Advertisement

Simple Measures for Integrating Plant and Animal Remains

  • Amber M. VanDerwarker
Chapter

Abstract

Numerous simple measures are available for integrating both archaeological plant and animal data. It is difficult to provide a complete coverage of all these measures in this chapter for lack of space (for further reading see Grayson 1984; Hastorf and Popper 1988; Reitz and Wing 2008). Hence, the focus is on simple yet common measures that can be used to characterize both types of data, producing results that can be compared to achieve a broader understanding of ancient subsistence: ubiquity, diversity, ratios, correlation, and spatial analysis. For each measure, basic information is provided on the method of calculation and the method of ­integration of plant and animal data.

The published cases that have attempted to integrate plant and animal data using these measures are also discussed. The introductory chapter to this volume briefly discussed publications that incorporate both archaeological plant and animal data. Most of the works cited treat plant and animal data separately in terms of analysis and quantification, followed by an interpretive discussion that integrates independent patterns in a qualitative and complementary fashion. Very few authors have actually attempted to quantitatively integrate plant and animal datasets; these are the cases that have particular relevance to this chapter. I begin with a review of simple comparative measures and discuss the best way to arrive at appropriate comparative results. Most of the more integrative measures (also discussed below) can build on these simple measures.

Keywords

Animal Data Animal Taxon Late Archaic Collar Peccary Animal Assemblage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The National Science Foundation deserves recognition for funding the ­analysis of plant and animal data from the site of Bezuapan as part of a doctoral dissertation grant (#9912271). I also thank Katherine Spielmann and several anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this text. Conversations with C. Margaret Scarry over the past several years have greatly shaped how I conceptualize methods for data integration. Finally, I acknowledge the research of Katherine Spielmann, Eric Angstadt-Leto, Beverley Smith, Kathy Egan-Bruhy, Cathy Crane, and H. Sorayya Carr for leading the way with cutting edge integration of plant and animal remains.

References

  1. Bayham, Frank E. 1982. A Diachronic Analysis of Prehistoric Animal Exploitation at Ventana Cave. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
  2. Crane, Cathy J. and Helen Sorayya Carr. 1994. Integration and Quantification of Economic Data from a Late Preclassic Maya Community in Belize. In Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans, edited by K.D. Sobolik, pp. 66–79. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  3. Grayson, Donald K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  4. Hastorf, Christine A. and Virginia S. Popper (editors). 1988. Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Hubbard, R.N.L.B. 1976. On the Strength of the Evidence for Prehistoric Crop Processing Activities. Journal of Archaeological Science 3:257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hubbard, R.N.L.B. 1980. Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies. Economic Botany 34:51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kintigh, Keith W. 1984. Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49(1):44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kintigh, Keith W. 1989. Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R.D. Leonard and G.T. Jones, pp. 25–36. CUP, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, Naomi F. 1988. Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C.A. Hastorf and V.S. Popper, pp. 72–85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Popper, Virginia S. 1988. Selecting Quantitative Measures in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C.A. Hastorf and V.S. Popper, pp. 53–71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  11. Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Shennan, Stephen. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, Beverly A. and Kathryn C. Egan. 1990. Middle and Late Archaic Faunal and Floral Exploitation at the Weber I Site (20SA581), Michigan. Ontario Archaeology 50:39–54.Google Scholar
  14. Spielmann, Katherine A. and Eric A. Angstadt-Leto. 1996. Hunting, Gathering, and Health in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J.A. Tainter and B.B. Tainter, pp. 79–106. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  15. VanDerwarker, Amber M. 2006. Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations