Problems of Identification and Quantification in Archaeozoological Analysis, Part II: Presentation of an Alternative Counting Method

Problems of Identification and Quantification in Archaeozoological Analysis, Part II:... Archaeozoologists commonly use Number of Identified SPecimens (NISP) and Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) as measures of anatomical abundances. According to a blind test examining the reproducibility and accuracy of identifications of ungulate remains (Morin et al., Part I, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9300-4), NISP provides estimates of skeletal abundances that are less robust than those based on MNE. However, although results were improved with the latter method, MNE is not free of problems. Here, we show through an analysis of paired NISP-MNE data for 24 classes of elements that MNE is prone to inflate the representation of rare parts (as measured by NISP), a phenomenon more strongly expressed in certain elements than in others. Moreover, some elements show a wide scatter of points, which raises issues of data reproducibility. MNE is also known for being seriously affected by aggregation methods. These fundamental problems severely undermine the value of MNE as a measure of abundance. This article introduces an alternative counting method that avoids many of the weaknesses of MNE. This counting method, called the Number of Distinct Elements (NDE), focuses on the occurrence of pre-determined, invariant landmarks counted on mutually exclusive specimens. Preliminary experimental results suggest that NDE counts are robust predictors of skeletal, and perhaps taxonomic, abundances. Moreover, the NDE approach eliminates the complex and time-consuming task of spreading or drawing specimens to identify fragment overlap. Furthermore, NDE values are additive and easy to calculate. Given these features, the NDE approach represents a compelling alternative to MNE in archaeozoological analysis. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Springer Journals

Problems of Identification and Quantification in Archaeozoological Analysis, Part II: Presentation of an Alternative Counting Method

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/problems-of-identification-and-quantification-in-archaeozoological-4KzBhi7iSZ
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Subject
Social Sciences; Archaeology; Anthropology
ISSN
1072-5369
eISSN
1573-7764
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10816-016-9301-3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Archaeozoologists commonly use Number of Identified SPecimens (NISP) and Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) as measures of anatomical abundances. According to a blind test examining the reproducibility and accuracy of identifications of ungulate remains (Morin et al., Part I, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9300-4), NISP provides estimates of skeletal abundances that are less robust than those based on MNE. However, although results were improved with the latter method, MNE is not free of problems. Here, we show through an analysis of paired NISP-MNE data for 24 classes of elements that MNE is prone to inflate the representation of rare parts (as measured by NISP), a phenomenon more strongly expressed in certain elements than in others. Moreover, some elements show a wide scatter of points, which raises issues of data reproducibility. MNE is also known for being seriously affected by aggregation methods. These fundamental problems severely undermine the value of MNE as a measure of abundance. This article introduces an alternative counting method that avoids many of the weaknesses of MNE. This counting method, called the Number of Distinct Elements (NDE), focuses on the occurrence of pre-determined, invariant landmarks counted on mutually exclusive specimens. Preliminary experimental results suggest that NDE counts are robust predictors of skeletal, and perhaps taxonomic, abundances. Moreover, the NDE approach eliminates the complex and time-consuming task of spreading or drawing specimens to identify fragment overlap. Furthermore, NDE values are additive and easy to calculate. Given these features, the NDE approach represents a compelling alternative to MNE in archaeozoological analysis.

Journal

Journal of Archaeological Method and TheorySpringer Journals

Published: Sep 26, 2016

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off