Glossary

Diagenesis Physical and chemical modifications that can take place in bone specimens between burial and recovery. equifinality A source of ambiguity in faunal analysis that arises when one event can affect a number of different modifications, or different events can affect the same modification. minimum animal units (MAU) The minimum number of animal units of a given taxon required to account for the NISP of that taxon in the sample.

Minimum number of elements (MNE) The minimum number of skeletal elements of a given taxon required to account for the NISP of that taxon in the sample, disregarding size of body. minimum number of individuals (MNI) Minimum number of individual bodies of a given taxon required to account for the NISP of that taxon in the sample. number of identified specimens (NISP) Basic counting unit in faunal analysis and refers to the numbers of bone specimens in the studied collection that are identified to a certain taxonomic or osteological category.

Stenotopes Specialist biological organisms that tolerate a narrow range of conditions and thus can have potential use for palaeoecological inference.

Recent vertebrates include sharks, skates, rays, bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Portions of their relatively durable skeletons and teeth are often preserved in archaeological contexts as byproducts of intentional consumption and subsequent deposition, or through accidental intrusion. Vertebrate analysis applies our identifications of archaeologically recovered bone specimens to inferences that we generate about past subsistence and ecology. We can examine a range of potential questions about past subsistence by identifying and analyzing preserved vertebrate specimens in association with their archaeological contexts: what kinds of animals did humans exploit, how important were they as dietary items, when, where, and how were they procured, were specific sexes or ages preferred, how were they processed for consumption, and in what ways were they consumed? We can also study the biology of identified animals by examining their skeletal morphology, temporal or spatial variation, biogeography, and individual health. In addition we can speculate about ecological conditions that prevailed at the time and location of their death.

Nevertheless, it can be difficult to generate reliable and valid inferences about human subsistence and palaeoecology from preserved vertebrate specimens and their associated contexts. In either case, we must first attempt to understand how representative our sample of recovered and identified specimens is of the originally deposited assemblage. This is not a straightforward matter because the recovered sample usually differs from the assemblage that was initially deposited. During the period between deposition and recovery, assemblages can be altered, removed, added to, and spatially rearranged. Moreover, when asking questions about the past, we must be critical of how reliable and valid our supporting data are. Whether we ask questions about human subsistence or past ecological conditions, it is essential to evaluate whether all or only portions of the deposited and subsequently recovered assemblage are relevant to the inferences we wish to generate. Questions about human behavior require analyzed samples that are representative of an assemblage that was originally deposited by humans as a byproduct of human consumption. Questions about past ecological conditions require an analyzed sample that is appropriate for deriving inferences about past ecological conditions. In either case, it is during identification that we seek clues for evaluating the relevance of our sample to the questions we ask in our subsequent analyses.

Here again, the identification of indisputable clues is not always straightforward. The fundamental problem stems from an interpretive ambiguity associated with equifinal evidence. Using preserved evidence to identify an event that modified the assemblage is often ambiguous because one modifying event can produce numerous different outcomes, or very different events can produce similar outcomes. Frequently, no evidence is preserved because it was either not deposited in the first place or was subsequently obscured. If we wish to generate reliable and valid inferences about past subsistence and ecology, we must proceed with caution. The foundation for this lies in the appropriate identification of faunal specimens.