Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:23:27.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disarticulation and scattering of mammal skeletons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Andrew Hill
Andrew Hill*
Affiliation:
The International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory, P.O. Box 46727, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I present a statistical technique for determining the disarticulation sequence of vertebrate skeletons based on the relative numbers of different intact joints in an assemblage of bones. For remains of modern Topi (Damaliscus korrigum) on the margin of Lake Turkana, northern Kenya, the disarticulation pattern is very consistent. This sequence, on dry land, differs from that reported for bovids that have disarticulated in the presence of water. On land the bones first released as single bones are those moved least easily by currents of moving water. The last released are those moved most easily. I develop a model of random scattering that suggests that the rate of dispersion is great at high concentrations of bones and decreases rapidly as the distance between bones increases. This leads to a condition where scattering effectively stops. The area of more or less stabilised dispersion is dependent only upon the mean distance that each random event moves a bone. Tests show that it is unlikely that articulated units themselves are much involved in scattering, and scattering appears to take place throughout the course of disarticulation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , Summer 1979 , pp. 261 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1975. The taphonomy and paleoecology of plio-pleistocene vertebrate assemblages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 146:473–578.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology. 4:150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Dechant, D. E.In press. The recent bones of Amboseli Park, Kenya, in relation to east African paleoecology. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hill, A., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. of Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Western, D., and Dechant, D. E. 1979. New perspectives in vertebrate paleoecology from a recent bone assemblage. Paleobiology. 5:12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaz, N. and Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1976. Hominid taphonomy: transport of human skeletal parts in an artificial fluviatile environment. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 45:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, C. K. 1967. Bone weathering and the problem of bone pseudo-tools. S. Afr. J. Science. 63:97–99.Google Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1971. Recent history of an Ethiopian delta. Univ. Chicago Dept. Geogr. Res. Pap. 136:1–184.Google Scholar
Dodson, P. 1973. The significance of small bones in paleoecological interpretation. Univ. Wyo. Contrib. Geol. 12:15–19.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. P. 1977. Observations of modern human settlements as an aid to archeological interpretation. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. Calif., Berkeley. 463 pp.Google Scholar
Hanson, C. B.In press. Fluvial taphonomical processes: models and experiments. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hill, A., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Hill, A. 1975. Taphonomy of contemporary and late Cenozoic east African vertebrates. Ph.D. thesis. 331 pp. Univ. London.Google Scholar
Hill, A.In pressA. Early post-mortem damage to the remains of some contemporary east African mammals. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hill, A., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Hill, A.In press B. Butchery and natural disarticulation: an investigatory technique. Am. Antiq.Google Scholar
Hill, A. and Walker, A. 1972. Procedures in vertebrate taphonomy: notes on a Uganda Miocene fossil locality. J. Geol. Soc. London. 128:399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthew, W. D. 1901. Fossil mammals of the Tertiary of northeastern Colorado. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Mem. 1:355–447.Google Scholar
Mohda, M. L. 1967. The ecology of the Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti) on Central Island, Lake Rudolf. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 5:74–95.Google Scholar
Müller, A. H. 1950. Grundlagen der Biostratonomie. Abh. Deutsche Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Kl. Math. u. allg. Naturw., Jahrg. 1950, 3.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. 1962. Aktuo-Paläontologie nach Studien in der Nordsee. 666 pp. Waldemar Kramer; Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. 1972. Ecology and Paleoecology of Marine Environments. Craig, G., ed. (Oertel, I. transl.) 568 pp. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. R. M. 1963. Wildlife census—Lake Rudolf. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 1:121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toots, H. 1965. Sequence of disarticulation in mammalian skeletons. Univ. Wyo. Contrib. Geol. 4:37–39.Google Scholar
Voorhies, M. R. 1969. Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Univ. Wyo. Contrib. Geol. Spec. Pap. 1:1–69.Google Scholar
Weigelt, J. 1927. Rezente Wirbeltierleichen und ihre Paläobiologische Bedeutung. 227 pp. Max Weg; Leipzig.Google Scholar