarkedfragmentsand systematicallydistributedacross that surfacesuch
cutmarkcountsrelativeto totalfragments,andthus that each sample area has one cutmark.Like our
reducestherelativefrequenciesin NISPapproaches, bones, this flat surfacehas varyingdensity,and in
makingany NISP approachineffectivefor compar- this example sample area one (the darkestarea) is
ative studiesof cutmarkfrequency.The fragmenta- the densestarea(similarto the femoralhead in the
tion process also moves more fragmentsinto the exampleabove).If this imaginarybone surfacewas
unidentifiablecategoryanddestroysless-densebone subjectedto taphonomicprocessesof bone destruc-
altogether.Bothof theseprocesseseffectivelyreduce tion(Figure3b), sampleareaone thenpreservesbet-
the amountof bone surfaceareastudiedby the ana- ter than all others.OurMNE for the five flat bone
lyst. Sinceboneportionsappearto surviveas a func- surfaceswill always be high relativeto the amount
tion of density,MNE countswill resistthe impactof of bone surfaceareapreservedbecausesamplearea
fragmentationandremainhigh since the dense por- one continuesto preserveand overlapwith sample
tion is preserved,and countedby the analyst,again area one in other surfaces.The MNE may in fact
andagain,while the less denseareasof the bone are remainfive while mostof the othersampleareasare
lost through attrition. Unfortunately for MNE degraded.Statedanotherway, as density-mediated
approaches,the largerthe sample the greaterthe destructionattacksthe bone, the MNE counts on
biasingeffect. This is illustratedin Figure3. sample area one will decreaseat a lesser rate than
Imaginefive flat squaresurfacessubstitutingfor the othersampleareas.If we wereto countcutmarks
the surfaceof five bone fragments(Figure3a). We and divide by MNE, our resultingestimatewould
arbitrarilydividethatsurfaceintofoursampleareas, vastlyunderestimatethe frequencyof cutmarksrel-
650 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
ativeto the originalsurface.This is why MNE data
arenotimmuneto thefragmentationproblem.How-
ever, if we dividedthe numberof cutmarksby the
preserved surface area, our cutmarkfrequencies
would closely matchthe originalfrequencies.This
situationshouldhold if cutmarkingdoes not prefer-
entiallyoccur,ornotoccur,in denseregionsof bone.
We haveno reasonto believethatcutmarkinginten-
sity systematicallyvarieswithbonedensity,buteven
if it does, the GIS methodwe describebelow has a
meansto overcomethis problem.
Theresultis thatthelikelihoodof a cutmarkbeing
preservedandcountedby an analystis a functionof
theamountof bonesurfaceareastudiedandrecorded.
As more surfaceareais studiedandrecordedby an
analyst,morecutmarkswill be found,andvice versa.
Thusif we cancorrectthenumberof cutmarksby the
amountof examinedsurfacearea,much as demog-
raphersstandardizepopulationsize by estimating
populationdensity,thenwe can standardizecutmark
numbersbetween sites, between body sizes, even
betweenanalyststhatmay differin theirchoice and
abilities to identify and record fragmentedbone.
Importantly, as samplesize (andthussurfacearea)is
increased,the frequenciesgeneratedby this method
areless susceptibleto chanceoccurrencesthatcould
skew the results.The key is, of course,thatwe have
some way of recordingthe amountof examinedsur-
face areaandhow manycutmarks(orotherformsof
surfacemodification)were found.
Rapson (1990) recognized the fragmentation
problem and recommended correcting cutmark
countsby surfaceareawiththefollowingprocedure:
calculatethe frequencyof cutmarksperunitareafor
each specimenby multiplyingthetotalcutmarksper
specimenby 1,000 and then dividingby specimen
area,resultingin a figurethatestimatedthe number
of cutmarksper 1,000 mm2of bone surfaceareafor
each specimen,thencalculatethe meansurfacearea
and the mean numberof cutmarksper unit areaby
taxonomicgroup. Rapson'smethodfor estimating
surfaceareaper specimeninvolvedmultiplyingthe
maximumlengthof a faunalspecimenby anapprox-
imatemeasureof specimenwidth.Specimenwidth
is estimatedby measuringthe distancebetweenthe
maximumweatheringsurfaceandits oppositeaspect
(the "weatheringprofile height"). Rapson argued
thatthisapproachallowscomparisonof cutmarkfre-
quenciesbetweendifferentiallyfragmentedsamples,
in his case bighom sheep andbison.
[Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]
Rapson'ssuggestionto correctcutmarkcountsby
surfacearea,andhis use of a gross estimateof sur-
facearea,was anexcellentfirststep.Recentadvances
in image-analysissoftware, and particularlyGIS,
allow us to go far beyond that approach.GIS soft-
waremakespossible the following proceduresthat
capturethebestof themethodsdiscussedabove,and
excel in severalcriticalways: 1) captureandcalcu-
late the preservedsurface area of fragmentsin a
muchmorerealisticmannerandthussolve the frag-
mentationdilemma, 2) precisely quantifythe fre-
quencyof cutmarkson a skeletalelementin anyway
desiredso thatpositionalquestionscanbe askedflex-
ibly,3) attacha descriptivedatabaseto a graphically
recordedcutmarkso thatcutmarkscanbe furtherana-
lyzed by type, length, angulation, or any other
recordedvariable,4) allow diagrammaticrepresen-
tationof cutmarkplacementin any permutationof
variablesdesired(taxon,provenience,cutmarktype,
and so on), and 5) if it is eventuallyfoundthatcut-
markingintensitysystematicallyvaries with bone
density,thismethodwill allowthe analystto restrict
analysis to surface-areasamples that are density-
equivalent.
We have developeda series of methodsthatuti-
lize ArcView GIS software, the ArcView Spatial
Analyst extension, and several modificationsand
extensions written in Avenue (the ArcView pro-
gramminglanguage) and MicrosoftVisual Basic.
ThesematerialsincludeanArcViewprojectwiththe
addedAvenuefeatures,an exampleprojectwith the
digitalimages,a manual,andaVisualBasicprogram
developed to overcome several file management
problemsassociatedwith linkingArcViewto exter-
nal databases.Therearealso instructionson how to
develop interfacesfor your own animalsof prefer-
ence (hare,fish, bird,or whatever),and splice them
into ourprogrammingcode. All are availablegratis
from Mareanby request(curtis.marean@asu.edu),
but you must alreadyhave a copy of ArcView,for
which manyuniversitieshave site licenses.
The Image-Analysis GIS Method
To understandour methodof cutmarkanalysis,we
mustfirstexplainhow we calculatethe MNE using
the image-analysis GIS approach(Mareanet al.
2001). Zooarchaeologicalsystemsforestimatingthe
MNE, and othermeasuresderivedfrom it, can be
classified into two types: fraction summation
approachesand overlapapproaches(Mareanet al.
 REPORTS 651

a),, b)GX; c)(i

Overlap

Figure 4: a) Example of a femur fragment drawn onto a template, b) a second femur fragment where the MNE still equals
1, and c) a third femur fragment raises the MNE to 2. The darker shading indicates the area of overlap between the two
specimens.

2001). Overlapapproaches(see Figure4) seek an files for you in a ratheruninformativeway, so we

actualcountof thenumberof overlappingfragments
andthus a directestimateof the numberof skeletal
elementsrepresentedby a seriesof fragments.How-
ever,these methods,when done manually,arecum-
bersome,time consuming,and could be inaccurate
when workingwith largecollections.
We describeda new image-analysisGIS method
(Mareanet al. 2001) that utilizes GIS softwareto
make the overlapapproachmore approachableand
accurate.The simplestandmost completerecordof
a fragmentwould be to drawits positionon a tem-
plate.WiththeGISmethodwe usethemouseto draw
the outlineof a fragmentonto an outlineof a com-
pletebone, calleda template,bothof whicharevec-
tor images (Figure5). Our procedureis to do this
directlyto computer,butif neededan analystcould
generatehard-copyformsof the templatesandenter
them later.ArcViewtreatseach fragmentas a sepa-
rate theme, and each theme is a relatedset of files
thatincludea shapefile (thevectorimage) linkedto
a tablefile (whereotherinformation,such as speci-
men number,can be stored).ArcView names the
havedevelopedaVisualBasicprogramthatrenames
all files by the specimennumber,allowingeasy file
management.The fragmentvectoroutlinesarelater
translatedinto bitmapsfor the variouscalculations
describedbelow. Sittingon top of the templatedur-
ing theentryprocessis a high-resolutiondigitalpho-
tographof the bone thathelps the analystprecisely
positionthefragmentandsurfacemodificationon to
thetemplate.Figure5 showsanexampleof the frag-
ment entryinterfacewe have designedfor femur.
Likewise,cutmarks(andothermodifications)are
entereddirectlyby mouseontothetemplateanddig-
italphotograph.We designedthe systemso thatcut-
marksare enteredtogetheronto a single theme for
cutmarks.Eachcutmarkis namedon theunderlying
databasetable by specimennumberand described
by a varietyof variables(angulation,cutmarktype,
andso on).An analystcanaddto orlessentheamount
of detailrecorded.
Using varioussoftwareroutines,the position of
fragmentsin relationto each othercan be assessed
accurately,andthe overlapscan be estimatedto the
652 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No. 4, 2002]

-_.___--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..........

l - _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. ..... _
.......
...

. ........ ......_....
....
.. _............
1 1
...
.......
............
. *_
......
..............
...

I ...........
...................

. .... .... ....

11 ^1aih5. l! . |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..... = =

5.A
Figure,- xml fte aaetysre frabvdlf emro u rVe 32famn nr sse.a hw h
stnarviwo h ____
ih igefamn rwni h iw tcvrs costetpto braeasre fbt
tosta activaeAeu oew aewittnt ak.Fo copihavreyo xml,telgtnnutngnr
atsbai tmltso th curn bn.:Tebtoslbee I ,3 acivat Aeue cod
the~ stp_o ~
acltn ~Nsfrtecretyvee oe o ietedaigpoes
thtgieXhnlshog
n a oo no h iia
an
image~~~ cl t to the samefi
siz of th frgeti adb rt ete e h etrsta il epteaaytpoel
place1 th frgmn. To th leftW., the.mag, wit h hce oe,.are h itfie in the view.. FfOlithcurn
frametolgo (veto img) and thishsadttaluneyigtweroecnetrohr inomtn suc aspc
imen~~...
number... Eahsprt=rgetad nohrplgn(efO,FlO3,adso n.Flhtdgistedgtlpo

tograph of the feur A'''''ll'a:b'une'idvein'n nan f t ety

 REPORTS 653

MNE

2
3
4

6
7
8
Anterior Lateral Posterior Medial
Figure6. Resultsof the GIS procedurefor estimatingMNEon a bovidfemur,fromMareanet al. 2091.

pixel level. Eachpixel has an MNE value, which is
the numberof fragmentsthat overlappedthe posi-
tion of thatpixel. The MNE map generatedby this
image-analysisapproach(Figure6) is thus a com-
positedigitalrecordof the physicalposition,shape,
and size of all identifiablefragments.It is also a
MNE map of the bone surface.Drawingeach frag-
mentprovidesthe mostcompleterecordof the iden-
tified archaeologicalfragmentsas is possible, aside
fromextensivelyphotographing theactualfragments
themselves,and is infinitelyeasierto analyze.
The digitalimages, once entered,can be manip-

a)~~ b_) c_)ME MNE 1I

pixels
NINE2= ~~~~750
250 pixels

MNE 0

Surface area Surface area

for whole femur: 4,000 pixels represented by fragments: 1,250 pixels

Surface area represented by fragments: (1 x 750) + (2 x 250) 1,250 pixels

Surface area for whole bone: 4,000 pixels

% Surface area represented by fragments: 1,250 / 4,000 x 100 = 31.3%

Figure 7. An example of percent surface area calculation. a) Example of a femur template. The pixel count for this template
is 4,000 pixels. b) Fragments are drawn onto the template. c) Example with fragments drawn onto the template. Darker
shading indicates the area of overlap between two specimens. The pixel count of the area with fragments is calculated as
1,250 pixels.
654 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]

% Surface area represented by fragments: 31.3%

Total numberof cutmarks: 10 cuts

cuts I % surface area: 10 / 31.3% x 100 = 31.9

MNE 0
MNE = o
MNE 2

Figure 8. Example of cuts I % surface area calculation (= CNC) using the femur example from Figure 7. The resulting value
is the number of cuts that would occur on a single complete bone.

ulatedand measuredfor many purposes.To obtain
theMNEvaluefora skeletalelement,onewouldlook
for the pixel with the highest value, or numberof
overlaps.One can also count the numberof pixels
within a fragmentdrawing,which is a two-dimen-
sional measureof the surfaceareaof the fragment
relativeto the template.The surfaceareaof multiple
fragmentsin a skeletalelement(such as those seen
in theMNEmapin Figure6) canbe obtainedby mul-
tiplying the surfaceareawith the numberof over-
laps. By dividingthe surfaceareaof the fragments
by the total surface area of each skeletal element
template,one can calculatethe percentsurfacearea
preservedfor each skeletal element. A simplified
exampleis given in Figure7, wherethe surfacearea
of the fragmentsis shownas a percentvaluerelative
to the whole skeletalelement.This correctedvalue
can be used as a denominatorof other measures,
such as the count of surfacemodificationmarks,to
makecomparisonsacrossdifferentskeletalelements
and differentcollectionspossible.
marksassociatedwith
If the surface-modification
identifiablefragmentsare recordedusing the same
skeletal-elementtemplate,the informationbetween
thesetwo sets of datacanbe linkedspatially.Inother
words,it is possibleto identifythe positionof a sur-
face-modification markon a skeletalelement,as well
as the relativeabundanceof the areawherethe sur-
face-modificationmarkis found.Anothersimplified
exampleis given in Figure8, wherethe percentsur-
facearea(ascalculatedin Figure7) correctsthenum-
ber of surface-modification marks,in this case cut-
marks.The correctednumberof cutmarks(i.e., cut-
marks/percent surfacearea)is the estimatednumber
of cutmarksthatwouldbe foundon one whole bone,
in this case the femur,as extrapolatedfromthe pre-
served fragments.This procedureallows compar-
isons of differentiallyfragmentedassemblagesby
correctingdirectlyfor preservedand recordedsur-
face area.Forconvenience,we will referto the cor-
rectednumberof cutmarkswith the acronymCNC.
It is importantto note thatthereis a slight over-
lap between differentviews of the same bone and,
of course, this is a 2-D renderingof a 3-D object.
The overlapoccursfromourdesireto maintaincon-
sistencywith traditionalformsof orientation(ante-
riorview, posteriorview, etc.) as well as the need to
clearly illustratefragmentsand marks.This means
that CNC comparisons,for examplebetween sites
and analysts,must be done only between template
entrysystemsthatarerelativelysimilarto eachother
in theuse of views. Inotherwords,it wouldnotwork
to compareCNC between an analystwho records
andestimatesfemurCNCin five views forthe entire
femurandone who does so in four.However,if com-
parisonswere done within similarregionsor zones
(such as proximalend),therewouldbe no problem.
Application of the Image-Analysis GIS Method
We will illustratethe use of CNC with an archaeo-
logical sampleandan experimentalsample.We use
these two samples to illustrate how this method
 REPORTS
4. 4.
MNE 00..... 800 pixels 200 pixels
MNE I ...... 0 pixels 500 pixels
MNE 2 ...... 0 pixels l00 pixels
Surfacearearepresentedby fragments:
Surfacearea for entiremiddle shaft zone:
% Surface area represented by fragments: 1,100 / 3,200 = 34.4%
Figure 9. Example of percent surface area calculation using middle shaft zone of femur.
allows directcomparisonof two samplesthatdiffer
widely in fragmentation: the archaeologicalsample
is highly fragmentedand dominatedby shaft frag-
ments,while the experimentalsamplederivesfrom
whole bones. The archaeologicalsample is taken
from a series of MiddleStoneAge (MSA) layersat
Die KeldersCave 1 (DK1) in SouthAfrica (Avery
et al. 1997; Mareanet al. 2000b). The DK1 MSA
large mammal(body size 3 and 4) bovid remains
were selected for this analysisbecause analysesof
toothmarksand percussionmarksdemonstratethat
people were the primary accumulators of these
remains(Mareanet al. 2000b).Mostof theseremains
derivefromeland (Taurotragusoryx)and are taken
fromlayers10-13. Theexperimentalsampleis from
Nilssen's experimentalbutcheryof South African
bovids (Nilssen 2000).
The fragmentsand cutmarksfrom both studies
were recordedusingArcViewGIS softwareversion
3.1 withtheArcViewSpatialAnalystextensionver-
sion 3.0 on aWindows95/98 platform.Thefragment
outlines were recordedas polygon vector images
and converted to grids (pixel images) using the
methodoutlinedin Mareanet al. (2001). The shape
andpositionof each identifiedfragmentwas drawn
655
Sum of
4. 4. pixel counts
450 pixels 800 pixels 2,250 pixels
300 pixels 0 pixels 800 pixels
50 pixels Opixels 15l pixels
3,200 pixels
(1 x 800) + (2 x 150) = 1,100 pixels
3,200 pixels
on a skeletal-elementtemplate,which was layered
overa high-resolution digitalphotographof thebone,
to ensureaccuratepositioningof the fragment.The
cutmarkswere recordedas line vectorimages with
attacheddatatables thatdescribedthe characterof
each mark and the specimen numberof the frag-
ment. The cutmarkswere enteredusing the same
templateas thefragment,in orderto recordtheexact
spatialpositioning.
CNC can be calculated for any zone within a
skeletalelementthatthe analystwishes, andthis is
a realandnovel strengthof thisapproach.Forexam-
ple, one could calculateCNC for the whole femur
(as in Figure8), an arbitrarilydefinedzone (such as
middle shaft, Figure 9), or zones defined by the
specificsof anatomy(such as femoralhead).In our
study, the long bones of both archaeologicaland
comparativesampleswere separatedinto five arbi-
trary,roughlyequal zones: proximalend, proximal
shaft, middle shaft, distal shaft, and distal end
(MareanandSpencer1991).Thesezone boundaries
do not follow epiphysealfusion lines or any other
anatomicalfeature.
Forbothsamples,thecutmarkswererecordedon
templatesthatshowedfourviewsof eachskeletalele-
656 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.67, No. 4,2002]

Total femur (four views) ..................... 16,000 pixels

Total middle shaft portion (four views).. 3,200 pixels
MNE 4

Surfacearearepresentedby four femurs: 16,000 x 4 = 64,000 pixels

Surfaceareafor whole bone: 16,000 pixels

% Surface area represented: 64,000 /16,000 = 400.0%

Surfacearearepresentedby four middle shaft zones: 3,200 x 4 = 12,800 pixels

Surfaceareafor one whole middle shaft zone: 3,200 pixels

% Surface area represented: 12,800 / 3,200 = 400.0%

Figure 10. Example of percent surface-area calculation for whole bones (four whole femora).

ment,andwithDK1 the fragmentswererecordedas calculatedusing the SpatialAnalyst extension of

well (as in Mareanet al. 2001). The cutmarkcounts
andthepixel countsof fragmentsforeachzone were
summedacross the four views. Figure9 illustrates
the summationof pixel countsfor the middle shaft
zone. In actualpractice,the pixel countsareusually
much largernumbersand quite unwieldy.The cal-
culationmustalso be done for all five zones. Using
the ArcView summationfeature,one can produce,
in one step,a summationtableof pixelcountsby zone
and by MNE value for the whole skeletalelement,
which can be transferredto spreadsheetsfor further
analysis.The same calculationneeds to be done for
theexperimentalassemblage,butsincethecutmarks
occuron whole bones we can calculatepercentsur-
face area with a much less-computer intensive
approach.Figure10 illustratesthe calculationof the
percent surface area for a sample of four whole
femurs.As this value in effect calculatesthe per-
centage of one whole bone or portionpresent,the
percentageis, as expected,400 percent.
Thenumberof cutmarksfoundwithina zone was
ArcView,for both assemblages.All cutmarksthat
intersecteda zone were counted.We used the inter-
sect principlefor this analysis,butotherapproaches
areavailable.Usingintersect,if a cutmarkfallswithin
two adjacentzones, the cutmarkis countedin both
zones. This approachis most appropriateif we are
attemptingto evaluatethefrequencyof cuttingwithin
particularzones. We used these five zones in an
attemptto capturediffering frequencies between
articularareas(wheredisarticulation cutmarkswould
be concentrated), near-articulation areas(whereboth
disarticulation and defleshing marks would be
found), and middle shaft areas (where defleshing
cutmarkswouldbe concentrated).
Nilssen conducted his experimentalbutchery
study using both small and large African bovids
(Table2). He observedandfilmedthebutcheryactiv-
ities by subsistencebutchersof the Karoo (South
Africa),andstudiedthesurfacemodificationsleft by
these activities.Since all activitiesandactionswere
directlyobservedandfilmed,each cutmarkin most
 REPORTS
Table2. Species and Sample Sizes of Nilssen's ExperimentalAssemblage.
Species Used in Experiment Sample Size
Small Bovids (sizes 1 and 2): Humerus
Steenbok (Raphiceruscampestris) Radius
Springbok(Antidorcasmarsupialis) Femur
Tibia
Large Bovids (sizes 3 and 4): Humerus
Blesbok (Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi) Radius
Black Wildebeest (Connochaetesgnou) Femur
Eland (Taurotragusoryx) Tibia
Note: The size I and 2 sample is not includedin this analysis, so we have not calculatedthe numberof cutmarks.
cases could be directlylinked to its exact activity.
Nilssen controlledthe sequenceof butcheryto sim-
ulatedifferingbutcheryactivitiessuchthatthe sam-
ple has some animals filleted without any
disarticulation,andalso filletedafterdisarticulation.
Whenall thesamplesanddiagnosesof cutmarkfunc-
tion were combined,we were able to develop two
differentsets of cutmarkfrequenciesrepresenting
two differentbutcheringactivities.These represent
quantitativemodels of the two differingbutchery
strategies:
1.TheFilleting-Onlydatasetrepresentsremoval
of flesh without disarticulationand implies early
access to a carcass when significantquantitiesof
flesh are available.The cutmarksin this category
thusrelateto the removalof meatin long stripssuit-
able for dryingand storage.
2. TheDisarticulation-and-Filletingdatasetrep-
resentsdisarticulation followedby meatremovaland
implies early access to a carcass when significant
quantitiesof flesh are available.Technically,disar-
ticulationcouldoccurafterfilleting,buttheseexper-
iments were conducted such that disarticulation
precededfilleting.It is possiblethatthe cutmarksig-
naturescoulddifferdependingon thesequence.The
cutmarksin this categorythusincludecutmarksthat
could be fromdisarticulationand meatremoval.
For both the experimentaland archaeological
sampleswe includedbovid size 3 and4 femur,tibia,
humerus,andradius.As separatetemplatesexist for
the left and right elements, we have addedthe left
andrightcutmarkcountsandpixel countsbeforethe
CNC calculation.Forthe experimentalsample,cut-
marks were counted separatelyfor each of these
activitycategories,across the five arbitraryzones.
Thesenumberswereenteredintoa spreadsheetpro-
gramanddividedby the numberof whole bones of
each category(e.g., fourbones = 400 percent= 4) to
657
n Bones n Cutmarks
12
12
16
14
18 688
18 619
18 225
18 176
obtainthe CNC. The CNC correctionallows us to
directlycomparetheDKl sampleto theexperimental
samples.
Cutmarkanalysesof archaeologicalfaunaaretyp-
ically interestedin the intensityof cuttingin partic-
ularzones on skeletalelements.Forexample,in the
debateover scavengingversushunting,it has regu-
larly been arguedthat intensive cutting along the
shaftof long bones suggestsremovalof flesh. More
importantly,regularremovalof flesh is believed to
indicateearlyaccess to meatycarcasses,andthere-
fore is consistentwith hunting(e.g., Binford 1981,
1988;Bunn and Kroll 1986, 1988). Similarly,with
our experimentaldatawe would expect a Filleting-
Only approachto have highercutmarkfrequencies
in the shaftareasversusthe ends relativeto a Disar-
ticulation-and-Filleting strategy.TheDisarticulation-
and-Filletingstrategyshould have higherfrequen-
cies of cutmarkson the ends near the joint areas,
reflectingthegreaterintensityof cuttingatthejoints.
A key assumptionthat all zooarchaeologistsmake
in this type of analysisis thatmoreintensivecutting
(morecuttingactions)resultsin higherfrequencies
of cutmarkson the bone surface,andwe follow that
assumptionhere. However,we know of no experi-
mentaldocumentationof this assumption.Though
Nilssen's experimentaldata could be analyzedfor
such a test, it has not yet been done.
The CNCfrequenciesfromthe experimentalFil-
leting-Only and Disarticulation-and-Filleting
datasets show patternsthat on visual inspection
appeardistinctfromeach other(Figures11 and 12).
In the figureswe have scaled the CNC to 100 per-
cent for eachbone to facilitatevisualcomparisonof
therelativeintensityof cutting.Cutmarkson theends
arerelativelymore abundantin the Disarticulation-
and-Filletingdataset,while cutmarksin the shaft
zones arerelativelymore abundantin the Filleting-
658
AMERICAN
Table 3. Mann-WhitneyU Test and Spearman'sRank CorrelationStatisticsBetween the ExperimentalDatasets and DK1.
ExperimentalDatasets U p
Filleting Both Limbs 342
Disarticulationand Filleting 243
Both Limbs
Filleting Forelimb,Disarticulation 268
and Filleting Hindlimb
Disarticulationand Filleting 315
Forelimb, Filleting Hindlimb
Onlydataset,closely followingourexpectations.We
would expect that the intensity of cutting within
zones would co-vary weakly between the experi-
mentaldatasetssince 40 percentof the zones (the
articularends) are being treateddifferentlyin the
butchery procedure, while 60 percent should be
treatedsimilarly.In otherwords,there shouldbe a
weak tendencyfor cutmarkfrequenciesto increase
anddecreaseconsistentlybetweenthe two datasets.
The Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient
between pooled forelimband hindlimbdatasetsis
consistentwith this expectation(rs= .46, p < .05).
Even thoughwe would expect some discontinu-
ities in the way cutmarkfrequenciesincreaseand
decrease between the experimentaldatasets, we
would expect the overallcutmarkfrequenciesto be
similarbetweenthetwo datasets.Thisis becausethe
butcheris using the same tools (metal knives) and
butcheringthe carcassesunderthe same conditions
(for consumptionand the productionof biltong) in
both experimentaldatasets.This null hypothesisis
supportedby a lackof significantdifferencebetween
themediansof thetwo pooledforelimbandhindlimb
datasets(Mann-WhitneyU = 119,p = .367).
Giventhe patternsof cutmarkingassociatedwith
the two differentactivities,we can now examinethe
relationbetween the DK1 patternand the experi-
mentaldatasetsandask whichexperimentaldataset
is most similarto the DK1 dataset.To examinethis
question, we producedfour experimentalmodels
from the two experimentaldatasets.Two of these
experimentalmodels precisely reflect the experi-
mentaldatasetsin thattheyrepresenta Filletingstrat-
egy applied consistently to both limbs, and a
Disarticulation-and-Filletingstrategyappliedto both
limbs.However,atleasttwo otherstrategiesarepos-
sible,producedby applyingFilletingto theforelimb
combinedwith Disarticulation-and-Filleting to the
hindlimb,and vice versa.
ANTIQUITY
[Vol.67, No. 4,2002]
Rs P
< .0001 .34 > .05
< .0001 .21 > .05
< .0001 -.08 > .05
< .0001 .47 < .05
Interestingly,the overallCNC frequenciesin the
DK1 datasetare significantlyhigher than all four
experimentalmodels (Table3). Nilssen's butchers
used metalkniveswhile the overwhelminglydomi-
nantlithicrawmaterialatDK1 is quartzite,andmost
of these are large unretouchedflakes and blades
(Thackeray2000). This resultwouldappearto con-
firmuntestedexpectationsthatmetalbutcherymay
resultin overallfewercutmarksthanstonetoolbutch-
ery (Fisher 1995; Lyman1987). In our experience,
stone tools become rapidlyless effectiveas a result
of dullingedges andfat adheringto the surface,nei-
ther of which is as significant when using metal
knives.Thecorrectionof thecutmarkfrequenciesby
surfaceareaallows us to measurethis differencein
intensity of cutting quite precisely. Such abilities
may in the futurehold out the possibilityof directly
relatingtool resharpeningand reductionintensity
(Dibble 1995)to cutmarkfrequency,andmeasuring
the impact of changes in raw materialquality on
butcheryefficiency.
Ourresearchon the DK1 faunalassemblagehad
as one if its goals the testing of Binford's (1984)
hypothesisthat MSA people in SouthAfrica were
not behaviorallymodem and tended to scavenge
large antelope of the size representedhere in our
sample.BinfordarguedthattheKlasiesRiverassem-
blage showed a patternof butcherythat failed to
resemblethatproducedby modernbutchers,in that
cutmarkswere relativelyrarein areasof bones that
have large amountsof flesh. The DK1 largebovid
forelimbpatternvisually shows a compellingsimi-
larity to the Disarticulation-and-Filletingexperi-
mentaldataset(Figure 11), in that cuttingis more
abundant at the tight humeral-radialjoint. The
hindlimbvisuallyresemblesthe Filletingdatasetin
its distribution(Figure 12). Thus, we would expect
thatthe DK1 CNC frequencieswould increaseand
decrease across the long-bone zones most consis-
 REPORTS 659

m9.4 03 4.3 X ) HU proximalepiphysi 26.3

m6.7 g 1.7 < HU proximalsha 15.2
6.3 1-1 11 HUmidshaft 10.7
m8 E 5 X HU distal shaft 14.2
5.3 15.7 HU distalepiphysis 25.5

1.7 4 RAproximalepiphysi 45.1

m3.8 m1.5 t RAproximalshaf 1 18.6
2.9 1 1 RAmidshaft 16
3.8 RA distal shaft 11.5
0.1 RA distalepiphysi 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
O o o
o 0 o 0 o o o
,n C

Filleting only Disarticulation DKI bovids

followed by (Sizes 3 and 4)
Filleting
Figure 11. Cutmark frequencies across the length of forelimb long bones, expressed as percentages (each skeletal element
adds up to 100 percent). Cutmark frequencies (data labels) are the CNC values.

4.. .= = = FE.proximal
i- <) epiphysi 5.6 3
m9.4 m 12.3 t
FE proximalshaft 1 12.3

7.2 ] 3.3 F
FEmidshaft 24.5
9.1 l:i 6 t FEdistalshaft 20.6
|l 4.5 P 9 | ;_ 4 FE distal epiphysisi 14.1
. s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ......
..

0.6 6.8 TI proximalepiphysi 2 6.7

2.1 | 1.3 TI proximalshaf ? 14.8

1 3.8 mid shaft>
~~~~~~~~~TI 18.5
0.9 | 1.8 p TI distal shaft 15.7
0.1 TI distal epiphysis| 6 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0o 0 0 0
o

Filleting only Disarticulation DKI1bovids

followed by (Sizes 3 and 4)
Filleting
Figure 12. Cutmark frequencies across the length of hindlimb long bones, expressed as percentages (each skeletal element
adds up to 100 percent). Cutmark frequencies (data labels) are the CNC values.
660 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
tentlywiththeDisarticulation-and-Filletingforelimb
andFilletinghindlimbmodel. The correlation
analy-
sis presentedin Table3 supportsthis hypothesis.
In summary,throughthe use of the CNC analy-
sis we were able to directlyandquantitativelycom-
parethe frequencyof cutmarksin long-bonezones
betweena highly fragmentedfossil bone collection
(DK1) and an actualisticassemblageof cutmarked
whole bones. This allowed us to discovertwo pat-
terns with the following likely conclusions: 1) the
DK1 MSA people butcheredsize 3 and 4 animals
such thatthe cuttingintensityco-variedacrosslong
bones in a way that significantlycorrelateswith a
model where modernpeople disarticulatedand fil-
leted the forelimband filletedthe hindlimb,and 2)
that the use of stone tools at DK1 likely caused a
higheroverallfrequencyof cutmarksper unit bone
surface.Clearly,the calculationof CNC (madepos-
sible by the image-analysisGIS approach),when
combined with highly controlledactualisticdata,
allows us to significantlyimproveupon traditional
approachesto cutmarkanalysisthatrely on qualita-
tive assessmentsof cutmarkpatterningguided by
anecdotalknowledgeof butcherypatterns.
Discussion and Conclusions
Zooarchaeologistshavedevelopeda wide varietyof
approachesfor recordingand presentingcutmark
data, and they vary accordingto what is counted
(cutmarksor cutmarkedfragments)andthe way the
valuesareexpressed(NISPor MNE). Ourreviewof
the literaturefindsfive basictypesof presenteddata:
diagrammaticdata,NISPcutmark-count data,MNE
cutmark-countdata,NISP fragment-countdata,and
MNE fragment-countdata.Thereis no widespread
agreementas to themosteffectiveway to presentthe
data,andthereis also an undercurrent of concernas
to the effectivenessof thesedifferentapproaches.To
ourknowledge,only Bartram(1993) has provideda
detaileddiscussionof the problemssufferedby cut-
markanalysisas a resultof bone fragmentation.
Diagrammaticdataprovidesa usefuloverallview
of the placementof cutmarks,butit is nearlyuseless
for comparativeanalysisthatattemptsto go beyond
qualitativeandsubjectiveimpressions.Furthermore,
diagrammaticrepresentationscan be very mislead-
ing in regardto cutmarkintensityif there is sub-
stantialintra-bonedifferentialsurvival.Cutmarks
can be absent from locations on the bone simply
becausethose locationsare not well representedin
[Vol.67, No. 4, 2002]
the faunalassemblageor analysis.The GIS method
we havepresentedhereovercomesthatproblemwith
its abilityto presentan MNE densitymap acrossa
bone surfacealongwitha compositediagramof cut-
markplacement.Moreimportantly,the GIS method
can quantitativelycorrectthe intensityof cutmark-
ing by thepreservedsurfaceareain anyway theana-
lyst desires.
NISP cutmark-countdata and NISP fragment-
countdataareextremelysensitiveto fragmentation
becausewithincreasingfragmentation thetotalnum-
ber of fragmentsrises more rapidlythan the total
numberof eithercutmarksor cutmarkedfragments.
Comparisonsof archaeologicalNISP cutmarkdata
to unfragmented experimentalcollectionssimplyare
not effectiveunless the archaeologicalcollection is
completelyunfragmented.Likewise,comparisonof
NISP cutmarkdatabetweenarchaeologicalsites of
evenlimitedvariablefragmentation will be spurious.
MNE cutmark-countand MNE fragment-count
data have been arguedto be resistantto the frag-
mentationeffect.Whilein somecases theMNEmay
mollify the fragmentationeffect, it does not over-
come it. This is becauseas processesof attritionact
on a bone, they tend to destroythe less-dense por-
tions first, leaving the denser portions preserved.
MNEs based on these denserportionswill remain
high,whilemanycutmarksandcutmarkedfragments
are lost to the analysiseitherbecause they are ren-
deredunidentifiablethroughfragmentation,or are
completelydestroyed.
Accuratelyquantifyingcutmarkfrequenciesis a
surface-areaproblemsimilarto samplingproblems
involvingsurfaceareain otherdisciplines.Forexam-
ple, whenecologistssamplehabitatsto estimatepop-
ulation size, the proper correction is population
dividedby area.Zooarchaeologistshavetriedto use
the MNE as a proxy for area,but it does not work
becauseboneportionsdo notallhaveanequalchance
of surviving attritionalprocesses. Rapson (1990)
suggesteda way to attemptan aerialestimate,but
the methodis fairlycoarseandprovidesdataof lim-
itedanalyticalvalue.TheGISmethoddoes anexcel-
lentjob of correctingfor preservedsurfaceareaand
makes possible the meaningfulcomparisonof cut-
markfrequenciesbetween heavily,lightly,and un-
fragmentedsamples.
The GIS image-analysis approachhas several
otherstrengths.It providesa multitudeof possible
analysesthatgo beyondany otherextantapproach.
 REPORTS
The GIS methodallows the analystunlimitedflexi-
bility in the definitionof zones to calculatesurface
area and count cutmarkfrequency.For example,if
the analystwantsto examinethe intensityof cutting
on just the femoralhead,thenthe femoralheadcan
be identifiedas thezoneforquantification. If theana-
lyst wishes to comparethe intensityof slicing and
hackingmarkswithinjust the femoralhead, thatis
easy as well becausethe GIS attachesa datatableto
each individualcutmark,andone can restrictanaly-
ses withqueryfunctionson thedatatables.Thisabil-
ity to stratifyanalysesby datacharacteristics applies
to anypossibledata-tableinformationsuchas taxon,
size, age, provenience,or anythingelse.
The GIS methodprovidesdataarchivalabilities
thatgo farbeyondanyotherapproach.Any approach
thatrecordscutmarkplacementwith a databasefor-
matimmediatelyloses the exactplacementof a cut-
mark.The GIS methodforeverrecordsthe location
of a cutmarkin a precisemanner.Otherdiagrammatic
approachesrecordcutmarkplacementin thisway as
well, buteachmarkmustby codedto a separatedata
tableif one wishes to recordspecificinformationon
the nature of that cutmark, and this creates an
extremelyclumsy recordingsystem. With the GIS
method,a cutmarkis drawndirectlyon thecomputer
template,and one mouse click opens a data table
attachedforeverto thatcutmark.
We have focused our attentionhere on cutmark
recordingand analysis,but clearlythis methodcan
be expandedto almostanytypeof bone-surfacemod-
ification. For example, one could record burning
damageon bone surfacesto discoverpatterningin
burningthat could reflect differing approachesto
cooking.Estimatesof bonesurfaceareacouldreveal
differencesin theintensityof fragmentation andbone
processing.Locationalanalysisof toothmarkplace-
ment could reveal taxon-specificfeeding patterns
among moderncontrol assemblages, and then be
appliedto fossilcollections.Thereareprobablymany
otherzooarchaeologicalapplicationsthatgo beyond
the productionof MNEs (Mareanet al. 2001) and
cutmarks.Bones fragmentinto specimensthat are
unpredictablein shapeandnongeometricin outline.
Foryearswe havebeen attemptingto describebone
fragmentsand their surfacemodificationsas num-
bers on a database,when in realitythe problemhas
always been one of image. Zooarchaeologistswill
undoubtedly benefit as image analysis software
becomes increasinglypowerfulanduser-friendly.
661
Acknowledgments:We thankGrahamAveryand the rest of the
staff in the Department of Archaeology, South African
Museum, for their help duringthe analysis of the Die Kelders
Cave 1 fauna. Thanks to Antonieta Jerardinofor the Spanish
abstract.The Die Kelders analysis was funded by NSF grant
SBR-9727491 and a Wenner-Grengrant to Marean, and the
development of the GIS software was funded by NSF grant
SBR-9727668 to Marean.
References Cited
Avery,G., K. Cruz-Uribe,P. Goldberg,F E. Grine,R. G. Klein,
M. J. Lenardi,C. W.Marean,W.J. Rink,H. P. Schwarcz,A.
I. Thackeray,and M. L. Wilson
1997 The 1992-1993excavationsat the Die KeldersMiddle
andLaterStoneAge CaveSite,SouthAfrica.Journalof Field
Archaeology24:1-29.
Bartram,L. E.
1993 An Ethnoarchaeological Analysis of Kua San
(Botswana)Bone Food Refuse. UnpublishedPh.D. disser-
tation,Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Wiscon-
sin at Madison.
Bartram,L. E., andC. W. Marean
1999 Explainingthe "KlasiesPattern":KuaEthnoarchaeol-
ogy, theDie KeldersMiddleStoneAge Archaeofauna,Long
Bone Fragmentationand CarnivoreRavaging.Journal of
ArchaeologicalScience 2:69-29.
Binford,L. R.
1978 NunamiutEthnoarchaeology.Academic Press, New
York.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic
Press,New York.
1984 TheFaunalRemainsfrom KlasiesRiverMouth.Acad-
emic Press,New York.
1985 HumanAncestors:ChangingViews of theirBehavior.
JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology4:292-327.
1988 Fact and Fiction aboutthe ZinjanthropusFloor:Data,
Arguments, and Interpretations.CurrentAnthropology
29:123-135.
Blumenschine,R. J.
1988 An ExperimentalModelof theTimingof Hominidand
Carnivoreinfluenceon ArchaeologicalBone Assemblages.
JournalofArchaeologicalScience 15:483-502.
Blumenschine,R. J., C. W. Marean,and S. D. Capaldo
1996 BlindTestson Inter-Analyst CorrespondenceandAccu-
racy in the Identificationof Cut Marks,PercussionMarks,
and CarnivoreToothMarkson Bone Surfaces.Journalof
ArchaeologicalScience 23:493-507.
Brain,C. K.
1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? University of Chicago
Press,Chicago.
Bunn,H. T.
1981 ArchaeologicalEvidence forMeat-EatingbyPlio-Pleis-
tocene Hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge.
Nature291:574-576.
1991 A TaphonomicPerspective on the Archaeology of
Human Origins. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:
433-467.
Bunn,H. T., andE. M. Kroll
1986 SystematicButcheryby Plio-PleistoceneHominidsat
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Current Anthropology
27:431-452.
1988 Fact and Fiction aboutthe ZinjanthropusFloor:Data,
Arguments,and Interpretations. CurrentAnthropology29:
135-149.
662 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Capaldo,S. D.
1995 InferringHominidandCarnivoreBehaviorfromDual-
PatternedArchaeofaunalAssemblages.UnpublishedPh.D.
dissertation,Departmentof Anthropology,RutgersUniver-
sity.
1997 ExperimentalDeterminationsof CarcassProcessingby
Plio-PleistoceneHominidsandCarnivoresat FLK22 (Zin-
janthropus),OlduvaiGorge, Tanzania.Journalof Human
Evolution33:555-597.
1998a Methods,MarksandModelsforInferringHominidand
Carnivore Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution
35:323-326.
1998b Simulatingthe Formationof Dual-Patterned Archae-
ofaunalAssemblageswith ExperimentalControlSamples.
JournalofArchaeologicalScience 25:311-330.
Chase,P. G.
1986 TheHuntersof CombeGrenal:Approachesto Middle
PaleolithicSubsistencein EuropeBAR InternationalSeries
286, Oxford.
1988 Scavengingand Huntingin the Middle Paleolithic.In
UpperPleistocenePrehistoryof WesternEurasia, editedby
H. L. Dibble andA. Montet-White,pp. 225-232. The Uni-
versityof PennsylvaniaMuseum,Philadelphia.
Crader,D. C.
1983 Recent Single-CarcassBone Scattersand the Problem
of "Butchery"Sites in the ArchaeologicalRecord.In Ani-
mals andArchaeology:Huntersand theirPrey,editedby J.
Clutton-BrockandC. Grigson,pp. 107-141. BritishArchae-
ological Reports163, Oxford.
Dibble, H. L.
1995 Middle Paleolithic ScraperReduction:Background,
Clarification,andReview of the Evidenceto Date. Journal
ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory2:299-368.
Driesch,A. von den
1976 A Guide to the Measurementof Animal Bones from
ArchaeologicalSites.HarvardUniversity,PeabodyMuseum
of ArchaeologyandEthnologyBulletin 1, Cambridge.
Fisher,J. W., Jr.
1995 Bone SurfaceModificationsin Zooarchaeology.Jour-
nal ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory2:7-68.
Frison,G.
1970 TheGlenrockBuffaloJump,48C0304:LatePrehistoric
PeriodbuffaloProcurementand Butcheringon the North-
westernPlains.PlainsAnthropologist,MemoirNo. 7:1-55.
Gifford-Gonzalez,D.
1989 EthnographicAnalogues for InterpretingModifed
Bones:Some CasesfromEastAfrica.In BoneModification,
editedby R. BonnichsenandM. H. Sorg,pp. 179-246. Cen-
ter for the Studyof the FirstAmericans,Orono,Maine.
1991 Bones Are Not Enough:Analogues, Knowledge,and
Interpretive Strategiesin Zooarchaeology.
JournalofAnthro-
pologicalArchaeology10:215-254.
Gifford,D. P., andD. C. Crader
1977 A ComputerCodingSystemforArchaeologicalFaunal
Remains.AmericanAntiquity42:225-238.
Gifford,D. P., G. Isaac, andC. M. Nelson
1980 Evidence for Predationand Pastoralismat Prolonged
Drift:A PastoralNeolithicSitein Kenya.Azania 15:57-108.
Gilbert,M.
1969 Some Aspects of Diet and Butchering Techniques
amongPrehistoricIndiansin SouthDakota.PlainsAnthro-
pologist 14:277-294.
Grayson,D. K.
1989 Bone Transport,Bone Destruction,andReverseUtility
Curves.JournalofArchaeologicalScience 16:643-652.
Grayson,D. K., andF. Delpech
1994 The Evidencefor MiddlePaleolithicScavengingfrom
[Vol. 67, No. 4, 2002]
CoucheVIII, GrotteVaufrey(Dordogne,France).Journal
ofArchaeologicalScience 21:359-375.
Guilday,J. E., P.W. Parmalee,andD. P.Tanner
1962 AboriginalButcheringTechniquesat the Eschelman
Site (36 La 12), LancasterCounty,Pennsylvania.Pennsyl-
vaniaArchaeologist32:59-83.
Klein, R. G.
1989 Why Does SkeletalPartRepresentationDifferbetween
SmallerandLargerBovidsatKlasiesRiverMouthandother
ArchaeologicalSites? Journal of ArchaeologicalScience
6:363-381.
Lam,Y. M., X. Chen,and 0. M. Pearson
1999 Intertaxonomic Variabilityin Patternsof Bone Density
and the DifferentialRepresentationof Bovid, Cervid,and
Equid Elements in the ArchaeologicalRecord.American
Antiquity64:343-362.
Landon,D. B.
1996 FeedingColonialBoston:A ZooarchaeologicalStudy.
HistoricalArchaeology30: 1-153.
Lyman,R. L.
1984 Bone Density and DifferentialSurvivorshipof Fossil
Classes.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology 3:259-299.
1985 Bone Frequencies: Differential Transport,in Situ
Destruction,andthe MGUI.JournalofArchaeologicalSci-
ence 12:221-236.
1987 Archaeofaunasand ButcheryStudies:A Taphonomic
Perspective.In Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and
Theory,Vol. 10,editedby M. J. Schiffer,pp. 249-337. Aca-
demic Press,New York.
1992 AnatomicalConsiderationsof UtilityCurvesin Zooar-
chaeology.JournalofArchaeologicalScience 19:7-22.
Marean,C. W.
1992 Hunterto Herder:Large MammalRemains from the
Hunter-Gatherer OccupationAt EnkapuneYa Muto Rock-
shelter(CentralRift,Kenya).AfricanArchaeologicalReview
10:65-127.
1998 A Critiqueof the Evidence for Scavengingby Nean-
derthalsandEarlyModernHumans:New DatafromKobeh
Cave (ZagrosMousterian)and Die Kelders(SouthAfrica
MiddleStoneAge).JournalofHumanEvolution35:111-136.
Marean,C. W.,Y. Abe, C. J. Frey,andR. C. Randall
2000a Zooarchaeologicaland TaphonomicAnalysis of the
Die KeldersCave 1 Layers 10 and 11 Middle Stone Age
Larger Mammal Fauna. Journal of Human Evolution
38:197-233.
Marean,C. W.,Y Abe, P. J. Nilssen, andE. C. Stone
2001 EstimatingtheMinimumNumberof SkeletalElements
(MNE) in Zooarchaeology:A Review and A New Image-
AnalysisGIS Approach.AmericanAntiquity66:333-348.
Marean,C. W., andZ. Assefa
1999 ZooarchaeologicalEvidence for the FaunalExploita-
tion Behaviorof Neandertalsand EarlyModernHumans.
EvolutionaryAnthropology 8:22-37.
Marean,C. W.,P.Goldberg,G.Avery,F.E. Grine,andR. G. Klein
2000b MiddleStoneAge Stratigraphy andExcavationsat Die
KeldersCave 1 (WesternCapeProvince,SouthAfrica):the
1992,1993, and 1995FieldSeasons.JournalofHumanEvo-
lution38:7-42.
Marean,C. W., and S. Y Kim
1998 MousterianFaunalRemainsfromKobehCave(Zagros
Mountains,Iran):BehavioralImplicationsforNeanderthals
and Early Modern Humans. Current Anthropology
39:S79-S 114.
Marean,C. W., andL. M. Spencer
1991 Impactof CarnivoreRavagingon Zooarchaeological
Measures of Element Abundance. American Antiquity
56:645-658.
 REPORTS 663

Marshall,F. 1998 Evidencefor a Three-StageSequenceof Hominidand

1990 CattleHerdsandCaprineFlocks.In EarlyPastoralists CarnivoreInvolvementwith Long Bones at FLK Zinjan-
of Southwestern Kenya, edited by P. Robertshaw, pp. thropus,OlduvaiGorge,Tanzania.JournalofArchaeologi-
205-260. BritishInstituteof EastAfrica,Nairobi. cal Science 25:191-202.
Milo, R. G. Shipman,P.
1994 Human-AnimalInteractionsin SouthernAfricanPre- 1981 Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy To
history:A MicroscopicStudyof Bone DamageSignatures. TaphonomicProblems.In TheResearchPotentialofAnthro-
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Departmentof Anthropol- pological MuseumCollections,editedby A. M. Cantwell,J.
ogy, Universityof Chicago. B. Griffin,andN. A. Rothschild,pp.357-385. Annalsof the
1998 Evidence for Hominid PredationAt Klasies River New YorkAcademyof Sciences,Volume376, New York.
Mouth,SouthAfrica,andIts Implicationsfor the Behavior 1986 Studies of Hominid-FaunalInteractionsat Olduvai
of EarlyModernHumans.Journalof ArchaeologicalSci- Gorge.Journalof HumanEvolution15:691-706.
ence 25:99-133. 1988 ActualisticStudiesof AnimalResourcesand Hominid
Nilssen, P. J. Activities.In ScanningElectronMicroscopyandArchaeol-
2000 An ActualisticButcheryStudyin SouthAfricaand Its ogy, edited by S. L. Olsen, pp. 261-285. BritishArchaeo-
ImplicationsforReconstructingHominidStrategiesof Car- logical ReportsInternationalSeries452, Oxford.
cass AcquisitionandButcheryin the UpperPleistoceneand Shipman,P., andJ. Rose
Plio-Pleistocene.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Depart- 1983 EarlyHominidHunting,Butchering,andCarcass-Pro-
ment of Archaeology,Universityof CapeTown. cessing Behaviors:Approachesto the Fossil Record.Jour-
Parmalee,P.W. nal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology2:57-98.
1965 The Food Economyof ArchaicandWoodlandPeoples Stiner,M. C.
at the TickCreekCave Site, Missouri.MissouriArchaeolo- 1994 HonorAmongThieves:A ZooarchaeologicalStudyof
gist 27:1-34. NeandertalEcology.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,
Potts,R. New Jersey.
1983 Foragingfor FaunalResourcesby EarlyHominidsat Thackeray,A. I.
OlduvaiGorge,Tanzania.In Animalsand Archaeology:1. 2000 Middle Stone Age ArtifactsFromthe 1993 and 1995
Huntersand TheirPrey,editedby J. Clutton-BrockandC. Excavationsof Die KeldersCave 1, SouthAfrica.Journal
Grigson,pp. 51-62. BritishArchaeologicalReportsInter- of HumanEvolution38:147-168.
nationalSeries 163, Oxford. Wheat,J. B.
1988 EarlyHominidActivitiesatOlduvai.AldineDeGruyter, 1979 The JurgensSite. Plains Anthropologist,MemoirNo.
New York. 15.
Potts,R., andP. Shipman Wilson,M. C.
1981 CutmarksMadeby StoneTools on Bones FromOldu- 1982 CutMarksandEarlyHominids:EvidenceforSkinning.
vai Gorge,Tanzania.Nature291:577-580. Nature298:303.
Rapson,D. J. Yellen,J. E.
1990 Patternand Processin Intra-SiteSpatialAnalysis:Site 1991 SmallMammals:!KungSanUtilizationandProduction
Structuraland FaunalResearchat the Bugas-HoldingSite. of FaunalAssemblages.JournalofAnthropologicalArchae-
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Departmentof Anthropol- ology 10:1-26.
ogy, Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Selvaggio,M. M.
1994 CarnivoreToothMarksandStoneToolButcheryMarks
On ScavengedBones:ArchaeologicalImplications.Journal ReceivedSeptember10, 2001; RevisedMarch28, 2002;
of HumanEvolution27:215-228. AcceptedApril 2, 2002.