We do seem to find very few avian bones in prehistoric sites (here in S
CA)...but you would think they'd have eaten ducks, geese, etc...  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.

I buried my small (dead) dog in our backyard when I was 9...planning on
digging up the skeleton in a yr or 2.  Well...was more like 8 yrs later
when I dug in the spot (a corner of a brick walled terrace, so there
wasn't any way of forgetting exactly Where)...and found not 1 scrap of
bone!!!???  The location was right under a pepper tree...with acidic
berries (leaves?)...so...that may have been the cause of deterioration.
??  I am still puzzled tho.  
In field school (1976), we found an articulated dog skeleton at Ozette,
WA...over 500 yrs old...buried under (in) the (dirt) house floor.  Why
did it preserve (perfectly)?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>Behalf Of Doms, Keith
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:46 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: poultry consumption - missing bones ?
>
>Years ago, I experimented with different ways of defleshing 
>skeletons for a skeletal type collection, I buried various 
>birds.  After 8 months there was practically nothing left 
>while medium size mammals were just fine.  I have noticed the 
>Best preservation of bird bones is from dry environments, such 
>as crawlspaces and under pouches.