Taphonomic Agents and Taphonomic Signatures

Erlandson and Moss (2001) indicate one step to deciphering the taphonomic history of a deposit comprising numerous remains of aquatic organisms involves building a list of the nonhuman local carnivores. Such lists indicate potential, not actual, taphonomic agents, and the list they provide does not include one of the more significant potential accumulators of aquatic faunal remains—pinnipeds. Nor do they discuss the critical second step of taphonomic analysis that involves the writing of taphonomic histories based on signature criteria manifest as modifications to faunal remains.