Pits and pitfalls: taxonomic variability and patterning in tooth mark dimensions

Archaeologists use experimentally derived tooth mark frequencies, locations, and size data to infer (a) the extent of carnivore involvement in the formation and modification of faunal assemblages, (b) the size classes of predators marking those assemblages, and (c) whether hominins accessed fleshy or defleshed carcasses (Blumenschine and Pobiner, 2007; Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2007). These inferences are often debated in part because frequency counts can vary widely among observers and because the carnivore taxa for which tooth mark dimensional data are available are limited. This study contributes to the body of actualistic/experimental tooth mark data and presents a methodology for collecting these data. We offer a greatly simplified method that may encourage others to collect and quantify tooth mark dimensions. We present dimensional data from feeding experiments with 16 omnivore and carnivore species of known age and mass, ranging in size from skunks to tigers, significantly expanding the taxonomic and size range of carnivores for which we have tooth pit data. Our results demonstrate considerable, but not complete, overlap in tooth pit dimensions among size, class, and taxon. Tooth mark dimensions on epiphyses and metaphyses were relatively strongly correlated with body mass, whereas diaphyseal tooth marks exhibited the weakest correlation. Human consumption of animal tissue produced tooth marks comparable in size to medium felids and small canids, suggesting the possibility that some tooth marks on Early Stone Age (ESA) faunal assemblages could, as suggested by Oliver (1994), result from small carnivore and/or hominin consumption.     

Max Weber on Causal Analysis,Interpretation, and Comparison

Max Weber's methodological writings offered a model of singular causal analysis that anticipated key elements of contemporary Anglo‐American philosophy of the social and cultural sciences. The model accurately portrayed crucial steps and dimensions of causal reasoning in these disciplines, outlining a dynamic and probabilistic conception of historical processes, counterfactual reasoning, and comparison as a substitute for counterfactual argument. Above all, Weber recognized the interpretation of human actions as a subcategory of causal analysis, in which the agents‘ visions of desired outcomes, together with their beliefs about how to bring them about, cause them to act as they do.