Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Marcos César Bissaro Junior
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Instituto de Biociências (IBIOC/SB) |
| Defense date: | 2008-06-12 |
| Examining board members: |
Walter Alves Neves;
Renato Pirani Ghilardi;
Renato Kipnis
|
| Advisor: | Walter Alves Neves |
| Abstract | |
To understand depositional contexts in archaeological and palaeontological sites, taphonomic studies are of relevant importance. One of the main questions about faunal representation in archaeological sites is the problem with equifinality, when similar patterns in time and space emerge from different conditions and processes. Human and natural agencies are the processes that affect the fossil assemblage recovered in archaeological sites; that, if not correctly understood, can lead to wrong interpretations. To solve this problem, taphonomic signatures of palaeontological (natural agency) and ethnographic collections (human agency) were used as a \"control\" to the interpretation of zooarchaeological record. Four osteological collections comprised of medium and large mammals (Mazama sp., Tapirus terrestris, Tayassu sp.) were analyzed: an ethnographic collection of Guajá indians (Maranhão, Brazil), a palaeontological collection of Cuvieri (Minas Gerais, Brazil) and two archaeological collections of Lapa do Santo and Lapa das Boleiras (Minas Gerais, Brazil). Bone density (VD - volume density) and utility index (FUI - food utility index) were the two main analytical tools used to characterize the collections, together with bone fragmentation, bone burning and cut marks analyses. Spearman correlation analysis shows no statistically significant results between FUI and animal representation (MAU), neither between MAU and bone density in the archaeological and ethnographic sites. Bone density correlates statistically with MAU in Cuvieri. No significant statistic correlation was obtained in archaeological and ethnographic context between MAU and FUI as expected. The absence of a significant statistic correlation between MAU and VD in the archaeological sites can be attributed to human agency. Bone fragmentation analyses revealed great fragmentation in the archaeological and the ethnographic sites when analyzing long bones only, since they are the most skeletal part modified by human processes. Bone burning and cut mark analyses revealed relevant ethnographic information about human processing of animal carcass even when no post-depositional bias has occurred. The analyses of palaeontological and ethnographic sites revealed information applicable to archaeological sites contributing to solve equifinality questions. (AU) | |