Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:19:31 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Well...I know bird bones are hollow, more or less (the long
portions)...so that would make them less dense naturally. But, small
size, small mammal bones arent that "solid"...so I would think they
would decay more or less the same rate....but guess not. I would think
fish bone would be more 'delicate' also...and 'disappear' faster than
mammal.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Bob Skiles
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:29 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: poultry consumption - missing bones ?
>
>No, not denser, but avian bones are hollow and thinner walled
>(it was necessary for avian ancenstors, the dinosaurs, to lose
>a lot of superfluous weight to get airborne) ... they are not
>only thinner, but because they are hollow their walls are
>subjected to decay from without and within (thus, they are
>digested by aerobic soil microbes at a rapid rate). The
>physical differences of density and thickness and SOLIDITY of
>mammal bones makes them more resistent to decay ... and they
>start with more mass, as well, thus it takes the same decaying
>processes longer to consume them.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and
>birth, without either virtue or talents ... The artificial
>aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and
>provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy."
>
>- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Carol Serr" <[log in to unmask]>
> Are
>> small mammals bones just more dense than those of fowl?
>> Out in the desert, near the shore of now dry lakes...we do find more
>> avian remians...but, I would expect the preservation to be better
>> there too...dryer.
>
|
|
|