Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T18:23:23.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some biases in the recovery of archaeological faunal remains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Richard W. Casteel
Richard W. Casteel
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Non-hominid faunal remains associated with cultural deposits have long been of interest to archaeologists. Recent archaeological work (Coutts and Higham, 1971; Daly, 1969; Drew et al., 1971; Flannery, 1966; Higham and Leach, 1971; Shawcross, 1967; Ucko and Dimbleby, 1969) is showing an increased utilization of these associated faunal remains for detailed analysis of prehistoric man's environment, hunting techniques, dietary habits, the effects of domestication upon animals, changes in these over time, and seasonal dating.

As analysis becomes more detailed and the need to extract increased amounts of relevant and sophisticated data from faunal remains grows more demanding, the representative quality of our samples of faunal remains becomes more critical. Many of the demands made upon our samples require that increased attention be paid to the recovery and analysis of some of the less obvious constituents of these faunal assemblages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 38 , December 1972 , pp. 382 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1972

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

Ascher, R., 1959. ‘A Prehistoric Population Estimate Using Midden Analysis and Two Population Models’, SWest J. Anthrop., 15, 168–78.Google Scholar
Bullbrook, J. A., 1953. ‘On the Excavation of a Shell-Mound at Palo Seco, Trinidad, B.W.I.’, Yale Univ. Pubis. Anthrop., 50.Google Scholar
Casteel, R. W., 1970. ‘Fish Remains and Their Archaeological Potential’, Paper delivered at joint meeting of Southwestern Anthropological Association and Society for California Archaeology, Asilomar, California, March 26, 1970.Google Scholar
Cook, S. F. and Heizer, R. F., 1951. ‘The Physical Analysis of Nine Indian Mounds in the Lower Sacramento Valley’, Univ. Calif. Publs. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol., 40, 281–312.Google Scholar
Coutts, P. and Higham, C., 1971. ‘The Seasonal Factor in Prehistoric New Zealand’, World Archaeol., 2, 266–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, P., 1969. ‘Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology’, Am. Antiq., 34, 131–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, I. M., Perkins, D. Jr., and Daly, P., 1971. ‘Prehistoric Domestication of Animals: Effects on Bone Structure’, Science, 171, 280–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, J. E., 1966. ‘Additional Fish Remains, Mostly Otoliths, From a Pleistocene Deposit at Playa Del Rey, California’, Los Angeles Co. Mus. Nat. Hist. Contribs. in Sci., 119.Google Scholar
Fitch, J. E., 1969a. ‘Appendix A: Fish Remains, Primarily Otoliths, From a Ventura, California, Chumash Village Site (Ven-3)’, Sth Calif. Acad. Sci., Memoirs, 8, 56–71.Google Scholar
Fitch, J. E., 1969b. ‘Fossil Records of Certain Schooling Fishes of the California Current System’, Calif. Mar. Res. Comm., CalCOFI Rept., 13, 71–80.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V., 1966. ‘The Postglacial “Readaptation” as Viewed from Mesoamerica’, Am. Antiq., 31, 800–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, E. W., 1916. ‘Composition of California Shellmounds’, Univ. Calif. Publs Am. Archaeol. Ethnol., 12, 1–29.Google Scholar
Greengo, R. E., 1951. ‘Molluscan Species in California Shell Middens’, Univ. Calif. Archaeol. Surv. Rep., 13, 1–29.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. and Squier, R. J., 1953. ‘Excavations at site Nap-32 in July, 1951’, Univ. Calif. Anthro. Rec., 12, App. 4.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. and Cook, S. F., 1956. ‘Some Aspects of the Quantitative Approach in Archaeology’, SWest J. Anthrop., 12, 224–48.Google Scholar
Higham, C. F. W. and Leach, B. F., 1971. ‘An Early Center of Bovine Husbandry in Southeast Asia’, Science, 172, 54–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, J. P. E., 1942. ‘Preliminary Report on Mollusks Found in the Shell Mounds of the Pickwick Landing Basin in the Tennessee River Valley’, Bur. Am. Ethnol., Bull., 129, 341–92.Google Scholar
Shawcross, W., 1967. ‘An Investigation of Prehistoric Diet and Economy on a Coastal Site at Galatea Bay, New Zealand’, PPS, 33, 107–31.Google Scholar
Sparks, B. W., 1961. ‘The Ecological Interpretation of Quaternary Non-marine Mollusca. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 172, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrell, J. E., 1967. ‘Galatea Bay—The Excavation of a Beach-Stream Midden Site on Ponui Island in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand’, Trans. R. Soc. N.Z., 2, 31–70.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H., 1969. ‘Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains’, Am. Antiq., 34, 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treganza, A. E. and Cook, S. F., 1948. ‘The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Complete Excavation with Physical and Archaeological Analysis of a Single mound’, Am. Antiq., 13, 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ucko, P. J. and Dimbleby, G. W., 1969. The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar