Taphonomy at the Hudson-MengBison B

Taphonomy at the Hudson-Meng
Bison Bonebed
The Hudson-Meng site lies in a low swale in windswept northwest Nebraska, where the remains of at least 500 bison are crowded into an area of about 1000 meters square (see Figure 7-4). Twenty-one spear points (or point fragments) were found among the remains. Accelerator mass spectrometry dates indicate that the site is about 9500 radiocarbon years old. Paleontologist Larry Agenbroad (Northern Arizona University) was the first to dig at Hudson-Meng, in the 1970s. Using the standard conventions of the day, he inferred human behavior from patterns he observed in the faunal remains. One clear pattern was that the tops of the crania were missing. Mandibles were present along with some cranial fragments, but the top of nearly every single skull was missing. Agenbroad knew that modern Plains Indians often broke bison skulls open to remove the brains and use them in tanning hides. Using this as an analogy, he reasoned that the skull tops at Hudson-Meng were missing for the same reason and therefore that humans must have killed the animals. Agenbroad then made several more inferences. How could people on foot, armed only with spears, have killed 500 bison? People without horses, Agenbroad decided, could not control such a large herd. So he inferred that there must be a low cliff nearby that is now buried beneath the sand that blows daily across western Nebraska. The hunters drove the bison over the cliff and then dragged some 500 of them to a processing area. Calculating that 500 bison could produce nearly 10,000 kilograms of dried meat, Agenbroad further inferred that the ancient hunters were a large group and that they had a sophisticated storage system. So Agenbroad had made inferences about (1) the presence of humans, (2) hunting strategy, (3) group size, and (4) food storage from patterning—the missing skull tops—evident in the skeletal assemblage. These inferences were based on an analogy with historically known Plains Indians, one that had elements of both formal and relational analogies:
◆ This was formal analogy because it relied on the similarity in bison skull form (the missing top of the cranium), and similarities between the site and ethnographically documented butchering practices.
◆ This was relational analogy because it took a known practice of Plains Indians and extrapolated back in time to their ancestors. But this is not middle-level theory because Agenbroad did not try to explain the character of the skulls he found in light of what might happen to bison crania butchered by known Plains Indian practices. The necessary bridging argument was assumed, not demonstrated. From a taphonomic perspective, modern archaeologists look at the foundation of Agenbroad’s inferences—the missing crania—and wonder: Could a natural process create the same pattern? Hudson-Meng has always presented some troubling facts. For example, comparing it with similar bison kill sites, we might expect something closer to 150 points and point fragments, not just 21. And why are there no cut marks on the bones? In the process of butchering 500 bison, it seems likely that a stone knife would occasionally have cut to bone as it sliced through tendons and meat. Archaeologists have encountered thousands of such telltale nicks at other kill/butchery sites, but only carnivore tooth marks appear on the bones at Hudson-Meng. Finally, many of the skeletal remains are in anatomical position, lying in the ground as if the bison had simply died there and were buried undisturbed. If ancient hunters had butchered these animals, we’d expect them to have removed at least some of the meaty portions of the body, such as the upper rear leg (containing the femur). Lawrence Todd (retired) and David Rapson (Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office) were bothered by these facts, so they excavated a portion of the Hudson-Meng site using a battery of high-precision excavation techniques. They also applied the perspective of taphonomy, and began by asking this simple question: How do bison fall apart? For years, taphonomists have studied the carcasses of large animals as they lay decomposing on North America’s high plains, Africa’s Serengeti, and elsewhere. Some of these animals had been shot; others had frozen to death or simply died of old age. Some were ravaged by carnivores; others were undisturbed. Some died on hillsides; others died in gullies. Some died in the winter or wet season; others in the summer or dry season. Sometimes the hide dried to form an armor-like case, holding the bones together years after death, sometimes the rotting carcass burst from the maggots within. In other words, taphonomists had documented what actually happens to large animal carcasses under a variety of natural circumstances. Are there any patterns in how these large animal skeletons fall apart? Absolutely. Andrew Hill (Yale University) and Anna Behrensmeyer (Smithsonian Institution) found that the first joint to disarticulate is where the scapula attaches to the vertebral column, allowing the entire front limb to drop away. Then the caudal (tail) vertebrae-tosacrum joint goes, followed by the scapula-humerus joint, and then the “elbow,” where the humerus articulates with the radius and ulna. The last joints to disarticulate tend to be those of the vertebrae. Such documented sequences of natural disarticulation provide a baseline against which to judge the distinctiveness of human butchering practices. A decomposing bison carcass will eventually collapse into a flat pile of bones (see Figure 7-5). The skull ofte ends up resting on its mandibles (the lower jaw). Carnivores may drag some limb bones away and, eventually, the entire skeleton lies flat on the ground—with the skull poking up above all the other bones. This bone pile effectively becomes a sediment trap, catching blowing dust and sand. It takes 10 to 15 centimeters of sediment to cover the now collapsed limb bones and rib cage, but 30 to 40 centimeters to cover the skull. This means that much of the skull is left sticking up above the ground surface after the rest of the bones are buried. And once leg bones, vertebrae, and ribs are buried—thus covering most of the irregular surface that traps blowing sand—sediment accumulates less quickly, leaving the top of the skull exposed for a longer period of time than the rest of the skeleton. Then the sun goes to work. Sunlight is quite destructive of bone, and the exposed top of the skull quickly flakes away. Eventually, the top of the skull is destroyed and the rest is buried.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Taphonomy di Hudson-MengBison BonebedSitus Hudson-Meng terletak di swale rendah di Nebraska barat laut yang berangin, dimana sisa-sisa setidaknya 500 bison ramai ke daerah sekitar 1000 meter persegi (Lihat gambar 7-4). Dua puluh satu tombak poin (atau fragmen titik) ditemukan diantara sisa. Akselerator spektrometri massa tanggal menunjukkan bahwa situs ini sekitar 9500 penanggalan tahun. Paleontolog Larry Agenbroad (Northern Arizona University) adalah yang pertama untuk menggali di Hudson-Meng, pada tahun 1970. Menggunakan konvensi standar hari, ia disimpulkan perilaku manusia dari pola-pola yang ia mengamati sisa hewan. Salah satu pola yang jelas adalah bahwa puncak crania yang hilang. Mandibles hadir bersama dengan beberapa fragmen tengkorak, tetapi atas tengkorak hampir setiap satu yang hilang. Agenbroad tahu bahwa modern Plains Indian sering pecah bison tengkorak terbuka untuk menghapus otak dan menggunakannya dalam tanning menyembunyikan. Menggunakan ini sebagai analogi, dia berfikir bahwa puncak tengkorak di Hudson-Meng hilang karena alasan yang sama dan oleh karena itu bahwa manusia harus membunuh binatang. Agenbroad lalu membuat beberapa kesimpulan lebih. Bagaimana bisa orang berjalan kaki, bersenjata hanya dengan tombak, tewas 500 bison? Orang-orang tanpa kuda, Agenbroad memutuskan, tidak bisa mengendalikan suatu kawanan besar. Jadi dia disimpulkan bahwa harus ada tebing rendah dekat yang sekarang terkubur di bawah pasir yang bertiup harian di Nebraska Barat. Pemburu melaju bison atas tebing dan kemudian diseret 500 beberapa dari mereka untuk area pengolahan. Menghitung bahwa 500 bison bisa menghasilkan hampir 10.000 kilogram daging kering, Agenbroad lebih lanjut disimpulkan bahwa pemburu kuno kelompok besar dan bahwa mereka mempunyai sistem penyimpanan canggih. Jadi Agenbroad telah membuat kesimpulan tentang (1) kehadiran manusia, (2) berburu strategi, ukuran (3) kelompok dan penyimpanan (4) makanan dari pola — puncak tengkorak yang hilang — jelas dalam rangka kumpulan itu. Kesimpulan tersebut berdasarkan analogi dengan secara historis dikenal Plains Indian, salah satu yang memiliki elemen-elemen formal dan relasional analogi:◆ Ini adalah analogi formal karena ia bergantung pada kesamaan dalam bentuk tengkorak bison (atas hilang tempurung kepala), dan kesamaan antara situs dan menyembelih ethnographically didokumentasikan praktik.◆ This was relational analogy because it took a known practice of Plains Indians and extrapolated back in time to their ancestors. But this is not middle-level theory because Agenbroad did not try to explain the character of the skulls he found in light of what might happen to bison crania butchered by known Plains Indian practices. The necessary bridging argument was assumed, not demonstrated. From a taphonomic perspective, modern archaeologists look at the foundation of Agenbroad’s inferences—the missing crania—and wonder: Could a natural process create the same pattern? Hudson-Meng has always presented some troubling facts. For example, comparing it with similar bison kill sites, we might expect something closer to 150 points and point fragments, not just 21. And why are there no cut marks on the bones? In the process of butchering 500 bison, it seems likely that a stone knife would occasionally have cut to bone as it sliced through tendons and meat. Archaeologists have encountered thousands of such telltale nicks at other kill/butchery sites, but only carnivore tooth marks appear on the bones at Hudson-Meng. Finally, many of the skeletal remains are in anatomical position, lying in the ground as if the bison had simply died there and were buried undisturbed. If ancient hunters had butchered these animals, we’d expect them to have removed at least some of the meaty portions of the body, such as the upper rear leg (containing the femur). Lawrence Todd (retired) and David Rapson (Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office) were bothered by these facts, so they excavated a portion of the Hudson-Meng site using a battery of high-precision excavation techniques. They also applied the perspective of taphonomy, and began by asking this simple question: How do bison fall apart? For years, taphonomists have studied the carcasses of large animals as they lay decomposing on North America’s high plains, Africa’s Serengeti, and elsewhere. Some of these animals had been shot; others had frozen to death or simply died of old age. Some were ravaged by carnivores; others were undisturbed. Some died on hillsides; others died in gullies. Some died in the winter or wet season; others in the summer or dry season. Sometimes the hide dried to form an armor-like case, holding the bones together years after death, sometimes the rotting carcass burst from the maggots within. In other words, taphonomists had documented what actually happens to large animal carcasses under a variety of natural circumstances. Are there any patterns in how these large animal skeletons fall apart? Absolutely. Andrew Hill (Yale University) and Anna Behrensmeyer (Smithsonian Institution) found that the first joint to disarticulate is where the scapula attaches to the vertebral column, allowing the entire front limb to drop away. Then the caudal (tail) vertebrae-tosacrum joint goes, followed by the scapula-humerus joint, and then the “elbow,” where the humerus articulates with the radius and ulna. The last joints to disarticulate tend to be those of the vertebrae. Such documented sequences of natural disarticulation provide a baseline against which to judge the distinctiveness of human butchering practices. A decomposing bison carcass will eventually collapse into a flat pile of bones (see Figure 7-5). The skull ofte ends up resting on its mandibles (the lower jaw). Carnivores may drag some limb bones away and, eventually, the entire skeleton lies flat on the ground—with the skull poking up above all the other bones. This bone pile effectively becomes a sediment trap, catching blowing dust and sand. It takes 10 to 15 centimeters of sediment to cover the now collapsed limb bones and rib cage, but 30 to 40 centimeters to cover the skull. This means that much of the skull is left sticking up above the ground surface after the rest of the bones are buried. And once leg bones, vertebrae, and ribs are buried—thus covering most of the irregular surface that traps blowing sand—sediment accumulates less quickly, leaving the top of the skull exposed for a longer period of time than the rest of the skeleton. Then the sun goes to work. Sunlight is quite destructive of bone, and the exposed top of the skull quickly flakes away. Eventually, the top of the skull is destroyed and the rest is buried.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Taphonomy di Hudson-Meng
Bison Bonebed
Situs Hudson-Meng terletak pada sengkedan rendah laut keanginan Nebraska, di mana sisa-sisa setidaknya 500 bison yang memadati area seluas sekitar 1.000 meter persegi (lihat Gambar 7-4). Dua puluh satu tombak poin (atau fragmen titik) yang ditemukan di antara sisa-sisa. Accelerator tanggal spektrometri massa menunjukkan bahwa situs tersebut adalah sekitar 9500 tahun radiokarbon. Ahli paleontologi Larry Agenbroad (Northern Arizona University) adalah orang pertama yang menggali di Hudson-Meng, pada 1970-an. Cara yang umum hari, ia disimpulkan perilaku manusia dari pola ia mengamati di sisa-sisa fauna. Salah satu pola yang jelas adalah bahwa puncak tengkorak yang hilang. Rahang yang hadir bersama dengan beberapa fragmen tengkorak, namun bagian atas hampir setiap satu tengkorak yang hilang. Agenbroad tahu bahwa yang modern Plains Indian sering pecah tengkorak bison terbuka untuk menghapus otak dan menggunakannya dalam kulit penyamakan. Menggunakan ini sebagai analogi, dia beralasan bahwa puncak tengkorak di Hudson-Meng hilang untuk alasan yang sama dan karena itu manusia harus membunuh binatang. Agenbroad kemudian membuat beberapa kesimpulan yang lebih. Bagaimana mungkin orang-orang berjalan kaki, hanya dipersenjatai dengan tombak, telah menewaskan 500 bison? Orang-orang tanpa kuda, Agenbroad memutuskan, tidak bisa mengendalikan seperti kawanan besar. Jadi dia menyimpulkan bahwa harus ada tebing rendah di dekatnya yang kini terkubur di bawah pasir yang berhembus setiap hari di Nebraska Barat. Para pemburu melaju bison atas tebing dan kemudian menyeret sekitar 500 dari mereka ke daerah pengolahan. Menghitung bahwa 500 bison bisa menghasilkan hampir 10.000 kilogram daging kering, Agenbroad lanjut disimpulkan bahwa pemburu kuno adalah kelompok besar dan bahwa mereka memiliki sistem penyimpanan canggih. Jadi Agenbroad telah membuat kesimpulan tentang (1) kehadiran manusia, (2) strategi berburu, (3) ukuran kelompok, dan (4) penyimpanan makanan dari pola-tengkorak yang hilang puncak-jelas dalam kumpulan tulang. Kesimpulan ini didasarkan pada analogi dengan historis dikenal Plains Indian, yang memiliki unsur-unsur dari kedua analogi formal dan relasional:
◆ Ini adalah analogi resmi karena mengandalkan kesamaan dalam bentuk tengkorak bison (bagian atas hilang dari tempurung kepala), dan kesamaan antara situs dan praktek menyembelih etnografis didokumentasikan.
◆ Ini adalah analogi relasional karena butuh sebuah praktek yang dikenal dari Plains Indian dan ekstrapolasi kembali pada waktunya untuk nenek moyang mereka. Tapi ini bukan teori tingkat menengah karena Agenbroad tidak mencoba untuk menjelaskan karakter tengkorak yang ditemukan dalam terang apa yang mungkin terjadi pada tengkorak bison dibantai oleh Plains praktek India dikenal. Argumen bridging diperlukan diasumsikan, tidak menunjukkan. Dari perspektif taphonomic, arkeolog modern yang melihat dasar Agenbroad itu kesimpulan-hilang tengkorak-dan bertanya-tanya: Bisakah proses alami membuat pola yang sama? Hudson-Meng selalu disajikan beberapa fakta mengganggu. Misalnya, membandingkannya dengan situs membunuh bison yang sama, kita mungkin mengharapkan sesuatu yang lebih dekat dengan 150 poin dan fragmen titik, bukan hanya 21. Dan mengapa tidak ada tanda luka di tulang? Dalam proses menyembelih 500 bison, tampaknya mungkin bahwa pisau batu akan sesekali memotong tulang seperti mengiris tendon dan daging. Para arkeolog telah menemui ribuan torehan tanda tersebut pada situs membunuh / toko daging lainnya, tetapi hanya tanda karnivora gigi muncul pada tulang di Hudson-Meng. Akhirnya, banyak dari sisa-sisa kerangka dalam posisi anatomis, berbaring di tanah seolah-olah bison itu hanya meninggal di sana dan dikuburkan terganggu. Jika pemburu kuno telah membantai hewan-hewan ini, kami harapkan mereka telah dihapus setidaknya beberapa bagian gemuk dari tubuh, seperti kaki belakang bagian atas (mengandung femur). Lawrence Todd (pensiun) dan David Rapson (Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office) terganggu oleh fakta-fakta ini, sehingga mereka digali sebagian dari situs Hudson-Meng menggunakan baterai teknik penggalian presisi tinggi. Mereka juga menerapkan perspektif taphonomy, dan mulai dengan menanyakan pertanyaan sederhana ini: Bagaimana bison berantakan? Selama bertahun-tahun, taphonomists telah mempelajari bangkai hewan besar ketika mereka berbaring membusuk di dataran Amerika Utara tinggi, Serengeti Afrika, dan di tempat lain. Beberapa hewan-hewan ini telah ditembak; lain telah dibekukan sampai mati atau hanya meninggal karena usia tua. Beberapa dirusak oleh karnivora; orang lain yang terganggu. Beberapa meninggal di lereng bukit; lainnya tewas di selokan. Beberapa meninggal dalam musim dingin atau musim hujan; orang lain di musim panas atau musim kemarau. Kadang-kadang menyembunyikan kering untuk membentuk kasus armor seperti, memegang tulang bersama-sama tahun setelah kematian, kadang-kadang bangkai membusuk meledak dari belatung dalam. Dengan kata lain, taphonomists telah didokumentasikan apa yang sebenarnya terjadi pada bangkai hewan besar di bawah berbagai keadaan alam. Apakah ada pola bagaimana kerangka hewan besar berantakan? Tentu saja. Andrew Hill (Yale University) dan Anna Behrensmeyer (Smithsonian Institution) menemukan bahwa sendi pertama yang disarticulate adalah di mana skapula menempel pada tulang belakang, yang memungkinkan seluruh anggota tubuh depan untuk menjatuhkan diri. Kemudian ekor (tail) tulang-tosacrum bersama pergi, diikuti oleh gabungan tulang belikat-humerus, dan kemudian "siku," di mana humerus berartikulasi dengan radius dan ulna. Sendi terakhir untuk disarticulate cenderung menjadi orang-orang dari tulang belakang. Urutan didokumentasikan seperti disarticulation alam memberikan dasar pertimbangan untuk menilai kekhasan praktik pemotongan manusia. Sebuah membusuk bangkai bison akhirnya akan runtuh ke tumpukan datar tulang (lihat Gambar 7-5). Tengkorak ofte berakhir bertumpu pada rahang nya (rahang bawah). Karnivora dapat menyeret beberapa tulang tungkai kaki dan, pada akhirnya, seluruh kerangka terletak datar di tanah-dengan tengkorak menyembul di atas semua tulang lainnya. Tumpukan tulang ini secara efektif menjadi perangkap sedimen, menangkap debu dan pasir bertiup. Dibutuhkan 10 sampai 15 cm dari sedimen untuk menutupi tulang sekarang runtuh tungkai dan tulang rusuk, tapi 30 sampai 40 cm untuk menutupi tengkorak. Ini berarti bahwa banyak tengkorak yang tersisa menempel di atas permukaan tanah setelah sisa tulang dimakamkan. Dan sekali tulang kaki, tulang belakang, dan tulang rusuk dimakamkan-sehingga menutupi sebagian besar permukaan yang tidak teratur yang memerangkap meniup pasir sedimen terakumulasi kurang cepat, meninggalkan bagian atas tengkorak terbuka untuk jangka waktu yang lebih lama daripada sisa kerangka. Kemudian matahari pergi bekerja. Sinar matahari yang cukup merusak tulang, dan bagian atas terbuka tengkorak cepat serpihan pergi. Akhirnya, bagian atas tengkorak hancur dan sisanya dimakamkan.