Journal of Taphonomy VOLUME 8 (ISSUE 1)

Home , Archaeological record, Taphonomy

PROMETHEUS PRESS/PALAEONTOLOGICAL NETWORK FOUNDATION (TERUEL) 2010 Available online at www.journalt Lymanaphonomy.com Journal of Taphonomy VOLUME 8 (ISSUE 1)

What Taphonomy Is, What it Isn’t, and Why Taphonomists Should Care about the Difference

R. Lee Lyman* Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211 USA

Journal of Taphonomy 8 (1) (2010), 1-16. Manuscript received 13 May 2009, revised manuscript accepted 28 July 2009. The term “taphonomy” was originally defined by paleontologist I.A. Efremov in 1940 as “the study of the transition (in all its details) of animal remains from the biosphere into the lithosphere”. The term evolved to include plant remains because Efremov also indicated that taphonomy concerned the “transition from the biosphere to the lithosphere”. The concept and the term were both adopted by zooarchaeologists who were interested in whether modified bones represented prehistoric tools or were concerned about the fidelity of the paleoecological signal of a collection of faunal remains. Until the middle 1970s, the term still meant what Efremov originally intended. When some archaeologists adopted the term to signify the formation and disturbance of the archaeological record and natural modification of artifacts, they caused the term to take on meanings different than those originally specified by Efremov. Taphonomy concerns once living material whereas archaeological formation processes concern both once living and never living material; taphonomy concerns the transition from living to non-living and geological, so includes both natural and cultural formation processes as either biasing or information laden and of research interest whereas archaeological formation concerns the transition from a living system to a non-living geological one but natural processes are biasing whereas cultural formation processes are of research interest. Taphonomists should quietly inform archaeologists who misuse the term that in so doing they exacerbate confusion and misunderstanding.

Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGY, DEFINITIONS, EFREMOV, PALEONTOLOGY, TERMINOLOGY

Introduction whatever- includes more or less unique terminology about the subject phenomena. Every form of inquiry about a kind of The purpose of the terms is to provide phenomena -literature, organisms, celestial shorthand labels for unique properties of the bodies, chemical elements, geological deposits, subject phenomena so that they might be

1 What Taphonomy Is distinguished from other phenomena and to originally intended. Use of the term by enhance communication efficiency during archaeologists has occasionally provided a the course of research and teaching (e.g., unique way to view the history of the Pushkin, 1997; Slisko & Dykstra, 1997). formation of the archaeological record, and But terms are words we choose as labels, that is good; however, taphonomy has also and they have meanings that we assign to been used as a label for phenomena that are them rather than having some inherent arguably not what the term actually signifies. meaning that originates in the phonemes The latter can hinder communication, reduce and morphemes of which they are made. understanding, and exacerbate confusion. The critical issue therefore is that we must Given the history of terminological confusion agree on what terms mean else we are in archaeology (e.g., Lyman et al., 1998) merely jabbering at one another rather than and zooarchaeology (e.g., Lyman, 1994a) and communicating. If we do not agree on the the misunderstanding and confusion that has meanings of terms, then we may think two resulted, it behooves taphonomists to educate individuals are talking about the same thing their colleagues in archaeology as to proper (and when they say “cup” when in fact they are not, improper) use of the term that delineates a or we may think two individuals are talking very particular subject matter. This paper is about different things when one says “spoon” meant to be a warrant for that educational and the other says “ladle” when in fact they are endeavor. The history indicates that misuse of not. The implications of obscure terminology the term was likely initiated and perpetuated or terms without agreed upon and generally with good intentions, and that such misuse understood meaning should be clear. The is growing in pervasiveness. The history also clarity and explicitness of scientific terminology indicates that the misuse was unnecessary are particularly important given that the and can be discontinued with minimal effort sciences depend on replicability (repeatability) on the part of taphonomists. and independent empirical confirmation of knowledge claims. In this paper, I briefly review the What “taphonomy” is origin and history of the term “taphonomy” in its parental discipline of paleontology. Russian paleontologist I.A. Efremov (1940:85) This history establishes what the term was coined the term “taphonomy” as a label for originally intended to mean and how that the science of the laws of embedding, or meaning evolved to keep pace with the “the study of the transition (in all its details) evolution of paleobiology from paleontology of animal remains from the biosphere into the (Sepkoski & Crane, 1985). Then a sketch of lithosphere”. First, note that as originally the history of the use of the term in North defined, only animal remains were included; American archaeology is presented to illustrate I return to this point later. Second, note that how the term was sometimes adopted by the etymology of the term resides in the that discipline without clear understanding Greek words taphos for burial and nomos of what the term was originally intended to for laws (Cadée, 1991); Efremov (1940:85) mean, and how other times the term was denoted this “new branch of paleontology” adopted by archaeologists to label a related as all those efforts focusing on “analyzing but different sort of phenomena than that the processes of embedding”. Taphonomy as

2 Lyman a term designating a particular field of research the paleontological record, they also added originated and evolved in paleontology where potentially important information such as it originally was conceived as involving two predation marks (e.g., predatory bore holes stages, the first occurring between an organism’s in mollusks). death and its final burial (recognizing that it More recently, Behrensmeyer et al. could be buried, exposed, and reburied more (2000:103) indicated that taphonomy “seeks than once), or biostratinomy, and the second to understand processes [that have influenced stage occurring from final burial to recovery organic remains] so that data from the fossil by the paleontologist, or diagenesis. The record can be evaluated correctly and applied distinction was made in order to distinguish to paleobiological and paleoecological and keep separate those largely preburial and questions”. Other commentators at this time mostly biological (biostratinomic) processes agreed (e.g., Martin, 1999), reflecting a that influenced remains and those mostly growing sophistication in conception of postburial geological and chemical (diagenetic) precisely what taphonomy is all about. The processes that influenced remains (Lawrence, consensus likely marks a natural evolution 1979a, 1979b, 1979c). of the term from denoting only processes Taphonomy had become a household that somehow bias a collection of remains word by the middle 1980s when paleobiologists of organisms, to acknowledging that some Anna Behrensmeyer and Susan Kidwell of those processes may be of interest in their (1985:105) indicated that taphonomic research own right. The consensus does not change involved “the study of processes of preservation the connotation or denotation of the term’s and how they affect information in the fossil original definition because the term had record”. They underscored how historically always concerned what happened to the the research focus of taphonomists had been remains of organisms after death and prior on bias in, and information loss from, the to recovery - it is about the transition of fossil record, but that it was increasingly organic remains from the biosphere to the understood that taphonomic processes not lithosphere, not just the loss of those only removed information they also added remains. In short, other than the obvious information, such as gnawing marks on bones difference between a live organism and suggesting predator identity. Efremov (1958:85), dead one, since its inception taphonomy has for example, noted that a “significant regularity always concerned the differences between of taphonomy is the absence in geological the carcass of an organism that simply is chronicle of any remains of land animals dead and its mortal remains some centuries conserved in their life conditions”. Historically or millennia after it died. Why were the early taphonomic research therefore focused latter (often, but not always) an incomplete on “stripping away the taphonomic overprint” representation of the former? Why were the (Lawrence, 1968:1316, 1971:593); the historically latter articulated or not, scattered or not, later phase had the additional focus of fossilized or not, broken or not? And on and deciphering the paleoecological significance of on. That the term was, in the early days, taphonomic attributes displayed by the remains often taken to mean information loss reflects of organisms (Wilson, 1988). Taphonomic the narrow view of the time that the fossil processes did not just remove potential data record was typically not complete relative to by altering (perhaps to the point of destruction) some seldom specified biological unit, whether

3 What Taphonomy Is an organism, population, community, or some reached something of a peak of interest as other unit (e.g., Olson, 1980). The term was, more deeply penetrating questions were asked after all, coined by someone with deep about the possible proto-cultural behaviors interests in the paleoecological meaning of of early hominid ancestors (e.g., Brain, 1967; fossil remains (e.g., Efremov, 1958; see also Dart, 1949) and also about human behaviors Cadée 1991; Lawrence, 1968, 1971; Martin, as reflected by the archaeological record in 1999). general (e.g., Reid et al., 1974, 1975). During Most recent discussions authored by the 1970s, the general interest among paleobiologists reflect the evolved definition archaeologists concerned the formation of taphonomy (e.g., Rogers et al., 2007). processes that had created the archaeological That is, taphonomy is now typically conceived record (e.g., Schiffer, 1972, 1975), soon to be as the processes that convert one or more referred to as middle range research organisms into phenomena of interest to (Binford, 1977). Because they were asking paleobiologists. Those phenomena can be slightly different questions, paleobiologists micro- and macro-scopic remains of plants not only did actualistic paleontology or animals, their condition with respect to a (Warme & Häntzschel, 1979) but soon came plethora of variables, and their locations, to refer to at least some of their efforts as orientations, distributions and associations. “fidelity studies” (Kidwell & Flessa, 1995); In short, taphonomists ask particularlistic the latter were concerned with how accurate versions of the question: Are the remains a reflection a fossil collection was of one or different than when they were part of a live more properties of a biocoenose. organism, and if so, how are they different, As noted above, the early taphonomic and what do the similarities and differences focus of paleontologists with paleoecological indicate about paleobiology, paleoecology, and evolutionary interests was on the many and the like? kinds of information loss and biases (information distortion) in the fossil record (Martin, 1999). This same focus on information From paleontology to archaeology loss and bias also attended early concerns over the archaeological record (e.g., Ascher, Multidisciplinary research that was associated 1968; Schiffer, 1972, 1975). In both cases, with understanding early hominid evolution was the comparative standard was the living the door through which taphonomy first entered record - for paleontology, a biological population archaeological research in an explicit way or community of organisms (Olson, 1980); for (e.g., Behrensmeyer, 1975; Hill, 1976). The archaeology, an ethnographic culture (Schiffer, introduction was facilitated by increasing 1972). Paleontologists and archaeologists archaeological questions about distinctions alike were the unfortunate distant relatives of between naturally modified bones and those the parent theory-rich and information-rich modified by hominids (e.g., Shipman & Phillips, disciplines of biology and anthropology, 1976; Shipman & Phillips-Conroy, 1977). respectively (Lyman, 2007; Sepkoski, 2005). This general question was an old one that had One could say that archaeologists were been around since the beginning of archaeology preadapted to thinking taphonomically as a distinct field of inquiry about the (from the perspective of a biased and human past (e.g., Wyman, 1868), but it incomplete archaeological record) given

4 Lyman their interests in culture and human to fit an assemblage of artifacts (Figure 1b). behavior, things that only exist among In borrowing a model of information loss, living people. DeBoer not only provided a very useful Archaeologists had been told for heuristic device for understanding some years by their ethnologist colleagues that the aspects of the formation of the archaeological archaeological record was a fragmented and record, he sharpened the focus on formation incomplete ethnographic record, to the point processes that create and modify the that they believed it and repeated it (references archaeological record as somehow biasing in Lyman, 2007), just as paleontologists had and information removing rather than been told their materials were a fragmented potentially of interest in their own right. and incomplete biological record (Sepkoski, Despite the parallels between 2005; see Simpson [1944] for an early effort paleobiological taphonomy and archaeological to fight back). Thus it is not surprising that, formation processes, there is a critically like in paleontology (e.g., Clark & Kietzke, important distinct difference between the two 1967; Lawrence, 1968), an early focus in fields when it comes to the reconstruction archaeology geared toward answering cultural enterprise, by which I mean inferring properties questions was on information loss, bias and of the biocoenose from which a collection of distortion (e.g., Ascher, 1968; Isaac, 1967; biological remains originated, or inferring Schiffer, 1972); the archaeological record was properties of the culture from which a conceived to be a fragmented and incomplete collection of artifacts derived. Unlike an cultural or human-behavioral record. archaeologist, a paleobiologist knows what Paleontologists did actualistic or neotaphonomic a particular seed or leaf or bone or tooth or research virtually from the start in an effort shell looked like when the organism was alive. to make that portion of the earth-history record This makes this first, reconstruction step of they studied into something recognizable to taphonomic analysis relatively straightforward; a biologist (e.g., Richter, 1928; Weigelt, the comparative baseline -the size and form 1927); archaeologists did the same (e.g., of the living organism- is known. Does the Ascher, 1961; Atkinson, 1957; Hayden, 1945; prehistoric specimen of concern display any Kleindienst & Watson, 1956; Semenov, attributes that make it unlike a normal 1957) in their parallel effort to put the few (modern) specimen of the same kind? Is it remaining fragments of cultural systems distorted, broken, scarred, discolored, burned, back together and to get at the prehistoric mineralized, disarticulated? If so, why? Is the human behaviors that resulted in the artifacts difference representative of a pathology that of the culture they had found. was caused when the organism was alive, or is Some of the parallels between the difference postmortem and thus taphonomic paleobiological taphonomy and the processes (e.g., Bartosiewicz, 2008)? Having a more that form the archaeological record are or less well known model of what the found in a discussion by Warren DeBoer. contributing organism(s) looked like is a major DeBoer (1983:20-21) borrowed the term advantage in paleobiology; archaeologists “taphonomy” and modified a schematic do not have that advantage and must infer illustration of taphonomic history (Figure 1a) very fundamental properties of the artifacts from Clark & Kietzke (1967:117) (DeBoer they study, such as whether a projectile point credited the illustration to derivative sources) is an arrowhead, the tip of an atlatl dart, a

5 What Taphonomy Is spear head, or a knife. After that, they really It would also add little to establishing the don’t have any way to determine what the, central point of this paper, which is to say, arrow shaft (e.g., fletched, unfletched) demonstrate that the concept has indeed and bow (e.g., sinew backed, or not) looked been misused by archaeologists. I therefore like. But a femur demands a tibia, and the merely discuss several examples of misuse femur of a bear (Ursidae) demands a particular of the concept. I do not intend to imply either kind of tibia whereas a femur of a squirrel that the authors I cite display particularly or (Sciuridae) demands a rather different kind even exemplary faulty reasoning or that these of tibia. Knowing those anatomical necessities, authors represent the majority of archaeologists. in conjunction with what a “normal” skeleton The items I cite happen to be ones that I was looks like, provides a significant comparative aware of, they were on my bookshelf, or I framework for detecting taphonomic attributes found them during the course of research of skeletal remains. (Plants are a bit more for this paper. In short, the individuals I complex; how many apple seeds are represented cite are merely those whose thoughts were by a single leaf from an apple tree?). readily accessible to me. Another notable similarity between In an early use of the term in the paleobiological taphonomy and archaeological archaeological literature, White (1979:211) formation process or middle-range studies provides a relatively lengthy description of involves the conception of time averaging in what he means by taphonomy: Archaeological the former (e.g., Johnson, 1960; Peterson, sites are subject to a series of taphonomic 1977; Schindel, 1980) and palimpsest or processes that take place between the time coarse-grained assemblages in the latter that the artifact or object is deposited and the (Binford, 1980; Brooks, 1982). Both have present. Referred to as non-cultural formation been pursued with some vigor in their process concepts or n-transforms, these concepts respective disciplines (e.g., Kowalewski & allow the archaeologist to explain and/or Bambach [2003] for paleobiology; Bailey predict the interactions through time between [2007] for archaeology). The amount of a culturally deposited assemblage (or anything cross-pollination between the two disciplines less than an assemblage) and the specific has, unfortunately, been minimal (see Lyman environmental conditions in which it was [2003] for an example of the effects of time deposited. Differences between what was laid averaging on results of a zooarchaeological down in the behavioral past -the systemic analysis). It is perhaps because of the lack context- and what the archaeologist recovers of cross-disciplinary communication and in the present -the archaeological context- sharing of ideas and methods that the basic are at least partially explained by these concept of taphonomy has been misunderstood transforms. in archaeology. White misuses the term and concept of taphonomy in a way that becomes pernicious in archaeology: Taphonomy concerns only In archaeology natural or non-cultural processes. This is not at all what Efremov, a paleontologist and It would be impractical if not simply impossible paleoecologist, had in mind, nor is it an to list the numerous examples of misuse of accurate use of the concept as involving the the concept of taphonomy by archaeologists. transition from the biosphere to the

6 Lyman Formation

Figure 1. Models of (a) paleontological taphonomy (after Clark & Kietzke, 1967) and (b) archaeological taphonomy (after DeBoer, 1983).

7 What Taphonomy Is lithosphere. And while it is unclear as to archaeological taphonomy is unclear, although why White uses the term, let alone why he he seems to think it will assist with writing uses it the way that he does, it is not difficult research questions that are answerable if to speculate that saying “taphonomy” is a lot formation and recovery processes that influenced easier than saying “non-cultural formation a collection are explicitly considered. processes that influence the archaeological Dibble et al. (1997:630) note that record”. archaeology “is in need of a term to refer to Whitlam (1982:146) argues that [non-human] distortions of the archaeological “taphonomy, strictly defined, refers to the record” and so “for want of a better term”, laws of burial and embedding” and is an they use taphonomy (see also Hiscock, “earth science”, and on those bases he suggests 1985). By this term they mean to denote a that “archaeological taphonomy focuses on wide range “of natural processes that distort the study of the transition (in all its details) the whole of the archaeological assemblage, of artifacts from abandonment by the including lithics and fauna, both during and subject population until their archaeological subsequent to its deposition” (Dibble et al., recovery”. This conception focuses on 1997:630). In using the term in this fashion, “alterations of the formal and spatial Dibble and colleagues misuse it in two ways. characteristics of artifacts by natural processes First, and as should by now be anticipated, following abandonment by the subject the term was originally meant to signify the population” (Whitlam, 1982:147). Confusion transition of organic remains from the immediately arises because this natural- biosphere to the lithosphere, not the transition process focus precludes alterations of artifacts of, say, lithic artifacts from the systemic by human activities, such as excavating context to the archaeological context. Second, cache pits and in so doing breaking or and perhaps less obviously, the term was moving artifacts. Taphonomy as originally not meant to denote “distortion” but rather conceived and defined with respect to the transition, whether distorting or not. By organic remains includes no such confusion, defining taphonomy the way that they do, which is not to say that some paleobiologists Dibble et al. (1997) make the term take on don’t err in categorizing, say, butchering only a fraction of what it was originally meant marks as non-taphonomic attributes of to denote. Their definition of the term, bones (examples in Lyman, 1994b). Rather, despite its greater efficiency than natural my point is that Whitlam’s characterization processes of formation of the archaeological doesn’t explicitly distinguish the biostratinomic record, ignores those human behaviors such as and diagenetic stages. Further, it does not carcass butchery and skeletal part accumulation, note that the important point of taphonomy fragmentation, and deposition that are, by is to distinguish “postmortem” alterations the original definition, just as much a part of from those that reflect paleoecology when taphonomy as any carnivore behavior that the artifact was “alive”. This is the same accumulates or modifies bones. Dibble and distinction that Schiffer (1972) made between colleagues (2006) have continued to misuse the archaeological context and systemic the term in both ways. context many years ago, a fact Whitlam Some, such as Kluskens (1995:241), (1982) recognizes. The reason that Whitlam have expanded Efremov’s (1940) seminal suggests that we use the concept of definition “to include cultural remains as

8 Lyman well as animal remains”. A similar expansion But his definition, like that of Klusken is suggested by Rapp & Hill (1998:50) who (1995) and Rapp & Hill (1998, 2006), although indicate that “artifact taphonomy… is an a seemingly simply and innocent expansion of interpretational perspective based on the the original, produces an incorrect definition study of formational processes that affect the that could lead to eventual confusion. final spatial pattern and compositional character In their textbook meant to be an of the archaeological record”. They note that introduction to archaeological method and taphonomy concerns “processes that can theory, Renfrew & Bahn (2004:56) state transform the original [human] behavioral that “in recent years archaeologists have signal” of the archaeological record and the become increasingly aware that a whole “principles of artifact taphonomy provide a series of formation processes may have framework for evaluating the events and affected both the way in which finds came processes that affect objects as they travel to be buried and what happened to them after from the dynamic contexts associated with they were buried -i.e. their taphonomy”. It human behavior through the transforming should be clear that this statement is events after they become part of the geological inaccurate; Renfrew & Bahn (2004:290-291) context to the point at which they form the provide a much more accurate description patterns that become the archaeological of exactly what taphonomy is later in the same record” (p. 50). While noting that the concept volume, though they focus on animal remains of taphonomy had been “originally applied to and ignore plant remains. Interestingly, Bahn physical biotic remains [making up] the (1992:489) had earlier defined taphonomy fossil record”, they suggest that the “usefulness as “the study of the transformation of of a parallel application of the taphonomic materials into the archaeological record. approach to the archaeological record should Originally the term was limited to the be clear” (p. 50). Of course Klaskens (1995) examination of these processes for living and Rapp & Hill (1998; see also Rapp & Hill, organisms… the focus of taphonomic studies 2006) are correct that knowing about the is the understanding of the processes resulting processes that create the archaeological in the archaeological record per se”. This record is “useful”, but is that expansion definition -and that is surely what it is conceptually and intellectually harmless? I because it is in a dictionary- is misleading in outline why I think such expansion is potentially several ways; taphonomy is not “the study harmful below. of transformations” but instead it is the In a book that has been used as a text transformations and processes themselves. for upper-division classes in archaeology, The definition also does not specify materials, Johnson (1999:56) writes that “taphonomy so it could include faunal remains, lithic and is the study of how the archaeological record is ceramic artifacts, sediments, and whatever created from ‘cultural’ and ‘natural’ behavior”. else one considers to be parts of the He follows with examples of carnivore archaeological record. destruction of bones in archaeological and Along similar lines, taphonomy has ethnoarchaeological contexts, likely because been used to denote the effects of natural he finds taphonomy “most strongly developed processes on all sorts of archaeological in areas like botanical and faunal remains phenomena. Bednarik (1994:68) specifically and animal behavior” (Johnson 1999:58). referred to the “distorting effect of taphonomic

9 What Taphonomy Is processes [on prehistoric] symbolic production that “taphonomic factors would have ensured [and art]”. Niknami (2007:101) stated that the survival of skeletal remains of only a “landscape taphonomy… deals with the few of [hundreds or thousands of individual processes by which elements of the landscape mammals]” (Fiedel, 2009:24). This notion become selectively removed or transformed has been acknowledged for more than a by both natural and cultural processes”. century. Archaeologist Oscar Montelius Barton et al. (2002:166, 167) refer to (1888:5) remarked that “Only a small part “artifact taphonomy” as the study of of what once existed was buried in the “accumulating agents, differential element ground; only a part of what was buried has loss, and morphological alteration” of escaped the destroying hand of time; of this artifacts making up a collection in order part all has not yet come to light again”. “not simply to identify gaps or distortions in And paleontologist Adolph Seilacher the archaeological record but to match (1992:109) pointed out that “taphonomy is a inferences to the appropriate resolution for the science about the unlikely: the survival of available data and to use an understanding organic materials and forms in spite of their of formation processes to gain additional general drive towards recycling by biological, information about past human behavior”. physical, and chemical degradation”. What Rick et al. (2006) seem to largely use the term is important is if that incompleteness creates taphonomy as a synonym for archaeological a bias, and recognizing that bias is relative to a record formation processes, but their discussion variable that must be measured in order to occasionally suggests that formational answer a research question. An assemblage processes create the archaeological record that has undergone carnivore ravaging will whereas taphonomic processes disturb, be lacking those skeletal parts that were alter, and destroy the human behavioral destroyed and/or consumed by the carnivores signal of the archaeological record. and thus be biased relative to the variable of skeletal part frequencies as reflections of differential transport. That same assemblage Other (mis)conceptions may not be biased with respect to the list of species whose remains were accumulated There are two additional points that warrant by site occupants. identification in the context of this paper. The second point to be made is that the One concerns so-called bias; the other concerns view that cultural processes, or human behaviors, another common misrepresentation of the are not taphonomic is pervasive among concept of taphonomy. In the following I first archaeologists as well as zooarchaeologists. briefly consider each of these in turn. I then For example, consider the statements by turn to a final aspect of the definition of Dibble et al. (1997) quoted earlier. They are taphonomy. not alone in their misrepresentation of the In archaeology, the old connotation concept. Schiffer (1987:260), for one, says of taphonomy as concerning only those that the “branch of science that studies the processes that produce a fragmented and natural transformations of living animals incomplete record still predominates despite (and plants) to the paleontological record is more than two decades of an expanded known as taphonomy”. Some zooarchaeologists conception in paleobiology. Thus we read also hold the view that human behavioral

10 Lyman processes (such as butchering) that influence evolutionary or paleoecological significance bones are not taphonomic processes. A (the usual questions) of a prehistoric animal wonderful example of this is Speth’s (1991:37) or collection thereof: Why do these faunal comment that “taphonomic rather than hominid remains appear the way that they do? The agencies are responsible for [a bone] ability to answer this question ensured that assemblage”. I have suggested elsewhere that efforts to answer questions about evolutionary this conception of taphonomy is discipline- histories and paleoecology -the ones centric because human behaviors are the traditionally asked by paleontologists- were major subject of interest to archaeologists not misguided. In the preceding discussion whereas anything that might obscure or of the history of the concept, I have touched destroy indications of human behavior must on reasons why I think the concept and term be taphonomic because taphonomic processes have been misused by archaeologists. Here I are (mis)conceived as biasing (Lyman, summarize that earlier discussion and 1994b:33). Obviously such a conception of highlight the similarities and differences taphonomy fails to grasp what Efremov between taphonomy as originally conceived and originally meant by the transition from the formation processes of the archaeological biosphere to the lithosphere. record. The discussion that follows is Taphonomy was proposed as a distinct summarized in Table 1. field of study because of the disconnect Taphonomy concerns the transition between a biotic community and its organic of living organisms into a geological mode of fossil traces, and the potentially muddled occurrence; archaeology concerns the use of paleoecological signal of the latter with non-living material such as stone and clay respect to the former (Efremov, 1940, 1958). as well as originally living tissue such as That it was originally defined so as to concern sticks, bones, and hide as tool material and only animal remains but quickly came to be the human modification and transition of that applied also to plant remains is not unexpected material to a geological mode of occurrence, given that paleontology, paleobiology, and as well as its modification after it initially paleoecology concern remains of both, and has a geological mode of occurrence. Thus also because of Efremov’s phrase “transition taphonomy is but a small part of the formation from the biosphere to the lithosphere” (emphasis processes that create the archaeological added). Both plants and animals are part of record - the formation processes that involve the biosphere, and thus such an expansion of animal and plant tissue. This is one of what Efremov’s definition of the term he coined I take to be three critical distinctions between does little violence to the original concept. taphonomy and the formation of the archaeological record. In short, this first distinction means that living tissue has a Discussion different mode of natural occurrence than lithics or clay or metal, and this in turn Taphonomy as a term and concept served a means the two kinds of material have a useful purpose in paleontology when coined different starting point in their respective by Efremov (1940). It implied a particular kind histories with regards to formation of the of very general question had to be answered archaeological record. In particular, as noted if paleontologists were to determine the above, a mammal skeleton provides a natural

11 What Taphonomy Is

Table 1. Comparison of taphonomy and formation of the archaeological record. Topic Taphonomy Formation of the Archaeological Record Material Living*; a model of standard Living* and Non-Living; a model of a skeleton, seed, leaf, etc., is known standard specimen of raw non-living for every taxon (taphonomic material is unknown starting point) Similarities Modified from natural state by Modified from natural state by natural natural and/or cultural processes and/or cultural processes Differences Can be merely dead (unmodified Must have at least one attribute created from natural state) by human activity to be “archaeological” Formation •Natural - of potential interest •Natural - usually only of interest as processes (e.g., trace fossils of predators potentially biasing or destructive such as gnawing damage) •Cultural - of central interest (e.g., •Cultural - of potential interest technology, use-wear) *same model to which a prehistoric bone can be categorized generally as natural or cultural compared. There is no similar natural model for (Table 1). But otherwise, depending on the a lithic or clay specimen that is an artifact. research question asked, natural formation The second critical distinction between processes tend to be of research interest in the two is this: By definition, an object must and off themselves with respect to biotic display at least one attribute created by human remains (gnawing marks indicating predation behavior for that object to be considered of and perhaps predator identity) but are typically archaeological significance, that is, to be conceived as noise or biasing with respect to considered an artifact (which is not to say cultural remains (Schiffer, 1987). This subtle that archaeologists have no interest in ontological difference is perhaps the most natural objects). Bones and seeds and shells fundamental difference between taphonomy and leaves need not have an artificial as originally conceived and archaeological attribute to have research significance for an record formation processes. Failure to recognize archaeologist. Sometimes termed ecofacts, this distinction is why archaeologists often non-artificially modified biological specimens consider human behaviors such as butchering indeed have ecological research significance, and fracture of bones for marrow extraction but they may also have other sorts of to be non-taphonomic whereas carnivore significance as well. Some faunal remains gnawing of bones to extract marrow is in a site deposit may have little to do with considered to be taphonomic. Thus, carnivore human occupation of the site, and thus gnawing is not a source of ecological while they might reflect something of the information to an archaeologist whereas it is ecology of the site setting, they have little to to a paleobiologist. To escape this ontological do directly with human ecology. morass, archaeologists must recognize that The third and final critical distinction taphonomy concerns both natural and cultural concerns the fact that formation processes processes and agents that influence the influencing the biological record and those biotic record. Sometimes, depending on the influencing the cultural record can both be research question asked, those natural

12 Lyman processes are indeed biasing or troublesome; formation (including distortion, fragmentation, other times, they might well be the topic of modification, and destruction) of the greatest interest because they reflect directly archaeological record of artifacts, features, on the research question being asked. landscapes, and the like. I suggest that if we wish to maintain what taphonomists do as something distinct within paleobiology and Conclusion archaeology, then we need to quietly correct those who use the term to signify something One might wonder if we should be concerned that is not what Efremov had in mind. with how the term labeling our discipline is used. I think we should be concerned because those of us who write for Journal of Taphonomy Acknowledgements and read its contents know what the term I thank the archaeologists who have used meant to Efremov, but a disconcertingly the term taphonomy in ways that forced me large number of our colleagues in archaeology to think about what the term really means. do not know what it means, or have chosen And thanks to Matthew G. Hill for catching to change its original definition to fulfill a a couple silly errors in an early draft. need they perceive. One might quibble about how important this change is; I suggest it is critically important because as philosopher References of archaeological science Merrilee Salmon (1982:148) noted some years ago, does the Ascher, R. (1961). Experimental archeology. American term (signifying a concept) help us get some Anthropologist, 63: 793-816. analytical work done by having a particular Ascher, R. (1968). Time’s arrow and the archaeology of a contemporary community. In (Chang, K.C., ed.) definition? I suggest it does because it specifies Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: National a very particular field of inquiry, materials Press, pp. 43–52. constituting that field, and attendant analytical Atkinson, R.J.C. (1957). Worms and weathering. methods. My experiences with terms that Antiquit,y 31: 219–233. Bahn, P. (ed.) (1992). Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. have obscure or diffuse meanings has Glasgow: Harper Collins. resulted in struggles to comprehend what a Bailey, G. (2007). Time perspectives, palimpsests and the researcher is doing analytically and why archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological (e.g., Lyman, 1994a; Lyman et al., 1998). Archaeology, 26: 198-223. Barton, C.M., Bernabeu, J., Emili Aura, J., Gracia, O. & The role and proper use of scientific La Roca, N. (2002). Dymamic landscapes, artifact terminology in both teaching and research has taphonomy, and landuse modeling in the western undergone some scrutiny in other disciplines Mediterranean. Geoarchaeology, 17: 155-190. (e.g., Pushkin, 1997; Slisko & Dykstra, Bartosiewicz, L. (2008). Taphonomy and palaeopathology in archaeozoology. Geobios, 41: 69-77. 1997). In short, in so far as the meaning of a Bednarik, R.G. (1994). A taphonomy of palaeoart. term is agreed upon, understanding and Antiquity, 68: 68-74. comprehension are increased and communication Behrensmeyer, A.K. (1975). Taphonomy and paleoecology efficiency is greater. I have shown some of in the hominid fossil record. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 19: 36-50. the terminological pitfalls -the means by Behrensmeyer, A.K. & Kidwell, S.M. (1985). which misunderstanding is exacerbated- that Taphonomy’s contributions to paleobiology. attend using the term taphonomy to signify the Paleobiology, 11: 105-119.

13 What Taphonomy Is

Behrensmeyer, A.K., Kidwell, S.M. & Gastaldo, R.A. Hill, A. (1976). On carnivore and weathering damage (2000). Taphonomy and paleobiology. In (Erwin, to bone. Current Anthropology, 17: 335-336. D.H. & Wing, S.L., eds.) Deep Time: Paleobiology’s Hiscock, P. (1985). The need for a taphonomic Perspective. Lawrence, KS: The Paleontological perspective in stone artefact analysis. Queensland Society, pp. 103-147. Archaeological Research, 2:82-95. Binford, L.R. (1977). General introduction. In (Binford, Isaac, G.L. (1967). Toward the interpretation of L.R., ed.) For Theory Building in Archaeology. occupational debris: some experiments and New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-10. observations. Kroeber Anthropological Society Binford, L.R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Papers, 37: 31-57. hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological Johnson, M. (1999). Archaeological Theory: An site formation. American Antiquity, 45: 4-20. Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Brain, C.K. (1967). Bone weathering and the problem Johnson, R.G. (1960). Models and methods for analysis of bone pseudo-tools. South African Journal of of the mode of formation of fossil assemblages. Science, 63: 97-99. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 71: Brooks, R.L. (1982). Events in archaeological context and 1075-1085. archaeological explanation. Current Anthropology, Kidwell, S.M. & Flessa, K.W. (1995). The quality of 23: 67-75. the fossil record: Populations, species, and Cadée, G.C. (1991). The history of taphonomy. In communities. Annual Review of Ecology and (Donovan, S.K., ed.) The Processes of Fossilization. Systematics, 26: 269-299. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3-21. Kleindienst, M. & Watson, P.J. (1956). Action Clark, J. & Kietzke, K.K. (1967). Paleoecology of the archaeology: the archaeological inventory of a living lower Nodular Zone, Brule Formation, in the Big community. Anthropology Tomorrow, 5: 75-78. Badlands of South Dakota. In (Clark, J., Beerbower, Kluskens, S.L. (1995). Archaeological taphonomy of J.R. & Kietzke, K.K., eds.) Oligocene Sedimentation, Combe-Capelle Bas from artifact orientation and Stratigraphy, Paleoecology and Paleoclimatology density. In (Dibble, H.L. & Lenoir, M., eds.) The Middle in the Big Badlands of South Dakota. Fieldiana Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). Geology Memoirs Vol. 5, pp. 111-155. University Museum Monograph 91. Philadelphia: Dart, R.A. (1949). The predatory implemental technique University of Pennsylvania, pp. 199-243. of the australopithecines. American Journal of Kowalewski, M. & Bambach, R.K. (2003). The limits Physical Anthropology, 7: 1-16. of paleontological resolution. In (Harries, P.J., ed.) DeBoer, W.R. (1983). The archaeological record as High Resolution Approaches in Stratigraphic preserved death assemblage. In (Moore, J.A. & Paleontology. New York: Plenum/Kluwer Academic, Keene, A.S., eds.) Archaeological Hammers and pp. 1-48. Theories. New York: Academic Press, pp. 19-36. Lawrence, D.R. (1968). Taphonomy and information Dibble, H.L., Chase, P.G., McPherron, S.P. & Tuffreau, A. losses in fossil communities. Geological Society (1997). Testing the reality of a “living floor” with of America Bulletin, 79: 1315-1330. archaeological data. American Antiquity, 62: 629-651. Lawrence, D.R. (1971). The nature and structure of Dibble, L., McPherron, S.P., Chase, P., Farrand, W.R. paleoecology. Journal of Paleontology, 45: 593-607. & Debénath, A. (2006). Taphonomy and the Lawrence, D.R. (1979a). Biostratinomy. In (Fairbridge, concept of Paleolithic cultures: the case of the R.W. & Jablonski, D., eds.) Encyclopedia of Tayacian from Fontéchevade. PaleoAnthropology, Paleontology. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson 2006: 1-21. & Ross, pp. 99-102. Efremov, I.A. (1940). Taphonomy: a new branch of Lawrence, D.R. (1979b). Diagenesis of fossils- paleontology. Pan American Geologist, 74: 81-93. fossildiagenese. In (Fairbridge, R.W. & Jablonski, Efremov, I.A. (1958). Some considerations on biological D., eds.) Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Stroudsburg, bases of paleozoology. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 2: PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, pp. 245-247. 83-98. Lawrence, D.R. (1979c). Taphonomy. In (Fairbridge, R.W. Fiedel, S. (2009). Sudden deaths: the chronology of & Jablonski, D., eds.) Encyclopedia of Paleontology. terminal Pleistocene megafaunal extinction. In Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, (Haynes, G., ed.) American Megafaunal Extinctions pp. 793-799. at the End of the Pleistocene. Dordrecht: Springer, Lyman, R.L. (1994a). Quantitative units and terminology pp. 21-37. in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 59: 36-71. Hayden, J.D. (1945). Salt erosion. American Antiquity, Lyman, R.L. (1994b). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: 10: 375-378. Cambridge University Press.

14 Lyman

Lyman, R.L. (2003). The influence of time averaging Salmon, M.H. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology. and space averaging on the application of foraging New York: Academic Press. theory in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Schiffer, M.B. (1972). Archaeological context and Science, 30: 595-610. systemic context. American Antiquity, 37: 156-165. Lyman, R.L. (2007). Archaeology’s quest for a seat at Schiffer, M.B. (1975). Archaeology as behavioral science. the high table of anthropology. Journal of American Anthropologist, 77: 836-848. Anthropological Archaeology, 26: 133-149. Schiffer, M.B. (1987). Formation Processes of the Lyman, R.L., Wolverton, S. & O’Brien, M.J. (1998). Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University Seriation, superposition, and interdigitation: a of New Mexico Press. history of Americanist graphic depictions of culture Schindel, D.E. (1980). Microstratigraphic sampling and change. American Antiquity, 63: 239-261. the limits of paleontologic resolution. Paleobiology, Martin, R.E. (1999). Taphonomy: A Process Approach. 6: 408-426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seilacher, A. (1992). Dynamic taphonomy: the process- Montelius, O. (1888). The Civilization of Sweden in related view of fossil-lagerstätten. In (Fernández- Heathen Times. London: MacMillan. López, S., ed.) Conferencias de la Reunión de Niknami, K.A. (2007). A stochastic model to simulate Tafonomía y Fosilización. Madrid: Editorial and predict archaeological landscape taphonomy: Complutense, pp. 109-125. monitoring cultural landscape values based on an Sepkoski, D. (2005). Stephen Jay Gould, Jack Iranian survey project. Archeologia e Calcolatori, Sepkoski, and the ‘quantitative revolution’ in 18: 101-120. American paleobiology. Journal of the History of Olson, E.C. (1980). Taphonomy: its history and role in Biology, 38: 209-237. community evolution. In (Behrensmeyer, A.K. & Sepkoski, J.J., Jr. & Crane, P.R. (1985). Introduction. Hill, A.P., eds.) Fossils in the Making: Taphonomy Paleobiology (Tenth Anniversary Issue), 11: 1. and Paleoecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Semenov, S.A. (1957). Pervobytnaya Tekhnika. Materials Press, pp. 5-19. and Researches on Archaeology of the U.S.S.R. no. 54. Peterson, C.H. (1977). The paleoecological significance Shipman, P. & Phillips, J. (1976). On scavenging by of undetected short-term temporal variability. hominids and other carnivores. Current Anthropology, Journal of Paleontology, 51: 976-981. 17: 170-172. Pushkin, D.B. (1997). Scientific terminology and context: Shipman, P. & Phillips-Conroy, J. (1977). Hominid how broad or narrow are our meanings? Journal tool-making versus carnivore scavenging. American of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 661-668. Journal of Physical Anthropology, 46: 77-86. Rapp, G., Jr. & Hill, C.L. (1998). Geoarchaeology: Simpson, G.G. (1944). Tempo and Mode in Evolution. The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological New York: Columbia University Press. Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Slisko, J. & Dykstra, D.I., Jr. (1997). The role of Rapp, G., Jr. & Hill, C.L. (2006). Geoarchaeology: scientific terminology in research and teaching: is The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological something important missing? Journal of Interpretation, second edition. New Haven: Yale Research in Science Teaching, 34: 655-660. University Press. Speth, J.D. (1991). Taphonomy and early hominid Reid, J.J., Rathje, W.L. & Schiffer, M.B. (1974). Expanding behavior: problems in distinguishing cultural and archaeology. American Antiquity, 39: 125-126. non-cultural agents. In (Stiner, M.C., ed.) Human Reid, J.J., Schiffer, M.B. & Rathje, W.L. (1975). Predators and Prey Mortality. Boulder, CO: Behavioral archaeology: four strategies. American Westview Press, pp. 31-40. Anthropologist, 77: 864-869. Warme, J.E. & Häntzschel, W. (1979). Actualistic Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2004). Archaeology: Theories, paleontology. In (Fairbridge, R.W. & Jablonski, Methods, and Practice, fourth edition. New York: D., eds.) Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Stroudsburg, Thames and Hudson. PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, pp. 4-10. Richter, R. (1928). Aktuopaläontologie und Paläobiologie, Weigelt, J. (1927). Rezente Wirbeltierleichen und ihre eine Abgrenzung. Senkenbergiana 19. Paläobiologische Bedeutung. Leipzig: Max Weg Rick, T., Erlandson, J.M., & Vellanoweth, R.L. (2006). Verlag. Taphonomy and site formation on California’s White, J.R. (1979). Sequencing in-site taphonomic Channel Islands. Geoarchaeology, 21: 567–589. processes: the lesson of the Eaton Briquets. Mid- Rogers, R.R., Eberth, D.A. & Fiorillo, A.R. (eds.) (2007). Continental Journal of Archaeology, 4: 209-220. Bonebeds: Genesis, Analysis, and Paleobiological Whitlam, R.G. (1982). Archaeological taphonomy: Significance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. implications for defining data requirements and

15 What Taphonomy Is

analytical procedures. In (Francis, P.D. & Poplin, Wilson, M.V.H. (1988). Taphonomic processes: E.C., eds.) Directions in Archaeology: A Question information loss and information gain. Geoscience of Goals. Calgary, Alberta: Proceedings of the Canada, 15: 131-148. Fourteenth Annual Conference of the University Wyman, J. (1868). An account of some kjoekkenmoeddings, of Calgary Archaeological Association, pp. 145- or shell-heaps, in Maine and Massachusetts. The 154. American Naturalist, 1: 561-584.