Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T06:22:57.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of 1/8″- and 1/4″-Mesh Recovery of Controlled Samples of Small-to-Medium-Sized Mammals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian S. Shaffer  and
Julia L. J. Sanchez
Brian S. Shaffer
Affiliation:
Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 13078, Denton, TX 76203-6078
Julia L. J. Sanchez
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most previous screen experiments have assessed various mesh-size biases in the recovery of faunal remains from specific archaeological samples. These tests provided detailed information about recovery biases at those sites. To augment these previous tests, Shaffer (1992) conducted 1/4″-screen tests on modern comparative mammal skeletons to assess specific biases for the taxa tested. However, because 1/8″ screens are now widely used in archaeological sampling, potential biases should be assessed. Results presented here document hypothetical best recovery of the taxa tested and substantial increased recovery of mammals weighing between 18 and 340 g for 1/8″-screen tests relative to 1/4″-screen tests.

Resumen

Resumen

La mayoría de los experimentos de malla realizados hasta el presente han evaluado el sesgo que el tamaño de malla introduce en la recuperación de restos de fauna presentes en muestras arqueológicas. Estas pruebas han suministrado información detallada acerca de los sesgos de recuperación en esas localidades. Para expandir estas pruebas, Shaffer (1992) realizó experimentos con 1/4″ de malla aplicados a esqueletos de mamíferos comparativos modernos para evaluar los sesgos específicos de los taxa examinados. Sin embargo, ya que ahora las mallas de 1/8″ se usan ampliamente en muestreo arqueológico, los sesgos potenciales se deben evaluar. Los resultados que se presentan aquí documentan la mejor recuperación hipotética de los taxa examinados y un incremento considerable en la recuperación de mamíferos con peso entre 18 y 340 g para la malla de 1/8″ relativa a las pruebas previas con malla de 1/4″.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , July 1994 , pp. 525 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1994

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

Barker, G. 1975 To Sieve or Not to Sieve. Antiquity 49 : 61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgardner, G. D., Dronen, N. O., and Schmidly, D. J. 1992 Distribution Status of Short-Tailed Shrews (Genus Blarina) in Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 37 : 326–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothwell, D., and Jones, R. 1978 The Relevance of Small Mammal Studies to Archaeology. In Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, edited by Brothwell, D. R., Thomas, K. D., and Clutton-Brock, J., pp. 47–57. Occasional Publication No. 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.Google Scholar
Butler, V. L. 1993 Natural Versus Cultural Salmonid Remains : Origin of the Dalles Roadcut Bones, Columbia River, Oregon, U. S. A. Journal of Archaeological Science 20 : 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, W. H., and Grossenheider, R. P. 1976 A Field Guide to the Mammals of America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Casteel, R. W. 1972 Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38 : 328–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casteel, R. W. 1976 Comparison of Column and Whole Unit Samples for Recovering Fish Remains. World Archaeology 8 : 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clason, A. T., and Prummel, W. 1977 Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4 : 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMarcay, G. B., and Steele, D. G. 1986 The Value of Fine Screening On Inland Based Hunter-Gatherer Habitation Sites. In Archaeological Investigations at 41 LK 201, Choke Canyon Reservoir, Southern Texas, by Highley, C. L., pp. 250–264. Choke Canyon Series No. 11. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Dye, D. H., and Moore, K. H. 1978 Recovery Systems for Subsistence Data : Water Screening and Water Flotation. Tennessee Anthropologist 3 : 59–69.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. A. 1993 Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery : A Hawaiian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 : 453–460.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology : Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Kobori, L. S. 1979 Differential Bone Recovery Experiment. In Ezra's Retreat : A Rockshelter/Cave Site in the North Central Great Basin, by Bard, J. C., Busby, C. I., and Kobori, L. S., pp. 228–229. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Nichol, R. K., and Williams, L. J. 1980 Screen Size and Sample Stratification in Efficient Shell Midden Analysis. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 2 : 141–148.Google Scholar
Otter, E. 1989 An Analysis of Two Faunal Samples from Sang Run Site (18GA22), Garrett County, Maryland. West Virginia Archaeologist 4 : 37–41.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1972 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias : The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by Higgs, E. S., pp. 49–64. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by Clason, A. T., pp. 7–17. American Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1992 Some Notes on Sampling and Sieving for Animal Bones. Report 55/92. Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Shaffer, B. S. 1992 Quarter-Inch Screening : Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 57 : 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, P. W. 1992 Diversity, Body Size, and the Archaeological Recovery of Mammalian Faunas in the Neotropical Forests. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 20 : 209–233.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1968 Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-Scale Archaeological Remains. American Antiquity 33 : 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szuter, C. R. 1991 Hunting by Prehistoric Horticulturalists in the American Southwest. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1969 Great Basin Hunting Patterns : A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 34 : 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von den Driesch, A. 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Bulletin No. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Watson, W. P. N. 1972 Fragmentation Analysis of Animal Bone Samples From Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 14 : 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, E. S., and Quitmyer, I. R. 1985 Screen Size for Optimal Data Recovery : A Case Study. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, edited by Adams, W. H., pp. 49–58. Reports of Investigations No. 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar