PROMETHEUS PRESS/PALAEONTOLOGICAL NETWORK FOUNDATION (TERUEL) Available online at www.journaltaphonomy.com 2010 Lyman 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 Article JTa94. All rights reserved. *E-mail: [email protected] 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