On the Value of Soft Bones in Faunal Analysis

Abstract

It is argued here that faunal analysts should count soft skeletal parts (such as the articular ends of limb bones) as well as hard parts (such as limb bone shaft fragments). If soft parts are not counted, it is impossible to assess and correct for density-mediated attrition, and inaccurate parameter estimates result. This argument is supported by computer simulations showing that the method of abcml (analysis of bone counts by maximum likelihood) yields much more accurate estimates when articular ends are counted than when they are not. This is not merely the result of more being better than less, for even worse results were obtained from simulations with a hypothetical skeleton in which all skeletal parts are as hard as the hardest shaft fragment. Because these bones do not vary in hardness, their counts are devoid of information about attrition. The estimates that result are biased, with broad confidence intervals. Accurate estimates require that archaeologists count soft bones as well as hard ones.