Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T14:32:51.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger D. Mason ,
Mark L. Peterson  and
Joseph A. Tiffany
Roger D. Mason
Affiliation:
Chambers Group, Irvine, CA 92614
Mark L. Peterson
Affiliation:
Peterson and Associates, Irvine, CA 92612
Joseph A. Tiffany
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The California School of Midden Analysis represents a long-standing tradition of using weight, rather than minimum number of individuals (MNI), to analyze shell recovered from archaeological sites in California. This method originated at the University of California, Berkeley, in the early twentieth century and continues to the present, in spite of the advent of counting measures such as MNI and NISP (number of identified specimens) in faunal studies. We argue that MNI estimates are more reliable than weight as a measure of taxonomic abundance for most research issues being addressed with California shell data. Examples using both weight and MNI measures for shell from California coastal sites produced divergent results. This disparity shows that weight measures produce potentially misleading interpretations regarding the importance of marine habitats exploited and the diet of the site’s occupants.

Résumé

Résumé

“California School of Midden Analysis” representa una tradition antigua de usar peso, en vez del número mínimo de individuos (NMI), para analizar caracol recobrado de sitios arqueológicos en California. Este método, originado en la Universidad de California, Berkeley, en los primeros años de este siglo, continúa hasta el presente, a pesar de la introductión NMI y NISP (número de espécimenes identificados) como opciones preferidas en estudios faumísticos. Discutimos que NMI es un medio más válido y seguro en investigaciones con datos de caracoles de California. Ejemplares de caracoles de sitios costeros de California, usando ambos métodos, producen resultados muy divergentes. Esta disparidad demuestra que el uso de peso en el andlisis produce interpretations potencialmente inválidas sobre la importancia de los habitats marítimos explotados y la dieta de los ocupantes del sitio.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 303 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1998

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

References Cited

Allen, R. K. 1969 Common Intertidal Invertebrates of Southern California. Department of Zoology, California State College, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. 1961 Scales and Statistics: Parametric and Nonparametric. Psychological Bulletin 58: 305–316.Google Scholar
Boneau, C. 1961 A Note on Measurement Scales and Statistics. American Psychologist 16: 260–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, S. 1980 Effects of Human Exploitation on Shellfish Populations at Malibu Creek, California. In Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies, edited by Earle, T. K. and Christenson, A.L. pp. 121–139. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. 1959 Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.Google Scholar
Campbell, S. K. 1981 The Duwamish No. I Site, A Lower Puget Sound Shell Midden. Research Report No. 1. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Carmines, E., and Zeller, R. 1979 Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1987 Removing Discordance from Quantitative Analysis. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by Aldenderfer, M. S., pp. 185–243. Sage Publications, Newberry Park, California.Google Scholar
Casteel, R. W. 1978 Faunal Assemblages and the “Weigemethode” or Weight Method. Journal of Field Archaeology 5: 71–77.Google Scholar
Cerreto, R. 1994 Analysis of Marine Invertebrate Remains. In Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California: Final Report, vol. 2, edited by Moratto, M. J.. Appendix J. Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Cerreto, R., and Foertsch, M. A. 1985 An Illustrated Identification Key for Shellfish Recovered from Archaeological Sites, I: Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 21(3): 44–80.Google Scholar
Chave, K. E. 1964 Skeletal Durability and Preservation. In Approaches to Paleoecology, edited by Imbrie, J. and Newell, N.D. pp. 377–378. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1991 Normative Thinking and Shell-Bearing Sites. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 249–298. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1983 The Asturian of Cantabria: Early Holocene Hunter- Gatherers in Northern Spain. Anthropological Papers No. 41. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J., and Iman, R. L. 1981 Rank Transformations as a Bridge between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics. The American Statistician 35: 124–129.Google Scholar
Cook, S. F. 1946 A Reconsideration of Shellmounds with Respect to Population and Nutrition. American Antiquity 12: 50–53.Google Scholar
Cook, S. F, and Treganza, A. E. 1947 The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Comparative Physical and Chemical Analysis of Two California Indian Mounds. American Antiquity 13: 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. F, and Treganza, A. E. 1950 The Quantitative Investigation of Indian Mounds. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 40, pp. 223–262. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 1979 Quasi-Experimental Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1877 On Succession in the Shell Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. In Contributions to North American Ethnology 1: 41–91. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Daly, P. 1969 Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34: 146–153.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Emerson, T. E. 1978 A New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the Northern White-Tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material. Midcontinent Journal of Archaeology 3: 34–44.Google Scholar
Emerson, T. E. 1983 From Bones to Venison: Calculating the Edible Meat of a White-Tailed Deer. In Prairie Archaeology: Papers in Honor of David A. Baerreis, edited by Gibbon, G. E., pp. 63–74. Publications in Anthropology No. 3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Erlandson, J. M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fitch, J. E. 1953 Common Marine Bivalves of California. Fish Bulletin No. 90. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1967 The Vertebrate Fauna and Hunting Patterns. In The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley: Environment and Subsistence, vol. 1, edited by Byers, Douglas S., pp. 132–177. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Flessa, K. W., Cutler, A. H., and Meldahl, K. H. 1993 Time and Taphonomy: Quantitative Estimates of Time-Averaging and Stratigraphic Disorder in a Shallow Marine Habitat. Paleobiology 19: 266–286.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, D. A. 1972 Comment on “Midden Remains and Prehistoric Food Resources” by Meighan, C. W.. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 14: 25–29. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1916 Composition of California Shellmounds. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1–29. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A. 1967 Considerations in Estimating Prehistoric Populations. American Antiquity 32: 354–359.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A. 1972 Comments on Meighan's “Midden Remains and Prehistoric Food Resources.” Archaeological Survey Annual Report 14: 19–24. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A. 1992 The Relative Dietary Importance of Marine Foods through Time in Western Santa Barbara County. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Jones, T. L., pp. 115–128. Publication No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A., and Wilcoxon, L. R. 1988 Coastal Adaptations near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity 53: 36–51.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. A., Wilcoxon, L. R., and Erlandson, J. 1988 Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by Bailey, G. and Parkington, J., pp. 64–77. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1973 On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 38: 432–139.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1978 Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 43: 53–65.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 199–237. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Greengo, R. E. 1951 Molluscan Species in California Shell Middens. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey Vol. 13. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. S. 1961 Quantitative Analysis of Shells from a Site in Goleta, California. American Antiquity 26: 416–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. A., Farrell, B. R., and Upshaw, B. III 1993 The First 2 Million Years after the Cretaceous- Tertiary Boundary in East Texas: Rate and Paleoecology of the Molluscan Recovery. Paleobiology 19: 251–265.Google Scholar
Holanda, K. L. 1994 Excavations at the Laguna Springs Adobe Site (ORA- 13B): Stagecoach Way Station and Prehistoric Camp: Faunal Analysis: Invertebrates. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30 (2 and 3): 21–24.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. E. 1989 The Trouble with Transformations: Effects of Sample Size and Sample Composition on Meat Weight Estimates Based on Skeletal Mass Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 601–610.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1965 Pelecypod Death Assemblages in Tomales Bay, California. Journal of Paleontology 39: 80–85.Google Scholar
Jones, T. L. (editor) 1992 Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Publication No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. 1973 Foundations of Behavioral Research. 3rd ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Klein, R. G., and Cruz-Uribe, K. 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Klippel, W. E., and Morey, D. F. 1986 Contextual and Nutritional Analysis of Freshwater Gastropods from Middle Archaic Deposits at the Hayes Site, Middle Tennessee. American Antiquity 51: 799–813.Google Scholar
Koloseike, A. 1968 The Logic of Midden Analysis with Respect to Shell. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10: 371–382. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Koloseike, A. 1969 On Calculating the Prehistoric Food Resource Value of Molluscs. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11: 143–160. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Langbein, L. I., and Lichtman, A. J. 1983 Ecological Inference. University Publication Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 10. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, K. G. 1992 Coastal Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems in the Southern North Coast Ranges. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Jones, T. L., pp. 39–53. Publication No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Love, D. H. 1986 Midden Analysis: The Validity of Column Sampling in Defining Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ludwig, J. A., and Reynolds, J. A. 1988 Statistical Ecology: A Primer of Methods and Computing. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1979 Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44: 536–546.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1994 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59: 36–71.Google Scholar
McLean, J. H. 1969 Marine Shells of Southern California. Science Series No. 24, Zoology No. 11. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1959 The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology. American Antiquity 24: 383–405.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1972 Midden Remains and Prehistoric Food Resources. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 14: 3–11. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W., Pendergast, D. M., Swartz, B. K., Jr., Wissler, D. 1958 Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology. American Antiquity 24: 1–23, 131-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrato, M. J., Schroth, A., Foster, J. M., Gallegos, D., 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California: Final Report. Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Morris, P. 1966 A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Shells, Including Shells of Hawaii and the Gulf of California. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1987 Reliability, Validity, and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by Aldenderfer, M. S., pp. 244–293. Sage Publications, Newberry Park, California.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. C. 1909 Shellmounds of San Francisco Bay Region. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 7, pp. 309–356. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. C. 1910 The Ellis Landing Shellmound. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 7, pp. 357–126. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nishisato, S. 1980 Analysis of Categorial Data: Dual-Scaling and Its Applications. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Parmalee, P. W., and Klippel, W. E. 1974 Freshwater Molluscs as a Prehistoric Food Resource. American Antiquity 39: 421–434.Google Scholar
Peilou, E. C. 1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. L. 1989’ Marine Invertebrate Analysis of CA-SLO-165: Quantification, Measurement Theory, Formation, and Ecological History. Report prepared for Singer and Associates, Cambria, California.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. L. 1991 Quantitative Analysis of Archaeological Shellfish Data. In Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Project Background and Research Design, edited by Mason, R. D., Appendix F. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach, by The Keith Companies Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa. Report on file at the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. L. 1997a Marine Invertebrate Fauna. In San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: Data Recovery at CA-ORA- 125 and CA-ORA-1295, edited by Mason, R. D., Section 11. Prepared for S verdrup Corporation, Costa Mesa, by Chambers Group, Irvine. Report on file at the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. L. 1997b Marine Invertebrate Fauna. In San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: Data Recovery at CA-ORA- 125 and CA-ORA-1295, edited by Mason, R. D., Section 11. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Costa Mesa, by Chambers Group, Irvine. Report on file at the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. L., and Peterson, R. 1991 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology: Data Structures, Sampling, and Statistical Applications. In Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Project Background and Research Design, edited by Mason, R. D., pp. 209–224. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach, by The Keith Companies Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa. Report on file at the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Reitz, E. J., Quitmeyer, I. R., Hale, H. S., Scudder, S. J., 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52: 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringrose, T. J. 1993 Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 121–157.Google Scholar
Schwaderer, R. 1992 Archaeological Test Excavation at the Duncans Point Cave, CA-SON-348/H. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Jones, T. L., pp. 55–71. Publication No. 10. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Stein, J. K. 1992 The Analysis of Shell Middens. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Stein, J. K., pp. 1–24. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. 1968 Measurement, Statistics, and the Schemapiric View. Science 161: 849–856.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1982 An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books, Mill Valley, California.Google Scholar
Theler, J. L. 1987 Woodland Tradition Economic Strategies. Report No. 17. Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
Treganza, A. E., and Cook, S. F. 1948 The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Complete Excavation with Physical and Archaeological Analysis of a Single Mound. American Antiquity 13: 287–297.Google Scholar
Uhle, M. 1907 The Emeryville Shellmound. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 7, pp. 1–106. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Voigt, E. 1975 Studies of Marine Mollusca from Archaeological Sites. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by Clason, A. T., pp. 87–98. North Holland/American Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Warren, C. N. 1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Warren, C. N., and Pavesic, M. G. 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site Sdi-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development on Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Appendix I in “Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California,” by Crabtree, R. H., Warren, C. N., and True, D. L., pp. 407–138. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1962-1963. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Waselkov, G. A. 1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 10, pp. 93–210. Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Various Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18: 396–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar