1 / 21

Recording Methods in Archaeology: Rapid vs. Traditional Approach at Bantycock Mine

This study compares rapid and traditional recording methods in archaeology, focusing on the Bantycock Mine excavation. The rapid method involves recording a limited set of easily identifiable parts, while the traditional method records everything. The evaluation examines the impact of different recording methods on data analysis and interpretation, highlighting potential biases and issues. The study aims to determine the effectiveness of the rapid method in capturing essential information from the excavation site.

trista
Download Presentation

Recording Methods in Archaeology: Rapid vs. Traditional Approach at Bantycock Mine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sometimes less is more Comparison of rapid and traditional recording methods Bantycock Mine, Balderton

  2. Recording methods • Traditional– record everything, including ‘Unidentified’ and ‘-Sized’ • Rapid– diagnostic zone system, records limited pre-defined set: • Easily identifiable and non-reproducible parts • Like epiphyses • Excludes ribs, vertebrae, limb shaft fragments, etc. • Saves time by recording fraction of excavated assemblage • Developed by Watson (1979) because NISP highly susceptible to specimen fragmentation & interdependency (one bone counts once) • Reason for comparison:Worry that important information will be lost if entire assemblage not recorded

  3. Background: Shaft anxiety • Examples have shown rapid methods can be problematic: • Some Paleolithic sites:Intense bone processing and carnivore gnawing can selectively remove limb bone epiphyses (which are zones) • Meaty limb bones appear absent because epiphyses missing and limb shafts not counted • If absence not recognized as artifact of method = incorrect interpretation of human economy, hence anxiety • Rapid methods not appropriate for every research question, but • But can they be confidently applied to English commercialassemblage and effectively address changes in animal husbandry ?

  4. Evaluation of recording & quantification method • To evaluate methods re-recorded and re-quantified assemblage second time: • Bantycock Mine, Balderton, Newark, Notthinghamshire • Commercially Excavated by Pre-Construct Archaeology, Lincoln • Faunal Report by J. Richardson (2008), Archaeological Services WYAS Bantycock Mine Gypsum Mine Chronological periods Iron Age Early Roman Early 2nd to mid/late 4th century AD mid 4th century or later Unknown (nearly ¼ assemblage)

  5. Evaluation of recording & quantification method • Richardson’s original method recorded all specimens, but also identified ‘diagnostic zones’ • Thusrapid system can be compared to 2 levels to the original report: • 1) Evaluate value of recording all specimens • 2) Investigate affect of different zone criteria on analysis • Original report • All specimens • Rapid Zones • Zones

  6. Original Method Recording & Zone Criteria • All material recorded, including unidentified and indeterminate • 38 post-cranial measurements & basic aging and sex data • Zones • 34 post cranial zones • 3 zones on each limb bone • 2 teeth

  7. Rapid Zone Method Recording & Zone Criteria • Only specimens with zones are recorded (with exception) • 57 post-cranial measurements + tooth measurements • Presence or absence of ribs/vertebrae Zones Present/absent Not counted – proximal epiphyses

  8. Method summary • Original Method • Rapid Zone Method • Only material with zones is recorded: • 22 post-cranial zones • all teeth • zones on prox. epiphyses not included in quantification • 57 post-cranial measurements and tooth measurements • All material recorded • Zones: • 34 post cranial zones • 2 teeth • 38 post-cranial Measurements

  9. Evaluation of recording & quantification method • Comparison: • Total amount of specimens recorded (Time) • Total number of measurements recorded (useful information) • Taxa absolute frequency& relative frequency • Body part distribution • Age and sex data

  10. Recording comparison Total Recorded Material • Both in MS Access Database • Original Method • Rapid Zone Method • 5000 + more specimens • ~ 800 more measurements

  11. Quantification comparison Absolute Frequency • Original Method • Rapid Zone Method NISP –number ofidentified specimens Zone count –number of zones More material recorded than counted • Instead of NISP useNCSP –number of counted specimens • NISP = 6965 • NCSP = 1218.5 • Zone Count = 1498 • Includes ‘animal-sized’ material • Only 2 teeth • Includes all teeth

  12. n = Original zones – Rapid zones Absolute Frequency Difference in zone count More in Original Zones More in Rapid Zones

  13. Different zone criteria emphasize different body parts Absolute Frequency Difference in zone count • Original Zone Method • Rapid Zone Method • 3 zones on limb shafts • Only 2 teeth • 1 zone per bone • All teeth • Hypothesized Biases • Bias against animalsnot eaten (no dP4s) • Bias toward animals with less-fragmented limbs zones (smaller) • Fragmentation bias more equal: only 1 zone per bone • More conservative system better describes recorded material

  14. Relative Frequency Common taxa • CATTLE SHEEP/GOAT PIG • Relative Frequency • Rapid Method • NCSP • Original NISP • Original Zones

  15. Relative Frequency Common taxa • CATTLE SHEEP/GOAT PIG • Relative Frequency • Rapid Method • NCSP • DIFFERENCEin relative frequencies (Original – NCSP) • Original NISP • Original Zones

  16. Absolute & relative frequency summary • Relative frequency both systems generally very similar • Relative frequency from Original NISP most different • Zone methods show small difference across Iron Age – Roman transition • Rapid system is more conservative in counting absolute frequency with 1 zone per bone and all teeth • Better description of assemblage

  17. Body part distribution • Original reportdid not quantify body part distribution, but noted that no element was over or underrepresented • Rapid method quantified MAU (minimum animal units) for domestic taxa by period, also found entire skeletonfairly evenly represented • MAU like MNI but doesn’t involve side = total for element / 2 • Because of shaft anxiety – look at how shafts are represented…

  18. Original Number of Limb Bone Zones • MAU 4.5 • MAU 3 • Total • MAU • 4 • 7 • 6 • 4 • 6

  19. Original Number of Limb Bone Zones • MAU 4 • MAU 5 • MAU 3 • MAU 3 • MAU 6 • Total • MAU • 4 • 3 • 15 • 3 • 4

  20. Body part distribution summary • Both systems concluded near equal skeletal part distribution • Closer investigation of limb shaft fragments indicates some bones (radius) may be missed in rapid system • But not to a significant degree – and if included simply reinforces equal skeletal part distribution • Age and Sex Data • Highly similar in both systems since each records fusion and tooth wear

  21. Comparison summary • At Bantycock: • No significant loss of useful data on species representation,body part distribution, or age and sex data • But Rapid method is faster, has more measurements and better controls for interdependency (point of zones). • In analysis, the problem is not that information is missing, but not knowing what information is missing. • Strength of Rapid methods is accurately describing what material is recorded. • Therefore the method of recording used should be based on its ability to effectively answer research question in time available.

More Related