The influence of screen mesh size, and size and shape of rodent teeth on recovery

Sheep, Cattle, and Specialization: New Zooarchaeological Perspectives on the Taosi Longshan

“…Some dry screening using 1 cm × 1 cm mesh screens was done during the 2013 field season, but only 12 out of the 291 contexts from Zhoujiazhuang were screened completely. Screening using smaller screen mesh sizes can greatly increase the numbers of small animal bones recovered from archaeological sites (Casteel ; Gordon ; James ; Lyman ; Nagaoka ; Peres ; Quitmyer ; Shaffer ; Shaffer & Sanchez ; Stahl ; Thomas ). In the future, it will be important to apply a consistent screening method using smaller mesh sizes in order to recover more small mammal and non‐mammal remains.…”

Paleoenvironmental implications of two relative indicator rodent taxa during the Pleistocene to Holocene transition in south‐eastern Washington state, USA

“…Mammalian faunal remains were recovered from 1‐mm mesh screens during excavations of the Marmes archeological site (45FR50) in the 1960s (Fryxell and Daugherty, ; Fryxell and Keel, ; Rice, , ). Recovery of small remains such as rodent teeth was exceptionally good (Lyman, ). The final report on the recovered artifacts has been recently completed (Hicks, ); reports on small samples of the mammal remains have appeared intermittently since the completion of excavations in early 1969 (Gustafson, ; Caulk, ; Gustafson and Wegener, ).…”

“What do I do with all these shells?” Basic guidance for the recovery, processing and retention of archaeological marine shells

“…A 3 mm mesh is adequate for larger but not smaller vertebrates (Payne, 1972). Even 1 mm mesh does not recover everything identifiable, but is required for sea-urchins (Campbell, 2008b, 84) and acceptable for fish (Zohar and Belmaker, 2005) and relative abundance of small rodents (Lyman, 2012). Meshes finer than 1 mm may be too fine: they significantly reduced the fidelity of mollusc death assemblages with living populations (Kidwell, 2002).…”