Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T06:22:33.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian S. Shaffer
Brian S. Shaffer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4352
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fine screening of archaeological materials is often too expensive or too time-consuming for large assemblages. Consequently, 1/4" has become a standard size of mesh used among North American archaeologists. Unfortunately, the effects of 1/4" screening on bone recovery and the biases in interpretations are poorly documented. One-quarter-inch screening biases faunal recovery towards "larger" bone specimens, but previous studies fail to document biases in the recovery of specific taxa or elements. To better understand these biases, screening tests were conducted on 26 modern, comparative specimens. Results of these tests indicate that recovery and loss of specific elements for each taxon can be predicted. Mammals with live weights of less than 140 g are almost completely lost by 1/4" screening. Specimens weighing from 71 to 340 g are poorly represented, while specimens weighing from 340 to 3,100 g are represented by most elements except foot bones. Taxa greater than 4,500 g are represented by most elements.

Resumen

Resumen

El tamizadofino de materiales arqueológicos es a menudo excesivamente costoso o consume demasiado tiempo en el caso de grandes conjuntos. Como resultado, el uso de zarandas de 1/4" se ha convertido en práctica corriente entre arqueólogos norteamericanos. Desgraciadamente, los efectos del tamizado con zarandas de 1/4" sobre la recuperación de huesos y los resultantes sesgos en la interpretación han sido escasamente documentados. A pesar de que el uso de este procedimiento distorsiona la recuperación de fauna en favor de huesos de mayor tamaño, previos estudios no documentan sesgos en la recuperación de taxones o elementos específicos. Con el próposito de comprender mejor estos sesgos, se realizaron pruebas de tamizado con 26 especímenes modernos comparativos. Los resultados de estas pruebas indican que es posible predecir la recuperación y pérdida de elementos especificos para coda taxón. Mamíferos con peso en vida menor que 140 g se pierden casi por completo al tamizar con 1/4". Especímenes que pesan entre 71 y 340 g se encuentran pobremente representados, en tanto que aquellos con peso entre 340 y 3.100 g están representados por la mayoria de los elementos, excepto los huesos del pie. Casi todos los elementos se encuentran presentes en taxones mayores que 4.500 g.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 129 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992

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

Baker, B. W., Shaffer, B. S., Sobolik, K. D., and Steele, D. G. 1991 Faunal Analysis, Part I : Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Alabonson Road : Early Ceramic Period Adaptation to the Inland Coastal Prairie Zone, Harris County, Southeast Texas, edited by Ensorand, H. B., Carlson, D. L., pp. 139–161. Reports of Investigations No. 8. Archeological Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Barker, G. 1975 To Sieve or Not to Sieve. Antiquity 49 : 61–63.Google Scholar
Burt, W. H., and Grossenheider, R. P. 1976 A Field Guide to the Mammals of America North of Mexico. Houghton Miflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Casteel, R. W. 1972 Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38 : 328–388.Google Scholar
Clason, A. T., and Prummel, W. 1977 Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4 : 171–175.Google 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
Driver, J. C. 1985 Zooarchaeology of Six Prehistoric Sites in the Sierra Blanca Region, New Mexico, Research Reports in Archaeology Contribution No. 12. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Dye, D. H., and Moore, K. H. 1978 Recovery Systems for Subsistence Data : Water Screening and Water Floatation. Tennessee Anthropologist 3 : 59–69.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
Meighan, C. W. 1969 Molluscs as Food Remains in Archaeological Sites. In Science in Archaeology, 2nd ed., edited by Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E., pp. 415–422. Thames and Hudson, London.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
Shaffer, B. S. 1989 Late Prehistoric Faunal Subsistence on the South Texas Plains : Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains from 41VT66, Victoria County. Plains Anthropologist 34 : 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struever, S. 1968 Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-scale Archaeological Remains. American Antiquity 33 : 353–362.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Watson, W. P. N. 1972 Fragmentation Analysis of Animal Bone Samples From Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 14 : 221— 228.Google Scholar
Yates, B. C. 1987 Appendix C : Faunal Data from 41C0141. In Test Excavations at 41C0141 Ray Roberts Reservoir, Cooke County, Texas, pp. 133–146. Institute of Applied Sciences, North Texas State University, Denton.Google Scholar