Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:36:42.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weighing and Counting Shell: A Response to Glassow and Claassen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger D. Mason
Affiliation:
Chambers Group Inc, 17671 Cowan ste 100, Irvine, CA 92614-6074
Mark L. Peterson
Affiliation:
Peterson & Associates, 5232 Michelson Drive 21C, Irvine, CA 92612
J. A. Tiffany
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Iowa State University, 319 Curtiss Hall, Ames, IA 50011

Abstract

Glassow discusses several "problems" with the use of minimum number of individuals (MNI) in archaeological shellfish analysis, including the difficulty of identifying non-repetitive elements (NRE) to species level for several taxa. However, these problems, especially fragmentation, are more critical for the weight method than for MNI estimates. We have successfully identified thousands of NRE for all species common in southern California coastal archaeological sites. We also suggest that a measure, such as MNI, that provides estimates of numbers of individuals is a more reliable and valid measure with which to address most research questions. The weight method only provides a measure of the weight of some of the fragments from the shells of those individuals.

Resumen

Resumen

Glassow identifica unos “problemas” con el número mínimo de individuos (NMI) en el análisis de concha, que incluye las dificultades de indentificar elementos no repetidos (NRE) al nivel de especies para algunas taxa. Sin embargo, estos problemas, especialmente “fragmentación,” son más críticos para el método de peso que para NMI cálculos. Nosotros hemos identificado, en una manera exitosa, miles de NRE para todas las especies comunes en los sitios arqueológicos en la costa del sur de California. También sugerimos que una medida, tal como NMI, que da cálculos de números de individuos es válida para estudiar otras preguntas de investigación. El método depesonos da simplemente una medida de peso de algunos pedazos de los concha de estos individuos

Type
Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2000

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

Allen, R. K. 1980 Common Intertidal Vertebrates of Southern California. 3rd edition. Department of Zoology, California State College, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R., and Bertram, J. B. 1977 Bone Frequencies and Attritional Processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Binford, L. R., pp. 77153. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1986 Temporal Patterns in Marine Shellfish-Species Use Along the Atlantic Coast in the Southeastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 5: 120137.Google Scholar
Fitch, J. E. 1953 Common Marine Bivalves of California. Fish Bulletin No. 90. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A. 1992 The Relative Dietary Importance of Marine Foods through Time in Western Santa Barbara County. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Jones, T. L., pp. 115128. Publication No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1979 Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44: 536546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. H. 1969 Marine Shells of Southern California. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Science Series No. 24, Zoology No. 11.Google Scholar
Mason, R. D. (editor) 1997a San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: Data Recovery at CA-ORA-125 and CA-ORA-1295. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine, and Transportation Corridor Agencies, Santa Ana, by Chambers Group, Irvine. Report on file at the California Historic Resources Information System, South Central Coast Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mason, R. D. (editor) 1997b San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: Data Recovery at CA-ORA-206. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine, and Transportation Corridor Agencies, SantaAna, by Chambers Group, Irvine. Report on file at the California Historic Resources Information System, South Central Coast Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mason, R. D. (editor) 1997c San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: Data Recovery at CA-ORA-225. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine, and Transportation Corridor Agencies, SantaAna, by Chambers Group, Irvine. Report on file at the California Historic Resources Information System, South Central Coast Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mason, R. D., and Peterson, M. L. 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion, vol. I. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, The Irvine Company, Newport Beach. Prepared by The Keith Companies, Costa Mesa. Report on file at the California Historic Resources Information System, South Central Coast Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mason, R. D., Peterson, M. L., and Tiffany, J. A. 1998 Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63: 303324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P. 1966 A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Shells, Including Shells of Hawaii and the Gulf of California. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.Google Scholar
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1977 Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a Taphonomic Factor in Archaeological Deposits. Paleobiology 3: 218237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, J. L. 1985 Changing Shellfish Exploitation in San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7: 126132.Google Scholar
Watson, J. P. N. 1972 Fragmentation Analysis of Animal Bone Samples from Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 14: 221228.Google Scholar