What can we really say about skeletal part representation, MNI and funerary ritual? A simulation approach

Two cornerstones of conventional wisdom in interpreting commingled assemblages are (a) the MNI provides reliable information about how many individuals were deposited there, and (b) the distribution of skeletal parts provides information about ritual processes such as primary vs. secondary deposition. Both of these involve assumptions about the taphonomic processes linking the original depositions and the assemblage which archaeologists recover. Yet, it is almost impossible to investigate these processes directly in ethnoarchaeological, forensic or experimental settings, particularly observing the effects of the passage of long time spans and repeated disturbance events. This paper reports an attempt to understand these relationships and processes through simulation of a hypothetical prehistoric collective tomb. The key results are (a) there is no linear or proportionate relationship between the number of bodies originally deposited in a tomb and the MNI excavated there; indeed, in many situations, for taphonomic reasons, the MNI quickly reaches a low ceiling and levels off regardless of how many individuals were actually placed in the tomb, and (b) lack of small and fragile bones provides a very poor criterion for differentiating between burial within a tomb and secondary deposition there following primary burial elsewhere. However, skeletal part representation can prove informative about other processes such as selective curation of crania and removal of bones from tombs for funerary use elsewhere. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.