Advertisement

Field Recovery, Lab Methods, Data Records, Curation

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the field recovery, conservation, analysis and curation practices involved in archaeofaunal analysis. Recovery methods may affect the taxonomic composition of an archaeological sample, through sampling tactics, screen mesh sizes, or methods of conservation. It briefly reviews considerations involved with cleaning, conservation, provenience management and labeling of specimens. Sorting and identification can be tackled many ways, depending on the size of the sorting crew and the skills levels of its members, and this chapter offers a few examples of different tactics. Minimal standards for as-yet very diverse digital archaeofaunal databases are offered, giving a few examples. This chapter advocates attaching all the data recorded in digital or paper databases to the specimens themselves in some medium, arguing that this is the zooarchaeological equivalent of experimental replication.

Keywords

Sampling Screen size Preservation Data management Database Curation 

References

  1. Binford, L. R. (1987). Researching ambiguity: Frames of reference and site structure. In S. Kent (Ed.), Method and theory for area research: An ethnoarchaeological approach (pp. 449–512). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boessneck, J. (1969). Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné). In D. R. Brothwell & E. S. Higgs (Eds.), Science in archaeology (pp. 331–358). London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  3. Bromage, T. G. (1984). Interpretation of scanning electron microscope images of abraded forming bone surfaces. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 64(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunn, H. T., Harris, J. W. K., Isaac, G., Kaufulu, Z., Kroll, E. M., Schick, K., et al. (1980). FxJj50: An early Pleistocene site in northern Kenya. World Archaeology, 12(2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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), 22.Google Scholar
  6. Campana, D. V., & Crabtree, P. J. (1987). ANIMALS: A C language computer program for the analysis of faunal remains and its use in the study of early Iron Age fauna from Dun Ailinne. Archaeozoologia, 1(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  7. Casteel, R. W. (1970). Core and column sampling. American Antiquity, 35(4), 465–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. G. D. (1954). Excavations at Star Carr; an early Mesolithic site at Seamer, near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The archaeology of animals. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dennell, R. W. (1974). Botanical evidence for prehistoric crop processing activities. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1(3), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enloe, J. N., & David, F. (1992). Food sharing in the palaeolithic: carcass refitting at Pincevent. In J. L. Hofman & J. G. Enloe (Eds.), Piecing together the past: Applications of refitting studies in archaeology (Vol. 578, pp. 296–315). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series.Google Scholar
  12. Flannery, K. V. (Ed.). (1976). The early Mesoamerican village, Studies in archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frison, G. C., & Todd, L. (Eds.). (1987). The Horner Site: The type site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gifford, D. P., & Crader, D. C. (1977). A computer coding system for archaeological faunal remains. American Antiquity, 42(2), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gifford, D. P., Isaac, G. L., & Nelson, C. M. (1980). Evidence for predation and pastoralism at Prolonged Drift, a Pastoral Neolithic site in Kenya. Azania, 15, 57–108.Google Scholar
  16. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., & Parham, J. (2008). The fauna from Adrar Bous and surrounding areas. In D. Gifford-Gonzalez, J. D. Clark, E. A. A. Garcea, A. B. Smith, & M. A. J. Williams (Eds.), Adrar Bous: Archaeology of a volcanic ring complex in Niger (pp. 313–353). Tervuren: Annales in Archaeology, Royal Africa Museum.Google Scholar
  17. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., & Wright, B. (1986). A data management and table formatting system for vertebrate remains. PACT: Data base management and zooarchaeology, 14, 137–164.Google Scholar
  18. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., Gobalet, K., Gaeta, J., & Geary, J. C. (2006). The faunal sample from CA-SMA-18: Environment, subsistence, taphonomy, historical ecology. In M. Hylkema, W. Hildebrandt, J. Farquhar, D. Gifford-Gonzalez, & K. Gobalet (Eds.), Archaeological investigations at CA-SMA-18: A study of prehistoric adaptations at Año Nuevo State Reserve: Report prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Santa Cruz District (pp. 29–50). Davis: Far Western Anthropological Research Group.Google Scholar
  19. Gobalet, K. W. (2001). A critique of faunal analysis: Inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28(4), 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grayson, D. K. (1984). Toward a history of Great Basin mammals during the past 15,000 years. In D. B. Madsen & J. F. O’Connell (Eds.), Man and environment in the Great Basin (pp. 82–101). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton, D. L. (1999). Methods of conserving underwater archaeological material from underwater sites: ANTH 605, conservation of cultural resources I. http://nautarch.tamu.edu/CRL/conservationmanual/ConservationManual.pdf.
  22. Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., & Feder, K. L. (2009). Field methods in archaeology (7th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. James, S. R. (1997). Methodological issues concerning screen size recovery rates and their effects on archaeofaunal interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(5), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, R. G., & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The analysis of animal bones from archaeological sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lyman, R. L. (1986). On the Holocene history of Ursus in eastern Washington. Northwest Science, 60, 67–72.Google Scholar
  26. Lyman, R. L. (1988). Zoogeography of Oregon coast marine mammals: The last 3,000 years. Marine Mammal Science, 4(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyman, R. L. (1991). Prehistory of the Oregon coast: The effects of excavation strategies and assemblage size on archaeological inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lyman, R. L. (2004). Late-quaternary diminution and abundance of prehistoric bison (Bison sp.) in eastern Washington State, U.S.A. Quaternary Research, 62(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
  29. Lyman, R. L. (2005). Zooarchaeology. In H. D. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook of archaeological methods (Vol. 1, pp. 835–870). Lanham: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
  30. Lyman, R. L. (2007). Prehistoric mink (Mustela vison) trapping on the Northwest Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology, 32(1), 91–95.Google Scholar
  31. Lyman, R. L. (2012). The influence of screen-mesh size, and size and shape of rodent teeth on recovery. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(6), 1854–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matisoo-Smith, E., & Horsburgh, K. A. (2012). DNA for archaeologists. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  33. Matthews, W., French, C., Lawrence, T., & Cutler, D. (1996). Multiple surfaces: The micromorphology. In I. Hodder (Ed.), On the surface Çatalhöyük 1993–95 (Vol. 22, pp. 301–342). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Google Scholar
  34. Meadow, R. H. (1978). “Bonecode”- a system of numerical coding for faunal data from Middle Eastern sites. In M. A. Zeder & R. H. Meadow (Eds.), Approaches to faunal analysis in the Middle East, Peabody Museum Bulletin 2 (pp. 169–186). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Parker, S., & Kaczor, M. J. (1984). DELOS zooarchaeological data system. PACT: Data base management and zooarchaeology, 14, 45–71.Google Scholar
  37. Parmalee, P. W. (1985). Identification and interpretation of archaeologically derived animal remains. In R. I. Gilbert & J. H. Mielke (Eds.), Analysis of prehistoric diets (pp. 61–95). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Payne, S. (1969). A metrical distinction between sheep and goat metacarpals. In G. W. Dimbleby & P. J. Ucko (Eds.), Domestication and exploitation of plants and animals (pp. 295–305). Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Payne, S. (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.Google Scholar
  40. Pearsall, D. M. (1989). Paleoethnobotany: A handbook of procedures. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Prummel, W., & Frisch, H.-J. (1986). A guide for the distinction of species, sex, and body side in bones of sheep and goat. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13(6), 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reddy, S. N. (1997). If the threshing floor could talk: Integration of agriculture and pastoralism during the late Harappan in Gujarat, India. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 16(2), 162–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rowley-Conwy, P. (1998). Improved separation of Neolithic metapodials of sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(3), 251–258.Google Scholar
  45. Shaffer, B. S. (1992). Quarter-inch screening: Understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity, 57(1), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shipman, P., & Rose, J. J. (1983). Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass processing behavior: Approaches to the fossil record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2(1), 57–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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(1–2), 209–233.Google Scholar
  49. Stahl, P. W. (1996). The recovery and interpretation of microvertebrate bone assemblages from archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 3(1), 31–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stiner, M. C. (1990). The ecology of choice: Procurement and transport of animal resources Upper Pleistocene hominids in West-Central Italy. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
  51. Sullivan, L. P., & Childs, S. T. (2003). Curating archaeological collections: From the field to the repository, Archaeologist’s toolkit (Vol. 6). Walnut Creek: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
  52. Todd, L. (1987). The taphonomy of the Horner II bone bed. In G. Frison & L. Todd (Eds.), The Horner Site: The type site of the Cody Cultural Complex (pp. 107–198). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Waugespack, N. M. (2002). Caribou sharing and storage: Refitting the Palangana Site. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21(3), 396–417.Google Scholar
  54. Wheat, J. B. (1967). A Paleo-Indian bison kill. Scientific American, 216, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wheat, J. B. (1972). The Olsen-Chubbuck site: A Paleo-Indian bison kill. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 26, i–ix, 1–180.Google Scholar
  56. White, T. D., & Toth, N. (1989). Engis: Preparation damage, not ancient cutmarks. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 78(3), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeder, M. A. (1991). Feeding cities: Specialized animal economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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(2), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zohar, I., & Belmaker, M. (2005). Size does matter: Methodological comments on sieve size and species richness in fishbone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(4), 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations