Zooarchaeology is a field heavily integrated with many other disciplines, including zoology, biology, ecology, geology, history, and anthropology. The basis of the discipline lies in the zooarchaeologist’s ability to identify faunal remains based on analogy with known specimens, either from a comparative faunal collection or from experience. Yet, today many zooarchaeologists work in regions of the world without adequate comparative materials or in diverse settings with different research demands, such as contract archaeology or forensic laboratories. At the same time, advances in genetic research are restructuring the phylogenetic classification schemes of many taxa, calling into question the foundation of zooarchaeological analogy. In this chapter we argue that zooarchaeologists, who have never had specific disciplinary-wide “research standards”, should seek epistemological flexibility regarding specimen identification, evaluation, and correction to continue the scientific advancement of the discipline. We review past zooarchaeologists’ concerns regarding the nature of specimen identification and data sharing, discuss the dynamic nature of species reclassification in phylogenetics and its effect on zooarchaeology, and provide case studies of challenges zooarchaeologists face while trying to make identifications in diverse settings and with less-than-adequate resources. Finally, we discuss the importance of maintaining epistemological flexibility in the age of “big data”, where shared datasets of identifications cannot and should not be seen as immutable entities, but rather observations that are subject to reanalysis, change, and improvement as zooarchaeologists keep abreast of ongoing discoveries in their own field as well as those of related disciplines.
- Zooarchaeological epistemology
- Big data
- Best practices
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
In addition to analogical factors, there are also practical issues such as the preservation conditions of a given archaeological context as well as the methods used to recover faunal remains. Although not the focus of this chapter, these are also important factors impacting the efficacy of zooarchaeological research and are implicated in zooarchaeological epistemology.
Albarella, U. (Ed.). (2001). Environmental archaeology: Meaning and purpose. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Alström, P., Ericson, P. G. P., Olsson, U., & Sundberg, P. (2006). Phylogeny and classification of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 38(2), 381–397.
Asher, R. (1961). Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17, 317–325.
Atici, L., Kansa, S. W., Lev-Tov, J., & Kansa, E. C. (2013). Other people’s data: A demonstration of the imperative of publishing primary data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(4), 663–681.
Baker, P. & Worley, F. (2014). Animal bones and archaeology: Guidelines for best practice. Swindon: English Heritage. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/animal-bones-and-archaeology/animal-bones-and-archaeology.pdf.
Bartosiewicz, L. (2008). Taphonomy and palaeopathology in archaeozoology. Geobios, 41(1), 69–77.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Gordon, K. D., & Yanagi, G. T. (1986). Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature, 319(6056), 768–771.
Betancur, R. R., Broughton, R. E., Wiley, E. O., Carpenter, K., Andrés López, J., Li, C., et al. (2013). The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLOS Currents Tree of Life. doi:10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288.
Betts, M. W., Maschner, H. D. G., Schou, C. D., Schlader, R., Holmes, J., Clement, N., et al. (2011). Virtual zooarchaeology: Building a web-based reference collection of northern vertebrates for archaeofaunal research and education. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 755–762.
Bickford, D., Lohman, D. J., Sodhi, N. S., Ng, P. K. L., Meier, R., Winker, K., et al. (2007). Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(3), 148–155.
Binford, L. R. (1967). Smudge pits and hide smoking: The use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity, 32(1), 1–12.
Binford, L. R. (1977). For theory building. New York, NY: Academic.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic.
Bochenski, Z. M. (2008). Identification of skeletal remains of closely related species: The pitfalls and solutions. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1247–1250.
Bovy, K. M. (2011). Comments on “Identification, Classification, & Zooarchaeology”. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 30.
Bovy, K. M. (2012). Zooarchaeological evidence for Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis) breeding in Northwestern Washington State. In S. Wolverton & R. L. Lyman (Eds.), Conservation biology and applied zooarchaeology (pp. 23–41). Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
Branch, N. P., Black, S., Maggi, R., & Marini, N. A. F. (2014). The Neolithisation of Liguria (NW Italy): An environmental archaeological and palaeoenvironmental perspective. Environmental Archaeology, 19(3), 196–213.
Bucklin, A., Steinke, D., & Blanco-Bercial, L. (2011). DNA barcoding of marine metazoa. Annual Review of Marine Science, 3(1), 471–508.
Butler, V. L., & Lyman, R. L. (1996). Taxonomic identifications and faunal summaries: What should we be including in our faunal reports? Society for American Archaeology Bulletin, 14(1), 1–22.
Campbell, M. (2016). Body part representation and the extended analysis of New Zealand fishbone. Archaeology in Oceania, 51(1), 18–30.
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.
Cannon, M. D. (2001). Archaeofaunal relative abundance, sample size, and statistical methods. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 185–195.
Cannon, M. D. (2013). NISP, bone fragmentation, and the measurement of taxonomic abundance. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(3), 397–419.
Claassen, C. (2000). Quantifying shell: Comments on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American Antiquity, 65(2), 415–418.
Cooper, A., & Green, C. (2016). Embracing the complexities of “big data” in archaeology: The case of the English Landscape and Identities Project. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(1), 271–304.
Crabtree, P. J. (1990). Zooarchaeology and complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity. Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 155–199.
Crabtree, P. J. (2016). Zooarchaeology in Oceania: An overview. Archaeology in Oceania, 51(1), 1–6.
Crouch, J., McNiven, I. J., David, B., Rowe, C., & Weisler, M. (2007). Berberass: Marine resource specialisation and environmental change in Torres Strait during the past 4000 years. Archaeology in Oceania, 42(2), 49–64.
Davidson, J. M., Fraser, K., Leach, B. F., & Sinoto, Y. H. (1999). Prehistoric fishing at Hane, Ua Huka, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 21, 5–28.
deFrance, S. D. (2009). Zooarchaeology in complex societies: Political economy, status, and ideology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17, 105–168.
Dincauze, D. F. (2000). Environmental archaeology: Principles and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. (2012). Critical review of the MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooarchaeological unit of quantification. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 4(1), 47–59.
Doolittle, W. F. (1999). Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science, 284(5423), 2124–2128.
Driver, J. C. (1992). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Circaea, 9(1), 35–47.
Driver, J. C. (2011a). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 19–29.
Driver, J. C. (2011b). Twenty years after “Identification, classification and zooarchaeology”. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 36–39.
Emery, K. F. (2004). In search of the “Maya Diet”: Is regional comparison possible in the Maya tropics? Archaeofauna, 13, 37–56.
Emery, K. F. (2010). Dietary, environmental, and societal implications of ancient Maya animal use in the Petexbatum: A zooarchaeological perspective on the collapse.Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology 5. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Evans, J. G. (2003). Environmental archaeology and the social order. London: Routledge.
Faniel, I., Kansa, W., Kansa, S. W., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 295–304). New York: ACM Digital Library.
Feder, K. L. (1990). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: Science and pseudoscience in archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Fiorillo, A. R. (1989). An experimental study of trampling: Implications for the fossil record. In R. Bonnichsen & M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Bone modification (pp. 61–71). Orono, ME: Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine.
Gattiglia, G. (2015). Think big about data: Archaeology and the big data challenge. Archäologische Informationen, 38(1), 113–124.
Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J., & Groves, C. P. (2004). The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 645–651.
Gifford, D. P. (1981). Taphonomy and paleoecology: A critical review of archaeology’s sister disciplines. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 4, 365–438.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1991). Bones are not enough: Analogues, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 10, 215–245.
Gilbert, A. S., & Singer, B. H. (1982). Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification. World Archaeology, 14, 21–40.
Giovas, C. M. (2009). The shell game: Analytic problems in archaeological mollusc quantification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1557–1564.
Giovas, C. M., Lambrides, A. B. J., Fitzpatrick, S. M., & Kataoka, O. (2017). Reconstructing prehistoric fishing zones in Palau, Micronesia using fish remains: A blind test of inter-analyst correspondence. Archaeology in Oceania, 52(1), 45–61.
Glassow, M. A. (2000). Weighing vs. counting shellfish remains: A comment on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American Antiquity, 65(2), 407–414.
Gobalet, K. W. (2001). A critique of faunal analysis: Inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 377–386.
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(4), 643–645.
Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. New York: Academic.
Grayson, D. K. (1989). Bone transport, bone destruction, and reverse utility curves. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16(6), 643–652.
Grouard, S. (2003). Pre-Columbian fishing strategies in Guadeloupe Archipelago (FWI). In A. F. Guzman, O. J. Polaco, & F. J. Aguilar (Eds.), Presence of the Archaeoichthyology in México: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the Fish Remains Working Group of the International Council of Archaeozoology (pp. 53–64). Guadalajara: International Council of Arcaheozoology.
Halstead, P., Collins, P., & Isaakidou, V. (2002). Sorting the sheep from the goats: Morphological distinctions between the mandibles and mandibular teeth of adult Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29(5), 545–553.
Helfman, G. S., Collette, B. B., Facey, D. E., & Bowen, B. W. (2009). The diversity of fishes biology, evolution, and ecology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, S. R. (1997). Methodological issues concerning screen size recovery rates and their effects on archaeofaunal interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, 385–397.
Kansa, E. (2005). A community approach to data integration: Authorship and building meaningful links across diverse archaeological data sets. Geosphere, 1(2), 97–109.
Kansa, E. C., & Kansa, S. W. (2013). We all know that a 14 is a sheep: Data publication and professionalism in archaeological communication. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 1(1), 88–97.
Keegan, W. F. (2009). The synergism of biology and culture. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 4, 240–248.
Knowlton, N. (2000). Molecular genetic analyses of species boundaries in the sea. Hydrobiologia, 420(1), 73–90.
Larson, G., Karlsson, E. K., Perri, A., Webster, M. T., Ho, S. Y. W., Peters, J., et al. (2012). Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8878–8883.
Layton, K. K. S., Martel, A. L., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2014). Patterns of DNA barcode variation in Canadian marine molluscs. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e95003.
Leach, F. (1986). A method for the analysis of Pacific Island fishbone assemblages and an associated database management system. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13(2), 147–159.
Lyman, R. L. (1985). Bone frequencies: Differential transport, in situ destruction, and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12(3), 221–236.
Lyman, R. L. (1986). On the analysis and interpretation of species list data in zooarchaeology. Journal of Ethnobiology, 6(1), 67–81.
Lyman, R. L. (1987). Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: A taphonomic perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 249–337.
Lyman, R. L. (1994a). Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 59(1), 36–71.
Lyman, R. L. (1994b). Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyman, R. L. (2002). Taxonomic identification of zooarchaeological remains. The Review of Archaeology, 23(2), 13–20.
Lyman, R. L. (2008). Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyman, R. L. (2010). Paleozoology’s dependence on natural history collections. Journal of Ethnobiology, 30(1), 126–136.
Lyman, R. L. (2011). Comment on identification, classification, and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 33–34.
Lyman, R. L. (2012). Applied zooarchaeology: History, value, and use. In S. Wolverton & R. L. Lyman (Eds.), Conservation biology and applied zooarchaeology (pp. 208–232). Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
Lyman, R. L., & Cannon, K. P. (Eds.). (2004). Zooarchaeology and conservation biology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Lyman, R. L., & O’Brien, M. J. (2001). The direct historical approach, analogical reasoning, and theory in Americanist archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8(4), 303–342.
Lyman, R. L., & VanPool, T. L. (2009). Metric data in archaeology: A study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst variation. American Antiquity, 74(3), 485–504.
Marciniak, A. (1999). Faunal materials and interpretive archaeology—Epistemology reconsidered. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6(4), 293–320.
Marciniak, A. (2011). Folk taxonomies and human-animal relations: The early Neolithic in the Polish lowlands. In U. Albarella & A. Trentacoste (Eds.), Ethnozooarchaeology: The present and past of human-animal relationships (pp. 29–38). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Marshall, F., & Pilgram, T. (1993). NISP vs. MNI in quantification of body-part representation. American Antiquity, 58(2), 261–269.
Mason, R. D., Peterson, M. L., & Tiffany, J. A. (1998). Weighing vs. counting: Measurement reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity, 63, 303–324.
Mason, R. D., Peterson, M. L., & Tiffany, J. A. (2000). Weighing and counting shell: A response to Glassow and Claassen. American Antiquity, 65(4), 757–761.
Nagaoka, L. (1994). Differential recovery of Pacific Island fish remains: Evidence from the Moturakau Rockshelter, Aitutaki, Cook Islands. Asian Perspectives, 33(1), 1–17.
O’Connor, T. (2008). The archaeology of animal bones. College Station, TX: A&M University Press.
Oliver, J. S. (1989). Analogues and site context: Bone damages from Shield Trap Cave (24CB91), Carbon County, Montana, USA. In R. Bonnichsen & M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Bone modification (pp. 73–98). Orono, ME: Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine.
Olmo, R. K. (2013). New flesh for old bones: Using modern reef fish to understand midden remains from Guam, Mariana Islands. In R. Ono, A. Morrison, & D. Addison (Eds.), Prehistoric marine resource use in the Indo-Pacific regions (pp. 1–31). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Ono, R., & Clark, G. (2012). A 2500-year record of marine resource use on Ulong Island, Republic of Palau. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 22(6), 637–654.
Orton, D. C. (2012). Taphonomy and interpretation: An analytical framework for social zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 22(3), 320–337.
Payne, S. B. (1972). Partial recovery and sample bias: The results of some sieving experiments. In E. S. Higgs (Ed.), Papers in economic prehistory (pp. 49–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, S. (1985). Morphological distinctions between the mandibular teeth of young sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12(2), 139–147.
Peres, T. M. (2010). Methodological issues in zooarchaeology. In A. M. Van Derwarker & T. M. Peres (Eds.), Integrating zooarchaeology and paleoethnobotany: A consideration of issues, methods, and cases (pp. 15–36). New York: Springer.
Pfeiffer, J., Sharpe, A., Johnson, N., Emery, K., & Page, L. (2017). Molecular phylogeny of the Nearctic and Mesoamerican freshwater mussel genus Megalonaias. Hydrobiologia, In Review.
Plug, C., & Plug, I. (1990). MNI counts as estimates of species abundance. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 45(151), 53–57.
Pyron, R. A., & Wiens, J. J. (2011). A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Molecular Phylogenetics, 61, 543–583.
Rea, A. M. (1986). Verification and reverification: Problems in archaeofaunal studies. Journal of Ethnobiology, 6(1), 9–18.
Reitz, E. J., & Shackley, M. (Eds.). (2012). Introduction to environmental archaeology. Manuals in archaeological method, theory and technique (pp. 1–39). New York: Springer.
Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reitz, E. J., Newsom, L. A., & Scudder, S. J. (Eds.). (1996). Case studies in environmental archaeology. New York: Plenum.
Reitz, E. J., Newsom, L. A., Scudder, S. J., & Scarry, C. M. (Eds.). (2008). Introduction to environmental archaeology.In Case studies in environmental archaeology (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). New York: Springer.
Rick, T. C., & Lockwood, R. (2013). Integrating paleobiology, archeology, and history to informbiological conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 45–54.
Ringrose, T. J. (1993). Bone counts and statistics: A critique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20, 121–157.
Russell, N. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, D. N., & Lupo, K. D. (1995). Archaeology on mammalian taphonomy, taxonomic diversity, and measuring subsistence data in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 60(3), 496–514.
Shaffer, B. S. (1992). Quarter-inch screening: Understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity, 57, 129–136.
Shaffer, B. S., & Sanchez, J. L. J. (1994). Comparison of 1/8” and 1/4” mesh recovery of controlled samples of small-to-medium-sized mammals. American Antiquity, 59(3), 525–530.
Stahl, P. W. (2008). The contributions of zooarchaeology to historical ecology in the Neotropics. Quaternary International, 180, 5–16.
Thornton, E. K. (2011). Animal resources in ancient maya economy and exchange: Zooarchaeological and isotopic perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Vale, D., & Gargett, R. H. (2002). Size matters: 3-mm sieves do not increase richness in a fishbone assemblage from Arrawarra 1, an Aboriginal Australian shell midden on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 57–63.
Wake, T. A. (2004). On the paramount importance of adequate comparative collections and recovery techniques in the identification and interpretation of vertebrate archaeofaunas: A reply to Vale and Gargett (2002). Archaeofauna, 13, 173–182.
Wilkinson, K., & Stevens, C. (2003). Environmental archaeology: Approaches, techniques, and applications. Stroud: Tempus.
Wing, E. S., & Quitmyer, I. R. (1992). A modern midden experiment. In W. H. Marquardt (Ed.), Culture and environment in the domain of the Calusa (pp. 367–373). Monograph Number 1. Gainesville: Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies.
Wolverton, S. (2002). NISP:MNE and %Whole in analysis of prehistoric carcass exploitation. North American Archaeologist, 23(2), 85–100.
Wolverton, S. (2013). Data quality in zooarchaeological faunal identification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 381–396.
Wolverton, S., & Lyman, R. L. (Eds.). (2012). Conservation biology and applied zooarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Wylie, A. (1982). An analogy by any other name is just as analogical. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 382–401.
Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 63–111.
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking of things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley: University of California.
Zeder, M. A., & Lapham, H. A. (2010). Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify postcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(11), 2887–2905.
Zeder, M. A., & Pilaar, S. E. (2010). Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify mandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 225–242.
We thank Christina Giovas as well as two anonymous peer reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We also wish to acknowledge the many colleagues and friends in zooarchaeological practice that we have had the privilege of working with in both field and laboratory settings. We have and continue to benefit enormously from face-to-face as well as virtual consultations—many thanks to you all.
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
LeFebvre, M.J., Sharpe, A.E. (2018). Contemporary Challenges in Zooarchaeological Specimen Identification. In: Giovas, C., LeFebvre, M. (eds) Zooarchaeology in Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64763-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64761-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64763-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)