{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01798941798941799, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004232804232804233, 'mean_word_length': 5.524137931034483, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nisp:Mne and %Whole in Analysis of Prehistoric Carcass Exploitation

Several analytical problems with the use of utility curves in archaeofaunal analysis have arisen since Lewis Binford first introduced them in 1978. First, do utility curves actually reflect which parts of an animal carcass were chosen or preferred by prehistoric hunters, or do the curves represent transport choices of hunters (what they could carry)? Second, differential preservation of elements mediated by bone density also contributes to what bones archaeologists recover from sites. Density-mediated destruction of bone can produce curves that mimic those of human behavior; thus, inferences about human behavior might be better attributed to bone-preservation factors. A shift from use of prey body-part representation to the use of fragmentation of prey bones as an inferential tool to study prehistoric foraging of prey carcasses diminishes both analytical problems.