Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:33:49.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blind Testing of Faunal Identification Protocols: A Case Study with North American Artiodactyl Stylohyoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Patrick M. Lubinski Open the ORCID record for Patrick M. Lubinski [Opens in a new window] ,
R. Lee Lyman  and
Matthew P. Johnson
Patrick M. Lubinski*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA98926-7544, USA
R. Lee Lyman
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, 112 Swallow Hall, Columbia, MO65211, USA
Matthew P. Johnson
Affiliation:
Cultural & Environmental Resource Management Program, Central Washington University, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA98926-7544, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taxonomic identification of archaeofauna relies on techniques and anatomical traits that should be valid, reliable, and usable, but which are rarely tested. Identification protocols (techniques and anatomical traits), particularly those used to distinguish taxa of similar size and morphology, should be rigorously tested to ensure a solid interpretive foundation. Blind testing of a protocol for identifying stylohyoid bones of North American artiodactyls was performed by three analysts who independently employed the protocol to identify 77 anatomically complete specimens of known taxonomic identity, representing 54 individuals and 11 species. Identifications were identical in 89% of cases and in conflict in 3% of cases. The remainder involved differences in resolution; two analysts identified specimens to species, whereas the third identified specimens to more general taxonomic groups. Inter-analyst variability in identification was a result of differences in protocol application. Identifications were consistent with known taxon in 92%–96% of cases. Results indicate that the protocol is valid, reliable, and usable, and it can be applied to archaeological specimens with confidence. Testing of other identification criteria employed by zooarchaeologists is encouraged.

La identificación taxonómica de la arqueofauna se basa en técnicas y rasgos anatómicos que deberían ser válidos, confiables y utilizables, pero que rara vez se prueban en la práctica. Sostenemos que los protocolos de identificación (técnicas y rasgos anatómicos), particularmente aquellos utilizados para distinguir taxones de tamaño y morfología similares, deben estar sujetos a pruebas rigurosas para garantizar una base interpretativa sólida. Tres analistas realizaron pruebas a ciegas de un protocolo propuesto recientemente para identificar huesos estilohioides de artiodactilos de América del Norte que emplearon de forma independiente el protocolo para identificar 77 especímenes anatómicamente completos de identidad taxonómica conocida y que representan 54 individuos y 11 especies. Las identificaciones fueron idénticas en el 89% de los casos y en conflicto en el 3% de los casos. El resto involucraba diferencias en la resolución; dos de nosotros identificamos especímenes de especies, mientras que el tercero identificó especímenes de grupos taxonómicos más generales. La variabilidad entre analistas en la identificación fue el resultado de diferencias en la aplicación del protocolo. Las identificaciones fueron consistentes con el taxón conocido en el 92%–96% de los casos. Los resultados indican que el protocolo es válido, confiable y utilizable, y puede aplicarse a especímenes arqueológicos con confianza. Se alienta la prueba de otros criterios de identificación empleados por los zooarqueólogos.

Keywords

artiodactylsmethod testingstylohyoidtaxonomic identificationzooarchaeologyartiodactilosmétodo de pruebastylohioideidentificación taxonómicazooarqueología
Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 781 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Adams, Bradley, and Crabtree, Pam 2012 Comparative Osteology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Baker, Barry W., and Shaffer, Brian S. 1999 Assumptions about Species: A Case Study of Tortoise Bones from SE Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 26:69–74.Google Scholar
Balaase, Marie, and Ambrose, Stanley H. 2005 Distinguishing Sheep and Goats Using Dental Morphology and Stable Carbon Isotopes in C4 Grassland Environments. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkwill, Darlene, and Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1992 A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos taurus and Bison bison. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnosky, Anthony D, Hadly, Elizabeth A., Gonzalez, Patrick, Head, Jason, Polly, David, Michelle Lawing, A., Eronen, Jussi T., Ackerly, David D., Alex, Ken, Biber, Eric, Blois, Jessica, Brashares, Justin, Ceballos, Gerardo, Davis, Edward, Dietl, Gregory P., Dirzo, Rodolfo, Doremus, Holly, Fortelius, Mikael, Greene, Harry W., Hellmann, Jessica, Hickler, Thomas, Jackson, Stephen T., Kemp, Melissa, Koch, Paul L., Kremen, Claire, Lindsey, Emily L., Looy, Cindy, Marshall, Charles R., Mendenhall, Chase, Mulch, Andreas, Mychajliw, Alexis M., Nowak, Carsten, Ramakrishnan, Uma, Schnitzler, Jan, Das Shrestha, Kashish, Solari, Katherine, Stegner, Lynn, Allison Stegner, M., Chr, Nils. Stenseth, Marvalee H. Wake, Zhibin Zhang, 2017 Merging Paleobiology with Conservation Biology to Guide the Future of Terrestrial Ecosystems. Science 355. DOI:10.1126/science.aah4787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, William A. 2008 Taxonomic Ambiguity in Faunal Analysis: Theory, Practical Considerations, and Implications. Master's thesis, University of Texas, Austin .Google Scholar
Beisaw, April M. 2013 Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Bochenski, Zbigniew M. 2008 Identification of Skeletal Remains of Closely Related Species: The Pitfalls and Solutions. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1247–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boessneck, J. 1969 Osteological Difference between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goat (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology, rev. ed, edited by Brothwell, Don and Higgs, Eric S., pp. 331–358. Prager, New York.Google Scholar
Brainerd, George W. 1939 An Illustrated Field Key for the Identification of Mammal Bones. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 48:324–328.Google Scholar
Breslawski, Ryan P., and Byers, David A. 2015 Assessing Measurement Error in Paleozoological Osteometrics with Bison Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 53:235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Christopher L., and Gustafson, Carl E. 1979 A Key to Postcranial Skeletal Remains of Cattle/Bison, Elk, and Horse. Reports of Investigations No. 57. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Butler, Virginia L. 2011 Comments on “Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology.” Ethnobiology Letters 2:31.Google Scholar
Butler, Virginia L., and Lyman, R. Lee 1996 Taxonomic Identifications and Faunal Summaries: What Should We Be Including in Our Faunal Reports. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 14(1):22.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Zeller, Richard A. 1979 Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage, Beverly Hills, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, Raymond E. 1971 The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, London.Google Scholar
Clason, Antje Trientje 1972 Some Remarks on the Use and Presentation of Archaeozoological Data. Helinium 12:139–153.Google Scholar
Davis, Simon J. M. 1987 The Archaeology of Animals. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Dietl, Gregory P., and Flessa, Karl W. (editors) 2017 Conservation Paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driesch, Angela von den 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Bulletin 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Driver, Jonathan C. 1982 Minimum Standards for Reporting of Animal Bones in Salvage Archaeology: Southern Alberta as a Case Study. In Directions in Archaeology, edited by Francis, Peter D. and Poplin, Eric C., pp. 199–209. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Driver, Jonathan C. 1992 Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9:35–47.Google Scholar
Driver, Jonathan C. 2011 Twenty Years After “Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology.” Ethnobiology Letters 2:36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, George F. 1898 The Prehistoric Fauna of Block Island, as Indicated by Its Ancient Shell-Heaps. American Journal of Science 6:137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, Kitty F. 2004 In Search of Assemblage Comparability: Methods in Maya Zooarchaeology. In Maya Zooarchaeology, edited by Emery, Kitty F., pp. 15–33. Costen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 51. University of California, Los Angeles.10.2307/j.ctvhhhfkb.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findley, James S. 1964 Paleoecologic Reconstruction: Vertebrate Limitations. In The Reconstruction of Past Environments, assembled by Hester, James J. and Schoenwetter, James, pp. 23–25. Publication No. 3. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Taos, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane 2018 An Introduction to Zooarchaeology. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, B. Miles 1973 Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.Google Scholar
Gobalet, Kenneth W. 2001 A Critique of Faunal Analysis; Inconsistency among Experts in Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golafshani, Nahid 2003 Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Report 8:597–607.Google Scholar
Graham, Russell W., and Semken, Holmes A. Jr. 1987 Philosophy and Procedures for Paleoenvironmental Studies of Quaternary Mammalian Faunas. In Late Quaternary Mammalian Biogeography of the Great Plains and Prairies, edited by Graham, Russell W., Semken, Holmes A. Jr., and Graham, Mary Ann, pp. 1–17. Scientific Papers Vol. 22. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K. 1977 A Review of the Evidence for Early Holocene Turkeys in the Northern Great Basin. American Antiquity 42:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, Donald K., and Maser, Chris 1978 An Efficient, Inexpensive Dermestid Colony for Skeleton Preparation. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:246–247.Google Scholar
Hale, Thomas A. 2016 Species Identification of the Stylohyoid Bone for North American Artiodactyls. Master's thesis, Cultural and Environmental Resource Management Program, Central Washington University, Ellensburg.Google Scholar
Halstead, Paul, Collins, Patricia, and Isaakidou, Valasia 2002 Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haruda, Ashleigh F. 2017 Separating Sheep (Ovis aries L.) and Goats (Capra hircus L.) Using Geometric Morphometric Methods: An Investigation of Astragalus Morphology from Late and Final Bronze Age Central Asian Contexts. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27:551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heale, Roberta, and Twycross, Alison 2015 Validity and Reliability in Quantitative Studies. Evidence-Based Nursing 18:66–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesse, Brian, and Wapnish, Paula 1985 Animal Bone Archaeology. Manuals on Archaeology No. 5. Taraxacum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hillson, Simon 1992 Mammal Bones and Teeth. Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Jodi A. 2003 Identification of Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Postcranial Remains as a Means of Determining Human Subsistence Strategies. Plains Anthropologist 48:287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Richard G., and Cruz-Uribe, Kathryn 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lastrucci, Carlo L. 1967 The Scientific Approach: Basic Principles of the Scientific Method. Schenkman, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lau, Hannah, and Kansa, Sarah W. 2018 Zooarchaeology in the Era of Big Data: Contending with Interanalyst Variation and Best Practices for Contextualizing Data for Informed Reuse. Journal of Archaeological Science 95:33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Barbara 1951 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Deer, Pronghorn, and Sheep–Goat with Notes on Bos and Bison. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 35(3):7–40.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Barbara 1957 Zoology. In The Identification of Non-Artifactual Archaeological Materials, edited by Taylor, Walter W., pp. 41–42. National Research Council Publication 565. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Barbara 1973 Problems in the Inter-Site Comparisons of Faunal Remains. In Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by Matolcsi, Janos, pp. 397–402. Ckademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
LeFebvre, Michelle J., and Sharpe, Ashley E. 2018 Contemporary Challenges in Zooarchaeological Specimen Identification. In Zooarchaeology in Practice, edited by Giovas, Christina M. and LeFebvre, Michelle J., pp. 35–57. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lubinski, Patrick M., and Hale, Thomas A. 2018 Identifying and Siding the Stylohyoid Bone for North American Artiodactyls. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 28:364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupo, Karen D. 2011 Comments on “Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology.” Ethnobiology Letters 2:32.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2005 Zooarchaeology. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, Vol. II, edited by Maschner, Herbert D. G. and Chippindale, Christopher, pp. 835–870. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2011a Comments on Jon Driver's “Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology.” Ethnobiology Letters 2:33–34.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2011b Paleoecological and Biogeographical Implications of Late Pleistocene Noble Marten (Martes americana nobilis) in Eastern Washington State, USA. Quaternary Research 75:176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2012 Human-Behavioral and Paleoecological Implications of Terminal Pleistocene Fox Remains at the Marmes Site (45FR50), Eastern Washington State, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 41:39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2019 Assumptions and Protocol of the Taxonomic Identification of Faunal Remains in Zooarchaeology: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26:1376–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and Cannon, Kenneth D. (editors) 2004 Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Nims, Reno, and Butler, Virginia L. 2017 Assessing Reproducibility in Faunal Analysis Blind Tests: A Case Study from Northwestern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11:750–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Terry 2000 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Olsen, Stanley J. 1964 Mammalian Remains from Archaeological Sites, Part I: Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Payne, Sebastian 1985 Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, Tanya M. 2010 Methodological Issues in Zooarchaeology. In Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany, edited by VanDerwarker, Amber M. and Peres, Tanya M., pp. 15–36. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polly, P. David, and Head, Jason J. 2004 Maximum-Likelihood Identification of Fossils: Taxonomic Identification of Quaternary Marmots (Rodentia, Mammalia) and Identification of Vertebral Position in the Pipesnake Cylindrophis (Serpentes, Reptilia). In Morphometrics, edited by Elewa, Ashraf M. T., pp. 197–221. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, James 1994 Animal Bones. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rea, Amadeo M. 1986 Verification and Reverification: Problems in Archaeofaunal Studies. Journal of Ethnobiology 6:9–18.Google Scholar
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Wing, Elizabeth S. 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd. ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Paula, Priest, Helena, and Traynor, Michael 2006 Reliability and Validity in Research. Nursing Standard 20:41–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Saber, Ashraf S., and Hoffman, Reinhold R. 1985 A Comparative Study of the Hyoid Bone (Os hyoides) of 6 Ruminant Species (Ruminantia Scopoli, 1777). Anatomischer Anzeiger 158:43–50.Google Scholar
Salvagno, Lenny, and Albarella, Umberto 2017 A Morphometric System to Distinguish Sheep and Goat Postcranial Bones. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0178543. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0178543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, Robert R., and Rohlf, F. James 1969 Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stewart, John R. 2005 The Use of Modern Geographical Ranges in the Identification of Archaeological Bird Remains. In Feathers, Grit and Symbolisms: Birds and Humans in the Ancient Old and New Worlds, edited by Grupe, Gisela and Peters, Joris, pp. 43–54. Proceedings of the ICAZ Bird Remains Working Group, Documenta Archaeobiologiae 3. Leidorf, Rahden, Westfalen, Germany.Google Scholar
VanPool, Todd L., and Leonard, Robert D. 2011 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Whittemore, Robin, Chase, Susan K., and Mandle, Carol Lynn 2001 Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 11:522–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfhagen, Jesse, and Price, Max D. 2017 A Probabilistic Model for Distinguishing between Sheep and Goat Postcranial Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12:625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolverton, Steve 2013 Data Quality in Zooarchaeological Faunal Identification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolverton, Steve, and Nagaoka, Lisa 2017 Zooarchaeology: Investigating Past Interactions between Humans and Other Animals. In Ethnozoology: Animals in Our Lives, edited by Alves, Romulo R. N. and Albuquerque, Ulysses P., pp. 25–43. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Wolverton, Steve, Nagaoka, Lisa, and Rick, Torben C. 2016 Applied Zooarchaeology. Eliot Werner Publications, Clinton Corners, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, Jerrold H. 1996 Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Zeder, Melinda A., and Pilaar, Suzanne E. 2010 Assessing the Reliability of Criteria Used to Identify Postcranial Bones in Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra: Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2887–2905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, Alan C. 1973 Inference from Prehistoric Faunal Remains. Addison Wesley Module in Anthropology No. 43. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lubinski et al. supplementary material

Lubinski et al. supplementary material

Download Lubinski et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 244.9 KB