Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:39:17.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald K. Grayson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Of the measures currently available for quantifying the abundance of taxa within archaeological and paleontological vertebrate faunas, the minimum number of individuals per taxon is most frequently employed. This paper explores the relationship between the minimum number of individuals (MNI) calculated for a given taxon and the number of specimens (E) from which these values were calculated. Several approaches for controlling for the complex interrelationships between MNI and E are advanced and discussed.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 53 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1978

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

Chaplin, R. E. 1971 The study of animal bones from archaeologicalsites. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Daly, P. 1969 Approaches to faunal analysis in archaeology. American Antiquity 34:146–153.Google Scholar
Gejvall, N. -G. 1969 Lerna, a pre-classical site in the Argoilid.Volume 1: the fauna. American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, Princeton.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1973 On the methodology of faunal analysis. AmericanAntiquity 38:432–439.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1974 The Riverhaven No. 2 vertebrate fauna: somecomments on methods in faunal analysis and onaspects of the subsistence potential of prehistoricNew York. Man in the Northeast 2:23–39.Google Scholar
Guilday, J. E. 1963 Bone refuse from the Oakfield site, GenesseeCounty, New York. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33:12–15.Google Scholar
Guilday, J. E., Parmalee, P. W., and Tanner, D. P. 1962 Aboriginal butchering techniques at theEschelman site (36Lal2), Lancaster County,Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32:59–83.Google Scholar
Higham, C. F. W. 1968 Faunal sampling and economic prehistory. Zeitüng fur Säugetierkunde 33:297–305.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1972 On the interpretation of bone samples fromarchaeological sites. In Papers in economic prehistory, edited by Higgs, E. S., pp. 65–82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shotwell, J. A. 1955 An approach to the paleoecology of mammals. Ecology 36:327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shotwell, J. A. 1958 Inter-community relationships in Hemphillian(mid-Pliocene) mammals. Ecology 39:271–282.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1969 Great Basin hunting patterns: a quantitativemethod for treating faunal remains. AmericanAntiquity 34:392–401.Google Scholar
White, M. E. 1963 Settlement pattern change and the developmentof horticulture in the New York-Ontarioarea. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33:1-12.Page 75Google Scholar