Advertisement

Reasoning with Zooarchaeological Counting Units and Statistics

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
Chapter

Abstract

When zooarchaeologists work with aggregate data derived from archaeofaunas to study past human behavior, they are advised to assess whether patterns in their datasets could be products of their own decisions about quantification rather than choices of past humans. Chapter 18 revisits common zooarchaeological counting units in the context of probability theory and statistical tests based on it. It outlines the nature of zooarchaeological variables and the appropriate application of parametric and nonparametric statistical tests to them. It describes potential problems with each of the counting units described in Chap. 10 and notes methods for checking for whether these are a problem within one’s datasets, a topic that will be visited in Chap. 22. It discusses the vexing issue of which measure is best for estimating element and taxonomic abundance. An experimental blind test with large datasets suggests that NISP does not perform so well as other counting units such as MNE as a measure of element and taxonomic abundance, however, the latter is liable to aggregation effects. Chapter 18 briefly reviews a recently proposed alternative to these measures, introduced an alternative measure of element abundance: Number of Distinct Elements (NDE), a landmark-based method for skeletal element quantification that is argued to transcend many of the problems of other measures.

Keywords

Quantitative Sampling Parametric Nonparametric Correlation Regression Rank order correlation NDE 

References

  1. Bartosiewicz, L., & Gál, E. (2007). Sample size and taxonomic richness in mammalian and avian bone assemblages from archaeological sites. Archeometriai Műhely, 1, 37–44.Google Scholar
  2. Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cahen, D., & Moeyersons, J. (1977). Subsurface movements of stone artefacts and their implications for the prehistory of Central Africa. Nature, 266, 812–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cannon, M. D. (2013). NISP, bone fragmentation, and the measurement of taxonomic abundance. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casteel, R. W. (1977). Characterization of faunal assemblages and the minimum number of individuals determined from paired elements: Continuing problems in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 4(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costamagno, S. (1999). Stratégies de chasse et fonction des sites au Magdalénien dans le sud de la France. Talence: Université Bordeaux I.Google Scholar
  7. Crader, D. C. (1984). The Zooarchaeology of the Storehouse and the Dry Well at Monticello. American Antiquity, 49(3), 542–558.Google Scholar
  8. Crader, D. C. (1989). Faunal remains from slave quarter sites at Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia. Archaeozoologia, 3(1–2), 229–236.Google Scholar
  9. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. (1997). Meat-eating by early hominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus site, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): An experimental approach using cut-mark data. Journal of Human Evolution, 33(6), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ducos, P. (1968). L'origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine. Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire l'Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire 6.Google Scholar
  11. Faith, J. T., & Gordon, A. D. (2007). Skeletal element abundances in archaeofaunal assemblages: Economic utility, sample size, and assessment of carcass transport strategies. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(6), 872–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gifford, D. P., Isaac, G. L., & Nelson, C. M. (1980). Evidence for predation and pastoralism at prolonged drift, a pastoral Neolithic site in Kenya. Azania, 15, 57–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., Boone, C. M., & Reid, R. E. (2013). The fauna from Quiroste: Insights into indigenous foodways, culture, and land modification. California Archaeology, 5(2), 291–317.Google Scholar
  14. Grayson, D. K. (1978). Minimum numbers and sample size in vertebrate faunal analysis. American Antiquity, 43(1), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grayson, D. K. (1979). On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas. In M. B. Schiffer. In Advances in archaeological method and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 199–237). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grayson, D. K. (1981). The effects of sample size on some derived measures in vertebrate faunal analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8(1), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grayson, D. K., & Frey, C. J. (2004). Measuring skeletal part representation in archaeological faunas. Journal of Taphonomy, 2(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, M., Weisler, M., & Faulkner, P. (2015). A refined protocol for calculating MNI in archaeological molluscan shell assemblages: A Marshall Islands case study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 57, 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holtzman, R. C. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of fossil assemblage composition. Paleobiology, 5(2), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein, R. G. (1978). Stone age predation on large African bovids. Journal of Archaeological Science, 5(3), 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, R. G. (1979). Stone age exploitation of animals in southern Africa: Middle Stone Age people living in southern Africa more than 30,000 years ago exploited local animals less effectively than the Later Stone Age people who succeeded them. American Scientist, 67(2), 151–160.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, R. G. (1981). Stone age predation on small African bovids. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 36(134), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, R. G., & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1991). The bovids from Elandsfontein, South Africa, and their implications for the age, paleoenvironment, and origins of the site. The African Archaeological Review, 9, 21–79.Google Scholar
  25. Lyman, R. L. (1979). Available meat from faunal remains: A consideration of techniques. American Antiquity, 44(3), 536–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyman, R. L. (1994). Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 59(1), 36–71.Google Scholar
  27. Lyman, R. L. (2008). Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lyman, R. L. (2015). On the variable relationship between NISP and NTAXA in bird remains and in mammal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science, 53, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marean, C. W., Abe, Y., Nilssen, P. J., & Stone, E. C. (2001). Estimating the minimum number of skeletal elements (MNE) in zooarchaeology: A review and a new image-analysis GIS approach. American Antiquity, 66(2), 333–348.Google Scholar
  30. Marean, C. W., & Kim, S. Y. (1998). Mousterian large-mammal remains from Kobeh Cave behavioral implications for Neanderthals and early modern humans. Current Anthropology, 38(S1), S79–S113.Google Scholar
  31. Marean, C. W., & Spencer, L. M. (1991). Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance. American Antiquity, 56(4), 645–658.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall, F. B. (1990). Cattle herds and caprine flocks. In P. T. Robertshaw (Ed.), Early pastoralists of south-western Kenya (pp. 205–260). Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa.Google Scholar
  33. Marshall, F. B., & Pilgram, T. (1993). NISP vs. MNI in quantification of body-part representation. American Antiquity, 58(2), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mason, R. D., Peterson, M. L., & Tiffany, J. A. (1998). Weighing vs. counting: Measurement reliability and the California school of midden analysis. American Antiquity, 63(2), 303–324.Google Scholar
  35. Morin, E., Ready, E., Boileau, A., Beauval, C., & Coumont, M.-P. (2017a). Problems of identification and quantification in archaeozoological analysis, part I: Insights from a blind test. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24, 886–937.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9300-4.
  36. Morin, E., Ready, E., Boileau, A., Beauval, C., & Coumont, M.-P. (2017b). Problems of identification and quantification in archaeozoological analysis, part II: Presentation of an alternative counting method. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23, 938–973.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9301-3.
  37. Motulsky, H. J. (1995–2015). Computing the SD, GraphPad statistics guide. http://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/6/statistics/index.htm?stat_computing_the_sd.htm Accessed 2017.
  38. Pickering, T. R., Egeland, C. P., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Brain, C. K., & Schnell, A. G. (2008). Testing the “shift in the balance of power” hypothesis at Swartkrans, South Africa: Hominid cave use and subsistence behavior in the early Pleistocene. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 27(1), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickering, T. R., Egeland, C. P., Schnell, A. G., Osborne, D. L., & Enk, J. (2006). Success in identification of experimentally fragmented limb bone shafts: Implications for estimates of skeletal element abundance in archaeofaunas. Journal of Taphonomy, 4(2), 97–108.Google Scholar
  40. Pilgram, T., & Marshall, F. B. (1995). Bone counts and statisticians: A reply to Ringrose. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22(1), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ringrose, T. J. (1993). Bone counts and statistics: A critique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20(2), 121–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  44. StatSoft (2013). How to analyze data with low quality or small samples, nonparametric statistics. http://www.statsoft.com/Textbook/Nonparametric-Statistics Accessed 2013, 2017.
  45. Thomas, D. H. (1986). Refiguring anthropology: First principles of probability and statistics. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  46. Todd, L. C., & Stanford, D. (1987). Application of conjoined bone data to site structural studies. In J. L. Hofman & J. G. Enloe (Eds.), Piecing together the past: Applications of refitting studies in archaeology, British Archaeological Reports, International Series (Vol. 578). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
  47. Villa, P. (1982). Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity, 47(2), 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Villa, P., & Courtin, J. (1983). The interpretation of stratified sites: A view from underground. Journal of Archaeological Science, 10(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations