Methods, Methodology, and Zooarchaeology in Practice

Chapter

Abstract

Careful consideration of the ways in which methods influence results has been a vital aspect of zooarchaeology’s development as a branch of archaeology. In this chapter we highlight several prominent methodological issues in archaeofaunal analysis and consider the ongoing nature and future prospects of methodological problems in general. The role of best practice guidelines is weighed against the need for methodological flexibility that balances scientific rigor, logistical constraints, and research goals. While we suggest that zooarchaeologists would be wise to avoid pursuing a universal set of methods, we join others in advocating for increased assurance of data quality and methodological transparency in the field. We conclude by reflecting on the present contributions to zooarchaeology’s methodological discourse and their role in advancing this agenda.

Keywords

Archaeozoology Methodological problems Best practices Quantitative zooarchaeology Taphonomy Screen size Research design 

References

  1. Barrett, J. H., Nicholson, R. A., & Cerón-Carrasco, R. (1999). Archaeo-ichthyological evidence for long-term socioeconomic trends in Northern Scotland: 3500 BC to AD 1500. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 353–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumenschine, R. J., Marean, C. W., & Capaldo, S. D. (1996). Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23(4), 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckley, M., Collins, M., Thomas-Oates, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2009). Species identification by analysis of bone collagen using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 23, 3843–3854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckley, M., Kansa, S. W., Howard, S., Campbell, S., Thomas-Oates, J., & Collins, M. (2010). Distinguishing between archaeological sheep and goat bones using a single collagen peptide. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley, M., Fraser, S., Herman, J., Melton, N. D., Mulville, J., & Pálsdóttir, A. H. (2014). Species identification of archaeological marine mammals using collagen fingerprinting. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrd, K. M. (1996). Subsistence strategies in coastal Ecuador. In E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsom, & S. J. Scudder (Eds.), Case studies in environmental archaeology (pp. 305–316). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, R. (2014). Animal, human, god: Pathways of Shang animality and divinity. In B. S. Arbuckle & S. A. McCarty (Eds.), Animals and inequality in the ancient world (pp. 251–273). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  8. Cannon, M. D. (1999). A mathematical model of the effects of screen size on zooarchaeological relative abundance measures. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casteel, R. W., & Grayson, D. K. (1977). Terminological problems in quantitative faunal analysis. World Archaeology, 9(2), 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castel, J.-C., Liolios, D., Laroulandie, V., Chauvière, X., Chadelle, J.-P., Pike-Tay, A., et al. (2006). Soltrean animal resource exploitation at Combe Saunière (Dordogne, France). In M. Maltby (Ed.), Integrating zooarchaeology (pp. 138–152). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  11. Corbett, D. G., Causey, D., Clementz, M., Koch, P. L., Doroff, A., Lefèvre, C., et al. (2008). Aleut hunters, sea otters, and sea cows: Three thousand years of interactions in the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In T. C. Rick & J. M. Erlandson (Eds.), Human impacts on ancient marine ecosystems (pp. 43–75). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Driver, J. C. (1992). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Circaea, 9, 35–47.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, J. C. (2011a). Twenty years after “Identification, classification and zooarchaeology”. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, J. C. (2011b). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Efremov, J. A. (1940). Taphonomy: A new branch of paleontology. Pan-American Geologist, 74(2), 81–93.Google Scholar
  16. Emery, K. F. (Ed.) (2004). Maya zooarchaeology: New directions in method and theory. Monograph 51. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.Google Scholar
  17. Emery, K. F. (2012). The Motul de San José animals in an economic perspective. In A. E. Foias & K. F. Emery (Eds.), Motul de San José: Politics, history, and economy in a classic Maya polity (pp. 291–325). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Emery, K. F., & Thornton, E. (2014). Something’s fishy: Why Maya archaeologists should use fine-gauge screens (sometimes). Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  19. Giovas, C. M. (2017). The beasts at large—perennial questions and new paradigms for Caribbean translocation research. Part 1: Ethnozoology of mammals. Environmental Archaeology. doi:10.1080/14614103.2017.1315208.Google Scholar
  20. Gobalet, K. W. (2001). A critique of faunal analysis: Inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gobalet, K. W. (2005). Comment on “Size matters: 3-mm sieves do not increase richness in a fishbone assemblage from Arrawarra I, an Aboriginal Australian shell midden on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, Australia” by Vale and Gargett. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 643–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon, A. E. (1993). Screen size and differential faunal recovery: A Hawaiian example. Journal of Field Archaeology, 20(4), 453–460.Google Scholar
  23. Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grayson, D. K. (2006). The late Quaternary biogeographic histories of some great basin mammals (Western USA). Quaternary Science Reviews, 25, 2964–2991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grealy, A. C., McDowell, M. C., Scofield, P., Murray, D. C., Fusco, D. A., Haile, J., et al. (2015). A critical evaluation of how ancient DNA bulk bone metabarcoding complements traditional morphological analysis of fossil assemblages. Quaternary Science Reviews, 128, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grealy, A., Douglass, K., Haile, J., Bruwer, C., Gough, C., & Bunce, M. (2016). Tropical ancient DNA from bulk archaeological fish bone reveals the subsistence practices of a historic coastal community in southwest Madagascar. Journal of Archaeological Science, 75, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson, J. L. (1990). Advancing methods in zooarchaeology: An ethnoarchaeological study among the Aka. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  28. James, S. R. (1997). Methodological issues concerning screen size recovery rates and their effects on archaeofaunal interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirch, P. V., & O’Day, S. J. (2003). New archaeological insights to food and status: A case from pre-contact Hawaii. World Archaeology, 34(3), 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein, R. G., & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The analysis of animal bones from archeological sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. LeFebvre, M. J., & deFrance, S. D. (2014). Guinea pigs in the Pre-Columbian West Indies. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 9, 16–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyman, R. L. (1994). Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 59(1), 36–71.Google Scholar
  33. Lyman, R. L. (2002). Taxonomic identification of zooarchaeological remains. The Review of Archaeology, 23(2), 13–20.Google Scholar
  34. Lyman, R. L. (2008). Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyman, R. L. (2015). Paleozoology is valuable to conservation biology. In C. Isendahl & D. Stump (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical ecology and applied archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199672691.013.13.Google Scholar
  36. Lyman, R. L., & Ames, K. M. (2004). Sampling to redundancy in zooarchaeology: Lessons from the Portland Basin, Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology, 24(2), 329–346.Google Scholar
  37. Marean, C. W., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., & Pickering, T. R. (2004). Skeletal element equifinality in zooarchaeology begins with method: The evolution and status of the “shaft critique”. Journal of Taphonomy, 2(2), 69–98.Google Scholar
  38. McKechnie, I., Lepofsky, D., Moss, M. L., Butler, V. L., Orchard, T. J., Coupland, G., et al. (2014). Archaeological data provide alternative hypotheses on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) distribution, abundance, and variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(9), E807–E116. doi:10.1073/pnas.13160721.Google Scholar
  39. Murray, D. C., Haile, J., Dortch, J., White, N. E., Haouchar, D., Bellgard, M. I., et al. (2013). Scrapheap challenge: A novel bulk-bone metabarcoding method to investigate ancient DNA in faunal assemblages. Scientific Reports, 3, 3371. doi:10.1038/srep03371.Google Scholar
  40. Nagaoka, L. (1994). Differential recovery of Pacific Island fish remains: Evidence from the Moturakau Rockshelter, Aitutaki, Cook Islands. Asian Perspectives, 33(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  41. Nagaoka, L. (2005). Differential recovery of Pacific Island fish remains. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 941–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newsome, S. D., Collins, P. W., Rick, T. C., Guthrie, D. A., Erlandson, J. M., & Fogel, M. L. (2010). Pleistocene to historic shifts in bald eagle diets on the Channel Islands, California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(20), 9246–9251. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913011107.Google Scholar
  43. Peacock, E., McGregor, S. W., & Dumas, A. A. (2014). Behavioral, environmental, and applied aspects of Molluscan assemblages from the Lower Tombigbee River, Alabama. In T. M. Peres (Ed.), Trends and traditions in Southeastern zooarchaeology (pp. 186–211). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porcasi, J. F., Jones, T. L., & Raab, L. M. (2000). Trans-Holocene marine mammal exploitation on San Clemente Island, California: A tragedy of the commons revisited. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19, 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reitz, E. J., Quitmyer, I. R., & Marrinan, R. A. (2009). What are we measuring in the zooarchaeological record of prehispanic fishing strategies in the Georgia Bight, USA? The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 4, 2–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosania, C. N. (2012). Paleozoological stable isotope data for modern management of historically extirpated Missouri black bears. In S. Wolverton & R. L. Lyman (Eds.), Conservation biology and applied zooarchaeology (pp. 139–156). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  47. Russell, N. (2002). The wild side of domestication. Society and Animals, 10(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stahl, P. (2008). The contributions of zooarchaeology to historical ecology in the Neotropics. Quaternary International, 180(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steadman, D. W. (1995). Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific birds: Biodiversity meets zooarchaeology. Science, 267(5201), 1123–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stewart, J. R., Allen, R. B., Jones, A. K., Penkman, K. E., & Collins, M. J. (2013). ZooMS: Making eggshell visible in the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), 1797–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sykes, N. (2014). Beastly questions: Animal answers to archaeological issues. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  52. Thornton, E. K., Emery, K. F., Steadman, D. W., Speller, C., Matheny, R., & Yang, D. (2012). Earliest Mexican turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Maya region: Implications for pre-Hispanic animal trade and timing of turkey domestication. PLOS ONE, 7(8), e42630. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042630.Google Scholar
  53. Vale, D., & Gargett, R. H. (2002). Size matters: 3-mm sieves do not increase richness in a fishbone assemblage from Arrawarra I, an Aboriginal Australian shell midden on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29(1), 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Von Holstein, I. C., Ashby, S. P., van Doorn, N. L., Sachs, S. M., Buckley, M., Meiri, M., et al. (2014). Searching for Scandinavians in pre-Viking Scotland: Molecular fingerprinting of early medieval combs. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wallis, N. J., & Blessing, M. E. (2015). Big feasts and small scale foragers: Pit features as feast events in the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, T. E. (1953). A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. American Antiquity, 18(4), 396–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White, T. E. (1954). Observations on the butchering techniques of some aboriginal peoples: No. 3, 4, 5, and 6. American Antiquity, 19(3), 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White, T. E. (1955). Observations on the butchering techniques of some aboriginal peoples: Nos. 7, 8, and 9. American Antiquity, 21(2), 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolverton, S. (2013). Data quality in zooarchaeological faunal identification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolverton, S., & Lyman, R. L. (Eds.). (2012). Conservation biology and applied zooarchaeology. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wolverton, S., Dombrosky, J., & Lyman, R. L. (2016). Practical significance: Ordinal scale data and effect size in zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 26, 2555–2265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeder, M. A. (2015). Core questions in domestication research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(11), 3191–3198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zohar, I., & Belmaker, M. (2005). Size does matter: Methodological comments on sieve size and species richness in fishbone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Florida Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations