Bone density studies and the interpretation of the faunal record

By Y. Lam, Osbjorn M. Pearson. 2005

103 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Anthropology, Archeology, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73c7d4622a6c82c22db90aec88cfa23d6487c8a4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Anthropology

1. M. Stiner
2. P. Szpak
3. J. Hublin

In Archeology

1. Matthew J. Collins
2. M. Stiner
3. P. Szpak
4. J. Hublin
5. M. Buckley

In Paleontology

1. Matthew J. Collins
2. M. Stiner
3. P. Szpak
4. J. Hublin
5. M. Buckley

Citations in the corpus

• Using ZooMS to identify fragmentary bone from the Late Middle/Early Upper Palaeolithic sequence of Les Cottés, France (2015, background): “, 2012) or because of taphonomic processes (Behrensmeyer, 1978; Lam and Pearson, 2005; Nielsen-Marsh et al., 2007; Todd and Rapson, 1988).”
• Fish bone chemistry and ultrastructure: implications for taphonomy and stable isotope analysis (2011, methodology): “Within the context of the preservation of archaeological bone, the density of bone samples has been studied in a number of taxa and utilized as an explanation for patterns of skeletal element representation (reviewed by Lam et al., 2003; Lam and Pearson, 2005; Lyman, 1984).”
• An Unshakable Middle Paleolithic? (2013, background): “Differential preservation of dense versus spongy bones (following Lyman 1984) may explain the anatomical biases in some cases (e.g., Hoffecker, Baryshnikov, and Potapova 1991; Lam and Pearson 2005).”