2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-012-9161-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data Quality in Zooarchaeological Faunal Identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
62
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Lagomorphs and turkeys were important components of prehistoric diet and are abundant in archaeological faunas; sciurid remains are less common (Badenhorst and Driver 2009;Muir and Driver 2002). All bone specimens were identified on the basis of diagnostic morphological characteristics and through comparison to reference materials housed in the University of North Texas Laboratory of Zooarchaeology following standards published by Driver (1992Driver ( , 2011 and Wolverton (2013). All specimens exhibited good preservation (e.g., intact or semi-intact long bones with glossy surfaces, flexibility, and the absence of cracking or burn marks).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Lagomorphs and turkeys were important components of prehistoric diet and are abundant in archaeological faunas; sciurid remains are less common (Badenhorst and Driver 2009;Muir and Driver 2002). All bone specimens were identified on the basis of diagnostic morphological characteristics and through comparison to reference materials housed in the University of North Texas Laboratory of Zooarchaeology following standards published by Driver (1992Driver ( , 2011 and Wolverton (2013). All specimens exhibited good preservation (e.g., intact or semi-intact long bones with glossy surfaces, flexibility, and the absence of cracking or burn marks).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, protein residues from such artifacts occur in trace quantities if they preserve, and, relative to bone, are likely to be composed of taxonomically diverse and less predictable mixtures. By analyzing bone identifiable to particular taxonomic groups using traditional zooarchaeological analysis (Driver 1992(Driver , 2011Wolverton 2013), rather than residues from ceramics, we minimize these challenges such that we are able to efficiently validate our approach, which is ultimately tailored for the non-targeted analysis of taxonomically diverse mixtures. Second, we analyze proteins from zooarchaeological bone excavated from contexts similar in age and location to those from which we seek to identify protein residues from archaeological cooking pottery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that certain questions -about taxonomic representation in the last case, and changing relative abundance in the first twocannot be answered using collections with these issues, unless said issues are somehow addressed and resolved. Attention to the impacts of data errors is thus critical to zooarchaeological meta-analyses (for additional discussion see Peacock et al 2012;Wolverton 2013;Wolverton, Dombrosky and Lyman 2014). We will illustrate this problem of directional difference with a case study focused on the distribution of domestic fauna of Old World origin in 17 th century New Mexico.…”
Section: When Is There a Problem?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Care was taken to avoid the over-identification of specimens. If a fragment only retained diagnostic features or characteristics to family or genus level it was not assumed that that it was part of a dominant group already identified to species level (Driver 1992;Szabó 2009;Wolverton 2013).…”
Section: Marine Molluscsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taxonomic units were grouped in the highest common level so that, while the level of taxonomic identification varies, none of the taxa overlapped within the analyses of richness and diversity (Driver 1992: Szabó 2009Wolverton 2013). The characteristics and performance of these diversity statistics vary in terms of their discriminant ability, sensitivity to sample size, and focus on richness or evenness/dominance.…”
Section: Marine Molluscsmentioning
confidence: 99%