late pleistocene population interaction in western europe

Analytical underrepresentation is easily confused with differential preservation,
even though these two concepts refer to distinct, yet complementary, aspects of attrition.
Differential preservation is associated with the deletion of skeletal parts from the
archaeological record through the physical and chemical breakdown of bone structure,
whereas analytical underrepresentation characterizes situations in which natural or
cultural factors fragment elements to a point where some or most of the resulting pieces
become taxonomically unidentifiable, without implying that specimens have vanished or
been destroyed beyond recognition. In other words, differential preservation monitors
destruction of parts, while analytical underrepresentation relates to specimens that are
recognizable as bone but taxonomically unidentifiable due to their degree of
fragmentation (Lyman and O’Brien 1987).
An example will illustrate this. Extraction of marrow from long bones results
typically in the production of several splinters and spongy pieces, most of which are
taxonomically unidentifiable. However, the process rarely ends in the complete
destruction of the bone fragments. In contrast, the production of bone “cakes” (Binford
1978) from long bone epiphyses and other parts is more likely to be associated with
attrition because many specimens will, in all probability, disappear from the
archaeological record and be transformed into another form of energy. To recapitulate the
argument, in spite of some bone destruction, it should still be possible to infer marrow-
cracking, based on the preserved specimens, even though analytical underrepresentation
may obscure interpretation. In contrast, the unraveling of bone cake production is likely
to be eclipsed by two factors: analytical underrepresentation and, most importantly,
attrition.
202