per each of eighteen butchering experiments are plotted in Figure 7.8 by taxon. There
is no signiļ¬cant relationship between the two variables intrataxonomically for any of
the three taxa represented (goat, r = 0.62, p = 0.19; cow, r = ā“0.78, p = 0.065; zebra,
r = ā“0.48, p = 0.34). However, there is a positive relationship between carcass size and
number of cut marks when all carcasses were included and analysis is intertaxonomic
rather than intrataxonomic (Figure 7.9, r = 0.49, p = 0.039). It matters little which
analysis is correct. The varied results highlight a critical point. Target variables must
figure 7.8. Relationships between number of cut marks and the amount of ļ¬‚esh removed
from six hindlimbs in each of three carcass sizes. Simple best-ļ¬t regression lines (dashed)
are shown for each carcass size. None of the relationships is statistically signiļ¬cant (goat,
r = 0.62, p = 0.19; cow, r = ā“0.78, p = 0.065; zebra, r = ā“0.48, p = 0.34). Data from Table 7.6.
figure 7.9. Relationship between number of cut marks and the amount of ļ¬‚esh removed
from eighteen hindlimbs (r = 0.49, p = 0.039). Data from Table 7.6.
be explicitly deļ¬ned, as must measured variables and the suspected relationship
between the two. Such speciļ¬cations will assist with determination of the appropriate
With respect to quantifying cut marks, obscure target variables and poorly under-
stood relationships between target and measured variables are not the only aspects of
the quantitative data that are recorded, analyzed, and reported that likely contribute
to the lack of resolution of the debate whether early hominids hunted large game
or merely scavenged long-dead carcasses. Lupo and Oā™Connell (2002:102) correctly
note that analysts report tallies of cut marked specimens (and tooth marked speci-
mens) differently. Many analysts report the number of marked specimens per portion
(e.g., proximal, distal, shaft) per skeletal element (e.g., humerus, radius, femur) (e.g.,
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo 1997; DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo and Pickering 2003); a few report
the number of marked specimens per skeletal element with no distinction of por-
tion of element (e.g., DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo 1999a; Oliver 1994); and a few report
the number of marked specimens per portion (proximal, shaft, distal) of skeletal
element with no distinction of skeletal element (e.g., Blumenschine 1995; Capaldo
1997). It is these sorts of ambiguities that in part prompted a ļ¬‚urry of rebuttals
and responses regarding interpretations of the cut mark and tooth mark data (e.g.,
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo 1999b, 2003a, 2003b; Monahan 1999; Oā™Connell and Lupo 2003;
Oā™Connell et al. 2003). A major cause of the debate has been poorly developed and
weakly warranted methods that are incompletely described ā“ the problem identi-
ļ¬ed by DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo ā“ in conjunction with poorly worded and incompletely
developed theoretically informed interpretive models ā“ the problem identiļ¬ed by
Oā™Connell et al. (2003). In terms used throughout this volume, measured variables
are inexplicit and have at best a poorly understood relationship to target variables.
CO N C L U S I O N
Discussions in other arenas summarize in somewhat different terms what has been
discussed in this chapter. With respect to attributes on prey remains created by preda-
tors, Kowalewski (2002:14) states that āthe frequency of traces is arguably the most
important and widely used metric in quantitative analyses of the fossil record of
predation that estimates the frequency of predatorā“prey interactions and may serve
as a proxy for predation intensity.ā But when he describes ways to tally the frequency
of traces, he in fact suggests the number of specimens with traces be tallied and thus
correctly notes that āthe number of specimens with traces of predation is not synony-
mous with the total number of traces found in those specimens unless all specimens
tallying for taphonomy 297
bear singular traces. When computing predation intensity we should always use the
number of prey specimens attacked (i.e., the number of specimens with traces) and
not the number of attacks (i.e., the number of traces)ā (Kowalewski 2002:15). This is
because the target variable is predation intensity, implied by Kowalewski to comprise
the fraction of the prey population that has in fact been preyed on. Tallying numbers
of predation marks would thus not measure the frequency or intensity of predation
but rather how often a particular prey organism was attacked.
Kowalewski (2002) is concerned with organisms that have single element skeletons,
and so he notes that measuring predation intensity may require modiļ¬cation to
measurement techniques if skeletons of prey comprise multiple elements. This is so
for the same reason that the number of traces would not measure the intensity of
predation but rather the frequency of attacks (individual prey may be attacked more
than once). Counting predation traces on multiple but different skeletal elements
introduces the problem of interdependence ā“ has one attack been counted more than
once because multiple elements of a single organism have been tallied? Measuring
the intensity of carnivore gnawing, corrosion, burning, and butchering, however,
because of how āintensityā is (typically implicitly) deļ¬ned, requires tally of those
potentially interdependent specimens.
Among other approaches to mapping predation traces on the anatomy of the prey
skeleton, Kowalewski (2002:25) distinguishes a āqualitative approachā and a āsector
approach.ā The ļ¬rst involves mapping each trace on a single standard skeletal ele-
ment. Although this approach precludes statistical comparison of data sets and is
subject to mapping error based on operator error and morphological and allometric
variation among specimens, it does reveal anatomical areas that may have tapho-
nomic or biological signiļ¬cance. It has been used by various taphonomists. The
sector approach involves partitioning the skeleton or skeletal elements into sectors
and tallying the number of traces in each. This approach allows statistical compar-
ison of data sets, such as Ļ 2 analysis and calculation of evenness and heterogeneity
indices. This approach too has been used by various taphonomists. At the risk of
being redundant, the approach chosen should be dictated by the research question.
Discussion in this chapter is not to resolve debates over whether early hominids
were scavengers, hunters, or acquired meat using both techniques. Rather, the goals of
the chapter have been two. First, methods used to quantify various sorts of damage to
bones ā“ weathering, corrosion, gnawing, burning, butchering ā“ have been described.
Second, the critically signiļ¬cant nature of the relationship between a measured vari-
able and a target variable and the critically signiļ¬cant fact that each variable must be
explicitly deļ¬ned have been highlighted. Precisely the same (then ambiguous) rela-
tionship underpinned debates in the 1950s through 1980s regarding the relationship
between NISP, MNI, biomass, and other measures of taxonomic abundances, and a
target variable of abundances of taxa exploited by people or abundances of taxa on
the landscape (Chapters 2 and 3). Those debates were more or less resolved in the
1980s as two things became clear. First, any measure of taxonomic abundance was
found to be at best ordinal scale (or to be an estimate), and second, the relationship
between a chosen measured variable (NISP, MNI, biomass) and the target variable
was a taphonomic question. Many paleobiologists came to both conclusions using
āļ¬delity studies,ā actualistic research on the relationship between recently formed
assemblages of faunal remains and the accuracy with which they reļ¬‚ect taxonomic
abundances in the faunas from which the collections derive (see Chapter 2 for a for-
mal deļ¬nition of ļ¬delity studies). The success of these studies resides in unambiguous
deļ¬nitions of measured and target variables. Ambiguity with respect to measured
variables and target variables permeates many modern taphonomic studies. It is no
wonder that we do not understand the relationship between two variables when one
or more of them is poorly deļ¬ned or is simply inexplicit.
In this volume, some of the most basic issues of quantifying different kinds of paleo-
zoological data have been explored. A bit more than two decades ago, Grayson (1984)
published a book-length treatment on the same general topic, and that seemed to
resolve many of the debates over how to quantify taxonomic abundances. Arguments
over whether NISP or MNI was the better measure nearly ceased to appear in the
literature. Yet, some individuals continue to report MNI values, either as the unit of
choice for quantifying taxonomic abundances (e.g., Avery 1991 , 1992; Landon 1996),
or apparently for the sake of complete descriptive reporting (e.g., Plug 2004; Stahl
and Athens 2001). A few continue to develop innovative ways of tallying MNI (e.g.,
Vasileiadou et al. 2007). The usual reason given for use of MNI is that NISP is subject to
intertaxonomic variation in fragmentation and so gives potentially biased estimates
of taxonomic abundances. Although it is true that NISP can inļ¬‚uence estimates of
taxonomic abundance, those who use the differential fragmentation argument as a
warrant to determine MNI values neither empirically evaluate the truthfulness of
this warrant in their particular instances nor fail to present NISP data. Why do they
present what they take to be biased data? Why do they not determine if in fact frag-
mentation varies intertaxonomically rather than simply assert that it does? Perhaps
they do not because of a lack of mathematical and statistical sophistication. That lack
of sophistication is a major reason for this book.
Some have argued on the basis of ethnoarchaeological (Hudson 1990) or histori-
cal (Breitburg 1991 ) data that MNI provides more accurate estimates of taxonomic
abundances than NISP. That may well be so in particular cases where aggregation
and derivation of MNI is not dependent on analytical choices; we must make these
choices when dealing with prehistoric materials. Reitz and Wing (1999:199) state
that MNI is the āonly way to compare mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, ļ¬shes,
and mollusks,ā but the arguments in Chapter 2 identify the fallacious nature of
this statement. Given the continued use and advocacy of MNI, arguments made
by Richard Casteel and Donald Grayson regarding the nature of MNI and its sta-
tistical relationship with NISP, as well as their characterizations of MNI and NISP
as quantitative units, have been reiterated for a new generation of paleozoologists.
This is not to say that MNI is always the wrong quantitative unit to use. Both logic
and empirical data indicate, however, that it typically is the wrong unit to use when
some measure of taxonomic abundances is needed. It has been argued that MNE is
not as good a quantitative unit as NISP when one needs a measure of skeletal part
Other methods of quantifying taxonomic abundances, such as estimating biomass,
have also been reviewed. Some analysts continue to calculate meat weight using
Theodore Whiteā™s method (references in Dean 2005b). (Ornithologists still use the
Whitean method of multiplying the MNI of prey evident in a sample of egested
pellets by the average weight of an individual prey to determine biomass [Leonardi
and Dellā™Arte 2006].) The skeletal mass allometry technique is quite popular in some
areas, and it continues to be used today (e.g., Carder et al. 2004; Lapham 2005;
Pavao-Zuckerman 2007). Chapter 3 of this volume was written with the express
purpose of highlighting some of the weaknesses of estimating biomass. Because
many of the quantitative variables paleozoologists seek to measure are dependent on
sample size, Chapter 4 summarizes the various ways that sample-size effects might be
detected and analytically controlled. Chapter 5 covers a central issue in paleozoology ā“
quantifying and comparing the structure and composition of prehistoric faunas, and
monitoring trends in taxonomic abundances. Chapter 6 provides detailed coverage
of a quantitative unit that has been extensively used over the past 20+ years ā“ MNE ā“
even though it has been around virtually as long as MNI. And Chapter 7 describes
ways to tally and analyze quantitative variables that concern taphonomic agents and
processes. What could possibly be left to discuss?
There is one thing that warrants comment. This concerns the fact that statisticians
have found it necessary to comment on quantitative paleozoology. This commen-
tary began with Ringroseā™s (1993) detailed discussion that is still quite worthwhile
to read. Pilgram and Marshall (1995) pointed out that Ringrose apparently had little
experience with faunal remains, and so some of his comments were a bit off base.
Ringrose (1995) responded that although he did not in fact know very much about
the realities of paleozoology, he commented in kind that Pilgram and Marshall (1995;
Marshall and Pilgram 1991 ) seemed to not be as statistically sophisticated as he (at
least) hoped paleozoologists might be. It was with that discussion ļ¬rmly in mind
that I have included minimal discussion of statistics and focused on what simple sta-
tistical analyses might reveal about the quantitative properties of a paleozoological
ļ¬nal thoughts 301
collection. In an effort to make revelations clear, graphs of statistical relationships are
included, along with various statistical results attending the graphed relationships.
And, in most cases, the data underpinning the graphs and the statistics are included
to allow the interested reader to replicate analyses graphically and statistically. Repli-
cation will assist comprehension of an analytical technique, and it ensures correct
implementation of the technique. Hopefully, readers will ļ¬nd utility in the many
graphs and tables.
Paleozoologists who read this volume may well hope for more, or less, statistical
sophistication. Not being a statistician, I can only reply: Read a statistics book. But
in saying that, I also want to make the observation that, like Ringrose (1993), other
statisticians have contributed to the discussions on quantitative paleozoology. And
it is clear that at least some of those statisticians are, like Ringrose, not aware of the
practical realities of quantitative paleozoology. Thus, MNE is (incorrectly) deļ¬ned as
āthe NISP calculated for each skeletal partā (Baxter 2003:212) by a statistician. Such
errors are not restricted to those who are not paleozoologists. NISP has been said
by paleozoologists to be the Number of Identiļ¬ed Skeletal Parts, or the Number of
Identiļ¬ed Skeletal Portions, yet they do not deļ¬ne skeletal part or skeletal portion.
Such loose use of key terms is commonplace in many scientiļ¬c endeavors, but that
does not make it acceptable. Explicitly deļ¬ned terminology is critical to the success of
any research; such is all the more critical with respect to quantitative units, whether
fundamental or derived. That NISP has various deļ¬nitions (or at least descriptions)
in the literature reļ¬‚ects poor understanding of the term āspecimenā and how it
compares with āskeletal elementā and the generic ābone.ā Using the deļ¬nitions in
Chapter 1 of this book, or a similar set of deļ¬nitions that are explicitly stated by the
researcher, would help the discipline a lot.
This is not a book about terminology. It is instead a book about how to count
faunal remains ā“ bones, teeth, shells, and fragments thereof. To reiterate, one should
read a statistics book to learn about statistics; read Quantitative Paleozoology to
learn about counting faunal remains. In so doing, and putting the two together, a
paleozoologist may well conceive of a unique analysis that reveals something about
the behavior of a quantitative unit or gain insights to some aspect of a collection of
broken bones. In most chapters, knowledge about the relationship (or lack thereof)
between a target variable and a measured variable has been emphasized. In many
cases, such knowledge is crucial to valid interpretation, but it may not always be
required. In some cases, exploratory data analysis may suggest further analyses are
necessary because of a particular relationship between two variables. The nature of
the relationship between variables may suggest other sorts of variables that need to
be measured in order to understand the relationship. As a way to conclude this book,
I outline an example.
CO U N T I N G A S E X P L O R A T I O N
Grayson (1979, 1984) suggested that analyses of the relationship between NISP and
MNI might prove revealing. Such analyses might reveal something about the par-
ticular collections studied, something about the nature of the relationship between
these two most basic counting units, or both. Recall that Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984)
noted that their results were different than Casteelā™s (1977, n.d.) with respect to the
statistical relationship they found between NISP and MNI. Because of that difference,
Klein and Cruz-Uribe suggested that perhaps the set of assemblages they had used to
examine the relationship comprised remains that were much more fragmented than
those remains in the assemblages that Casteel had used. This was an astute obser-
vation to make, but it was also one that Klein and Cruz-Uribe could not evaluate
empirically given a lack of appropriate data. They did not have NISP:MNE data for
the various skeletal elements because the data they used (and those used by Casteel)
were derived from literature that did not present that data (it was not a target variable
of the analysts). About the same time that Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984) presented
their conclusion, Bobrowsky (1982) pointed out that Casteel (1977, n.d.) had lumped
numerous taxa together, and that such lumping masked the inļ¬‚uence of intertaxo-
nomic variation in the number of identiļ¬able elements per individual skeleton. That
is, Bobrowsky identiļ¬ed a cause for variation in the relationship between NISPā“MNI
data pairs that was different than the cause identiļ¬ed by Klein and Cruz-Uribe.
In a clever bit of analysis, Bobrowsky (1982) chose one stratum from one site and
compared the relationship of NISP to MNI across four taxonomic groups (birds,
mammals, reptiles, ļ¬sh) represented by the remains from that single stratum. His
results indicate that indeed, intertaxonomic variation in the number of identiļ¬able
elements per individual skeleton signiļ¬cantly inļ¬‚uenced the slope of the best-ļ¬t
regression line described by the model in Figure 2.4. Thus, the line describing the
relationship between the NISP and MNI data from remains of birds had a steeper
slope and higher plateau (it leveled at a higher MNI) than did the line for mammals.
Bobrowsky (1982) found this relationship between the two lines expectable given that
each bird skeleton tended to provide fewer taxonomically identiļ¬able elements than
did each mammal skeleton. This simply meant that each additional NISP of birds was
more likely to contribute a new MNI than was each additional NISP of mammals.
I can identify to the genus or species level about forty-ļ¬ve to forty-eight kinds of
ļ¬nal thoughts 303
Table 8.1. Statistical summary of relationship between NISP and MNI in collections of
paleontological birds, paleontological mammals, archaeological birds, and
archaeological mammals. p < 0.0001 in all
N of N of data Y
assemblages pairs Pearsonā™s r r Slope intercept
Paleontological 7 265 0.8747 0.7651 0.483
Paleontological 11 360 0.8719 0.7586 0.5581
Archaeological 22 696 0.9133 0.8342 0.629
Archaeological 35 764 0.8963 0.8034 0.5561
skeletal elements (including isolated teeth, ignoring side differences and fragments)
of a typical mammal skeleton. In a detailed study of an archaeological avifauna,
Broughton (2004) identiļ¬ed sixteen kinds of skeletal elements across forty-six genera.
This anecdotal information suggests Bobrowsky (1982) may have been correct.
Klein and Cruz-Uribeā™s (1984) concern about fragmentation, and Bobrowskyā™s
(1982) concern about intertaxonomic variation in the number of identiļ¬able ele-
ments per skeleton both concern variables that inļ¬‚uence the ratio NISP:MNI. Keep-
ing these variables in mind, I compiled NISPā“MNI data pairs for paleozoological
assemblages in North America (the data to which I have the easiest access). To keep the
intertaxonomic variable simple, I compiled data for only birds and mammals. I also
compiled and kept separate data for both paleontological and archaeological avian
and mammalian assemblages. My reason for doing so was that it seemed reasonable to
suppose that remains of animals from archaeological assemblages, particularly those
of mammals but perhaps not those of birds, would be more fragmented than the
faunal remains in paleontological collections. It is, after all, well known that human
butchers tend to break bones with some regularity (e.g., Noe-Nygaard 1977; Thomas
1971 ). By deļ¬nition a human taphonomic agent had not inļ¬‚uenced paleontological
Descriptive statistics for the four sets of data are summarized in Table 8.1 . There
are several things that need to be considered here. First, graphs of the relationships
between NISP and MNI in the four assemblages indicate that the log-transformed
data describe a straight line. The straight-line relationship is apparent for the paleon-
tological bird remains (Figure 8.1 ), the paleontological mammal remains (Figure 8.2),
figure 8.1. Relationship between NISP and MNI in seven paleontological assemblages
of bird remains from North America. The number of data points is 265; not all are visible
because of duplication and overlap.
figure 8.2. Relationship between NISP and MNI in eleven paleontological assemblages
of mammal remains from North America. The number of data points is 360; not all are
visible because of duplication and overlap.
ļ¬nal thoughts 305
figure 8.3. Relationship between NISP and MNI in twenty-two archaeological assem-
blages of bird remains from North America. The number of data points is 696; not all are
visible because of duplication and overlap.
the archaeological avian remains (Figure 8.3), and the archaeological mammal
remains (Figure 8.4). The lines plotted in these graphs should by now be familiar;
they are simple best-ļ¬t regression lines described by the formula Y = aX b , where X
is the independent variable (log NISP), Y is the dependent variable (log MNI), a is
the Y intercept (it should be zero, given that a zero value for NISP must produce a
zero value for MNI; note that all empirically determined values are quite close to zero
[Table 8.1 ]), and b is the slope of the line. Variables a and b are constants determined
empirically for each data set. In all cases, the relationship between NISP and MNI
is statistically signiļ¬cant (p < 0.0001) and variation in NISP explains 76 percent or
more (= r 2 ) of the variation in MNI.
The data in Figures 8.1 ā“8.4 mimic the results of the data used by Bobrowsky,
Casteel, Grayson, and Hesse; a tight statistical relationship between NISP and MNI
is apparent. Clearly, MNI would seem to always increase as NISP increases. The slope
of the line (Table 8.1 ) (which measures the rate of change in MNI relative to the rate
of change in NISP) for paleontological mammals (b = 0.5581) is not signiļ¬cantly
different from that for archaeological mammals (b = 0.5561), but I predicted that
figure 8.4. Relationship between NISP and MNI in thirty-ļ¬ve archaeological assemblages
of mammal remains from North America. The number of data points is 764; not all are visible
because of duplication and overlap.
the line for the latter would be less steep due to greater fragmentation. Perhaps
even more bizarre is the fact that the slope of the line for the paleontological birds
(b = 0.483) is less steep than that for archaeological birds (b = 0.629), suggesting that
to contribute another MNI the NISP of paleontological birds must increase more
than the NISP of archaeological birds must increase.
I am thwarted in my effort to understand why the various sets of NISPā“MNI
data deļ¬ne the relationships that they do. This is so in part because I lack data
on fragmentation intensity and on which skeletal elements were identiļ¬ed for each
taxon. It is also important to note that (i) the relationship between NISP and MNI
always approximates the model described in Figure 2.4, (ii) for any given assem-
blage the relationship between NISP and MNI likely will be particularistic because
it is historically contingent (how many skeletal elements are broken and contribute
more than one NISP, and how many skeletal elements of one carcass of each taxon
are identiļ¬ed), and (iii) differences between the relationship of the two variables
across multiple assemblages may reveal something about the distinct nature of the
ļ¬nal thoughts 307
assemblages. Some may be more intensively fragmented, some may have been more
thoroughly identiļ¬ed, and so on. Most importantly in the context of this volume, we
have learned a bit about what kinds of data are required to begin to account for how
NISP and MNI are related in any given instance.
The exploratory analysis reinforces a point I have tried to make throughout the
volume. That point simply is: be explicit in your identiļ¬cation of a target vari-
able, and take into account how a measured variable might, or might not, reļ¬‚ect
the magnitude of that target variable. Thinking about the latter likely will prompt
you to record data that you might not otherwise have recorded. In the case of
Figures 8.1 ā“8.4, those data might well be fragmentation (NISP:MNE ratios), deter-
mination of how many skeletal elements are identiļ¬able in one complete skeleton,
some other variable, or some combination of these. And that, it seems to me, is a
good reason to know about quantifying paleofaunal remains.
absolute frequency A raw tally or count of entities or phenomena (see relative
accuracy Correctness or exactness; the degree to which a measure conforms to the
true value (an estimate is less accurate than a measurement).
assemblage The entire set of faunal remains from a speciļ¬ed context; the context
may be arbitrarily, archaeologically, geologically, or biologically deļ¬ned or deļ¬ned
in some other way (synonym: collection).
biocoenose A living community of organisms.
closed array Quantities are given as proportions or percentages and thus must sum
to 1.0 (for proportions) or 100 percent, respectively.
community A set of organisms that live together and together form a more or less dis-
crete entity; organisms comprising a community may, or may not, be functionally
interlinked through competition or some other process (see Chapter 2).
continuous variable A variable that can take any value in a series and for which there
is yet another value intermediate between any two values.
death assemblage See thanatocoenose.
derived measurement A measurement based on multiple fundamental measure-
ments, such as a ratio of length to width.
discontinuous variable A variable for which it is possible to ļ¬nd two values between
which there is no intermediate value.
distal community One or more biological communities from which remains of
animals originated and which are some greater or lesser distance from the location
from which the remains were collected (after Shotwell 1955, 1958).
diversity A general term concerning any of several variables either individually or in
combination; alpha diversity, beta diversity, gamma diversity.
element See skeletal element.
estimate A description, perhaps a value, assigned to a phenomenon based on incom-
plete information (less accurate than a measurement).
estimation The act of making an estimate.
faunule An assemblage of associated animal remains recovered from one or sev-
eral contiguous strata and dominated by members of one biological community
ļ¬at measurement A complex measurement that is conceptual or abstract and not
easily observed (synonym: proxy measurement).
ļ¬delity studies Actualistic (experimental, ethnoarchaeological, neotaphonomic)
research aimed at determining how well a future fossil record reļ¬‚ects the quanti-
tative characteristics of a biological community in terms of any chosen biological
variable, including morphological classes, age classes, taxonomic richness, taxo-
nomic abundance, and trophic structure.
fundamental measurement A measurement that describes an easily observed prop-
erty or characteristic, such as length or width (see derived measurement and ļ¬at
identiļ¬ed assemblage The set of faunal remains identiļ¬ed to taxon and studied by
the paleozoologist, typically a fraction of the taphocoenose.
interval scale Measures greater than, less than relationships, and how much (dis-
tances between any two values are known), and has an arbitrary zero.
local fauna A set of faunal remains from one locality or several closely grouped
localities that are stratigraphically equivalent or nearly so, thus the represented
taxa are close in space and time (Tedford 1970:678).
measured variable The variable that is measured (see target variable).
measurement Writing descriptions of phenomena according to rules; speciļ¬cally,
the act of assigning a numerical value to an observation based on some rule(s)
of assignment (see derived measurement, ļ¬at measurement, fundamental mea-
surement, and proxy measurement).
MNI Minimum number of individuals (see Table 2.4).
NISP Number of identiļ¬ed specimens.
nominal scale Measures differences in kind, not magnitude; measurements of this
scale are sometimes referred to as qualitative attributes or discontinuous variables.
ordinal scale Measures greater than, less than relationships, but not how much.
proximal community The biological community from which remains of animals
originated and which is essentially geographically coincident with the location
from which the remains were collected (after Shotwell 1955, 1958).
proxy measurement See ļ¬at measurement.
quantitative variable Variables measured on interval scales and ratio scales.
rank order Arrangement of a set of phenomena in a series from greatest to least
magnitude, or least to greatest magnitude, but in which the distance in between
any pair of phenomena is unknown.
ratio scale Measures greater than, less than relationships, and how much (the dis-
tances between any two values are known), and has a natural zero.
relative frequency A quantity or estimate that is stated in terms of another quantity
or estimate (see absolute frequency and closed array).
reliability Replicability; repeatability; measuring something twice and obtaining the
skeletal element A complete, discrete anatomical unit or organ, such as a bone, tooth,
skeletalpart Same as specimen but sometimes used in this book to denote a less inclu-
sive and more restricted category, such as denoting only specimens of humerus; a
synonym used in this book is skeletal portion.
specimen A bone, tooth, or shell or fragment thereof.
taphocoenose The set of remains of organisms with a geological mode of occurrence
and found spatially and geologically associated; may be a fraction of a thanato-
taphonomy āThe study of the transition (in all details) of animal remains from the
biosphere to the lithosphereā (Efremov 1940:85).
target variable The variable one is interested in and seeks to measure or estimate
(see measured variable).
thanatocoenose A set (assemblage) of dead organisms (synonym: death assemblage);
may be a fraction of a biocoenose.
validity Measurement of an attribute that reļ¬‚ects the concept that we wish to describe;
measuring the variable of interest rather than another variable.
variable A property or characteristic that can take on different values or magnitudes.
Abe, Y., C. W. Marean, P. J. Nilssen, Z. Assefa, and E. C. Stone. 2002. The Analysis of Cutmarks
on Archaeofauna: A Review and Critique of Quantiļ¬cation Procedures, and a New Image-
Analysis GIS Approach. American Antiquity 67:643ā“663.
Adams, B. J., and L. W. Konigsberg . 2004. Estimation of the Most Likely Number of Individuals
from Commingled Human Skeletal Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Adams, W. R. 1949. Faunal Remains from the Angel Site. Unpublished Masterā™s thesis, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Allen, J., and J. B. M. Guy. 1984. Optimal Estimations of Individuals in Archaeological Faunal
Assemblages: How Minimal is the MNI? Archaeology in Oceania 19:41 ā“47.
Alroy, J. 2000. New Methods for Quantifying Macroevolutionary Patterns and Processes.
Ames, K. M. 1996. Life in the Big House: Household Labor and Dwelling Size on the Northwest
Coast. In People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic
Structures, edited by G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 131 ā“150. Monographs in World
Archaeology No. 27. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Ames, K. M., and H. D. G. Maschner. 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology
and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, London.
Ames, K. M., D. F. Raetz, S. Hamilton, and C. McAfee. 1992. Household Archaeology of a
Southern Northwest Coast Plank House. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:275ā“290.
Ames, K. M., C. M. Smith, W. L. Cornett, E. A. Sobel, S. C. Hamilton, J. Wolf, and D. Raetz.
1999. Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991ā“1996), Ridgeļ¬eld National
Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Washington: A Preliminary Report. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1, Cultural Resource Series No. 13. Portland, Oregon.
Amstrup, S. C., T. L. McDonald, and B. F. J. Manly (editors). 2006. Handbook of Captureā“
Recapture Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Andrews, P. 1990. Owls, Caves and Fossils. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Andrews, P. 1996. Palaeoecology and Hominoid Palaeoenvironments. Biological Reviews
Anyonge, W. 1993. Body Mass in Large Extant and Extinct Carnivores. Journal of Zoology
Anyonge, W., and C. Roman. 2006. New Body Mass Estimates for Canis dirus, the Extinct
Pleistocene Dire Wolf. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26:209ā“212.
Atmar, W., and B. D. Patterson. 1993. The Measure of Order and Disorder in the Distribution
of Species in Fragmented Habitat. Oecologia 96:373ā“382.
Avery, D. M. 1991. Micromammals, Owls and Vegetation Change in the Eastern Cape Mid-
lands, South Africa, During the Last Millennium. Journal of Arid Environments 20:357ā“
Avery, D. M. 1992. Micromammals and the Environment of Early Pastoralists at Spoeg River,
Western Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 47:116ā“121.
Avery, D. M. 2002. Taphonomy of Micromammals from Cave Deposits at Kabwe (Broken
Hill) and Twin Rivers in Central Zambia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:537ā“544.
Badgley, C. 1986. Counting Individuals in Mammalian Fossil Assemblages from Fluvial Envi-
ronments. Palaios 1 :328ā“338.
Bambach, R. K. 1993. Seafood Through Time: Changes in Biomass, Energetics, and Produc-
tivity in the Marine Ecosystem. Paleobiology 19:372ā“397.
Barnosky, A. D., M. A. Carrasco, and E. B. Davis. 2005. The Impact of the Speciesā“Area
Relationship on Estimates of Paleodiversity. PLoS Biology 3:1356ā“1361.
Barrett, J. H. 1993. Bone Weight, Meat Yield Estimates and Cod (Gadus morhua): A Preliminary
Study of the Weight Method. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3:1 ā“18.
Bartram, L. E., Jr., E. M. Kroll, and H. T. Bunn. 1991. Variability in Camp Structure and
Bone Food Refuse Patterning at Kua San Hunterā“Gatherer Camps. In The Interpretation of
Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 77ā“148. Plenum
Press, New York.
Bartram, L. E., Jr., and C. W. Marean. 1999. Explaining the āKlasies Patternā: Kua Ethnoar-
chaeology, the Die Kelders Middle Stone Age Archaeofauna, Long Bone Fragmentation and
Carnivore Ravaging. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:9ā“29.
Baxter, M. 2003. Statistics in Archaeology. Arnold, London.
Bayham, F. E. 1979. Factors Inļ¬‚uencing the Archaic Pattern of Animal Exploitation. Kiva
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1975. The Taphonomy and Paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene Vertebrate
Assemblages East of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
146:473ā“578. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., S. M. Kidwell, and R. A. Gastaldo. 2000. Taphonomy and Paleobiology.
In Deep Time: Paleobiologyā™s Perspective, edited by D. H. Erwin and S. W. Wing, pp. 103ā“147.
Paleobiology (Supplement) 26. Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas.
Bennington, J. B., and R. K. Bambach. 1996. Statistical Testing for Paleocommunity Recurrence:
Are Similar Fossil Assemblages Ever the Same? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoe-
Betts, M. W. 2000. Augmenting Faunal Quantiļ¬cation Procedures Through the Incorporation
of Historical Documentary Evidence: An Investigation of Faunal Remains from Fort George.
Ontario Archaeology 69:19ā“38,
Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1984. Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1986. Comment. Current Anthropology 27:444ā“446.
Binford, L. R. 1988. Fact and Fiction About the Zinjanthropus Floor: Data, Arguments, and
Interpretations. Current Anthropology 29:123ā“135.
Binford, L. R., and J. B. Bertram. 1977. Bone Frequencies ā“ and Attritional Processes. In For
Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 77ā“153. Academic Press, New
Blackburn, T. M., K. J. Gaston, and N. Loder. 1999. Geographic Gradients in Body Size: A
Clariļ¬cation of Bergmannā™s Rule. Diversity and Distributions 5:165ā“174.
Blalock, H. M. 1960. Social Statistics. McGraw Hill, New York.
Blumenschine, R. J. 1986. Early Hominid Scavenging Opportunities: Implications of Carcass
Availability in the Serengeti and Ngorongoro Ecosystems. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 283. Oxford.
Blumenschine, R. J. 1995. Percussion Marks, Tooth Marks, and Experimental Determinations
of the Timing of Hominid and Carnivore Access to Long Bones at FLK Zinjanthropus,
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 29:21 ā“51.
Blumenschine, R. J., C. W. Marean, and S. D. Capaldo. 1996. Blind Tests of Inter-Analyst
Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identiļ¬cation of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and
Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:493ā“507.
Blumenschine, R. J., and M. M. Selvaggio. 1988. Percussion Marks on Bone Surfaces as a New
Diagnostic of Hominid Behavior. Nature 333:763ā“765.
Blumenschine, R. J., and M. M. Selvaggio. 1991. On the Marks of Marrow Bone Processing
by Hammerstones and Hyaenas: Their Anatomical Patterning and Archaeological Impli-
cations. In Cultural Beginnings: Approaches to Understanding Early Hominid Life-ways in
the African Savana, edited by J. D. Clark, pp. 17ā“32. Union Internationale des Sciences
PrĀ“ historiques et Protohistoriques Monographien Band 19. Bonn.
Bobrowsky, P. T. 1982. An Examination of Casteelā™s MNI Behavior Analysis: A Reductionist
Approach. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:173ā“184.
BĀØ kĀØ nyi, S. 1970. A New Method for the Determination of the Number of Individuals in
Animal Bone Material. American Journal of Archaeology 74:291 ā“292.
Brain, C. K. 1967. Hottentot Food Remains and Their Bearing on the Interpretation of Fossil
Bone Assemblages. Scientiļ¬c Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 32:1 ā“11.
Brain, C. K. 1969. The Contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an Understanding of Aus-
tralopithecine Bone Accumulations. Scientiļ¬c Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station
Brain, C. K. 1974. Some Suggested Procedures in the Analysis of Bone Accumulations from
Southern African Quaternary Sites. Annals of the Transvaal Museum 29:1 ā“8.
Brain, C. K. 1976. Some Principles in the Interpretation of Bone Accumulations Associated
with Man. In Human Origins: Louis Leakey and the East African Evidence, edited by G. L.
Isaac and E. R. McCown, pp. 97ā“116. W. B. Benjamin, Menlo Park, California.
Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Breitburg, E. 1991. Veriļ¬cation and Reliability of NISP and MNI Methods of Quantifying
Taxonomic Abundance: A View from Historic Site Zooarchaeology. In Beamers, Bobwhites,
and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited by J. R. Purdue, W. E.
Klippel, and B. W. Styles, pp. 153ā“162. Illinois State Museum Scientiļ¬c Papers Vol. 23.
Broughton, J. M. 1994a. Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efļ¬ciency During the Late Holocene,
San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371 ā“401.
Broughton, J. M. 1994b. Late Holocene Resource Intensiļ¬cation in the Sacramento Valley,
California: The Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21 :501 ā“514.
Broughton, J. M. 1999. Resource Depression and Intensiļ¬cation During the Late Holocene, San
Francisco Bay: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. Anthropological
Records Vol. 32. University of California, Berkeley.
Broughton, J. M. 2004. Prehistoric Human Impacts on California Birds: Evidence from the
Emeryville Shellmound Avifauna. Ornithological Monographs No. 56.
Broughton, J. M., and D. K. Grayson. 1993. Diet Breadth, Adaptive Change, and the White
Mountains Fauna. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:331 ā“336.
Broughton, J. M., V. I. Cannon, S. Arnold, R. J. Bogiatto, and K. Dalton. 2006. The Taphonomy
of Owl-Deposited Fish Remains and the Origin of the Homestead Cave Ichthyofauna.
Journal of Taphonomy 4:69ā“95.
Brown, E. R. 1961. The Black-Tailed Deer of Western Washington. Washington State Game
Department, Biological Bulletin No. 13. Olympia, Washington.
Brown, J. H., and A. C. Gibson. 1983. Biogeography. C. V. Mosby, St. Louis.
Brown, J. H., and M. V. Lomolino. 1998. Biogeography, 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Bunn, H. T. 1982. Meat-Eating and Human Evolution: Studies on the Diet and Subsistence Pat-
terns of Plio-Pleistocene Hominids in East Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Bunn, H. T. 1986. Patterns of Skeletal Element Representation and Hominid Subsistence
Activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution
Bunn, H. T. 1991. A Taphonomic Perspective on the Archaeology of Human Origins. Annual
Review of Anthropology 20:433ā“467.
Bunn, H. T. 2001. Hunting, Power Scavenging, and Butchering by Hadza Foragers and by
Plio-Pleistocene Homo. In Meat-Eating and Human Evolution, edited by C. B. Stanford and
H. T. Bunn, pp. 199ā“218. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bunn, H. T., and E. M. Kroll. 1986. Systematic Butchery by Plio/Pleistocene Hominids at
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Current Anthropology 27:431 ā“452.
Bunn, H. T., and E. M. Kroll. 1988. Reply (to Binford). Current Anthropology 29:135ā“149.
Bush, A. M., M. J. Markey, and C. R. Marshall. 2004. Removing Bias from Diversity Curves:
The Effects of Spatially Organized Biodiversity on Sampling-Standardization. Paleobiology
Butler, V. L. 2000. Resource Depression on the Northwest Coast of North America. Antiquity
Butler, V. L. 2001. Changing Fish Use on Mangaia, Southern Cook Islands: Resource
Depression and the Prey Choice Model. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11 :88ā“
Butler, V. L., and S. K. Campbell. 2004. Resource Intensiļ¬cation and Resource Depression
in the Paciļ¬c Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World
Butler, V. L., and M. G. Delacorte. 2004. Doing Zooarchaeology as if It Mattered: Use of Faunal
Data to Address Current Issues in Fish Conservation Biology in Owens Valley, California.
In Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology, edited by R. L. Lyman and K. P. Cannon,
pp. 25ā“44. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Buzas, M. A., and L.-A. Hayek. 2005. On Richness and Evenness Within and Between Com-
munities. Paleobiology 31 :199ā“220.
Byrd, J. E. 1997. The Analysis of Diversity in Archaeological Faunal Assemblages: Complexity
and Subsistence Strategies in the Southeast During the Middle Woodland Period. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 16:49ā“72.
Cain, C. R. 2005. Using Burned Animal Bone to Look at Middle Stone Age Occupation and
Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:873ā“884.
Cain, S. A. 1938. The Species Area Curve. American Midland Naturalist 19:573ā“581.
Cannon, M. D. 1999. A Mathematical Model of the Effects of Screen Size on Zooarchaeological
Relative Abundance Measures. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:205ā“214.
Cannon, M. D. 2000. Large Mammal Relative Abundance in Pithouse and Pueblo Period
Archaeofaunas from Southwestern New Mexico: Resource Depression Among the
Mimbresā“Mogollon? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:317ā“347.
Cannon, M. D. 2001. Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size, and Statistical Methods.
Journal of Archaeological Science 28:185ā“195.
Cannon, M. D. 2003. A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to Fau-
nal Remains from the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Capaldo, S. D. 1997. Experimental Determinations of Carcass Processing by Plio-Pleistocene
Hominids and Carnivores at FLK 22 (Zinjanthropus), Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of
Human Evolution 33:555ā“597.
Capaldo, S. D., and R. J. Blumenschine. 1994. A Quantitative Diagnosis of Notches Made
by Hammerstone Percussion and Carnivore Gnawing in Bovid Long Bones. American
Carder, N., E. J. Reitz, and J. M. Compton. 2004. Animal Use in the Georgia Pine Barrens:
An Example from the Hartford Site (9PU1). Southeastern Archaeology 24:25ā“40.
Carmines, E. G., and R. Z. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University
Paper 17. Beverly Hills, California.
Casteel, R. W. 1972. Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 38:382ā“388.
Casteel, R. W. 1974. A Method for Estimation of Live Weight of Fish from the Size of Skeletal
Remains. American Antiquity 39:94ā“97.
Casteel, R. W. 1977. A Consideration of the Behavior of the Minimum Number of Individuals
Index: A Problem in Faunal Characterization. Ossa 3/4:141 ā“151.
Casteel, R. W. 1978. Faunal Assemblages and the āWiegemethodeā or Weight Method. Journal
of Field Archaeology 5:71 ā“77.
Casteel, R. W. n.d. A Treatise on the Minimum Number of Individuals Index: An Analysis of
its Behaviour and a Method for Its Prediction. Unpublished manuscript.
Casteel, R. W., and D. K. Grayson. 1977. Terminological Problems in Quantitative Faunal
Analysis. World Archaeology 9:235ā“242.
Chao, A., R. L. Chazdon, R. K. Colwell, and T. Shen. 2005. A New Statistical Approach for
Assessing Similarity of Species Composition with Incidence and Abundance Data. Ecology
Chaplin, R. E. 1971. The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press,
Cheetham, A. H., and J. E. Hazel. 1969. Binary (Presenceā“Absence) Similarity Coefļ¬cients.
Journal of Paleontology 43:1130ā“1136.
Claassen, C. 1998. Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Clark, J., and T. E. Guensburg. 1970. Population Dynamics of Leptomeryz. Fieldiana: Geology
Clason, A. T. 1972. Some Remarks on the Use and Presentation of Archaeozoological Data.
Clason, A. T., and W. Prummel. 1977. Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research.
Journal of Archaeological Science 4:171 ā“175.
Cleghorn, N., and C. W. Marean. 2004. Distinguishing Selective Transport and In Situ
Attrition: A Critical Review of Analytical Approaches. Journal of Taphonomy 2:43ā“67.
Cleland, C. E. 1966. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes
Region. Anthropological Papers No. 29. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Cleland, C. E. 1976. The Focalā“Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric
Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology
Colwell, R. K., and J. A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating Terrestrial Biodiversity Through
Extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 345:101 ā“118.
Colwell, R. K., C. X. Mao, and J. Chang. 2004. Interpolating, Extrapolating, and Comparing
Incidence-Based Species Accumulation Curves. Ecology 85:2717ā“2727.
Cook, S. F., and A. E. Treganza. 1950. The Quantitative Investigation of Indian Mounds with
Special Reference to the Relation of the Physical Components to the Probable Material
Culture. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
Cooper, R. A., P. A. Maxwell, J. S. Crampton, A. G. Beau, C. M. Jones, and B. A. Marshall.
2006. Completeness of the Fossil Record: Estimating Losses Due to Small Body Size. Geology
Crader, D. C. 1983. Recent Single-Carcass Bone Scatters and the Problem of āButcheryā Sites in
the Archaeological Record. In Animals and Archaeology: I. Hunters and Their Prey, edited by
J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 107ā“141. British Archaeological Reports, International
Series 163. Oxford.
Crampton, J. S., A. G. Geu, R. A. Cooper, C. M. Jones, B. Marshall, and P. A. Maxwell. 2003.
Estimating the Rock Volume Bias in Paleobiodiversity Studies. Science 301 :358ā“360.
Cruz-Uribe, K., and R. G. Klein. 1994. Chew Marks and Cut Marks on Animal Bones from
the Kasteelberg B and Dune Field Midden Later Stone Age Sties, Western Cape Province,
South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 21 :35ā“49.
Cutler, A. 1991. Nested Faunas and Extinction in Fragmented Habitats. Conservation Biology
Cutler, A. 1994. Nested Biotas and Biological Conservation: Metrics, Mechanisms, and Mean-
ing of Nestedness. Landscape and Urban Planning 28:73ā“82.
Damuth, J. 1982. Analysis of the Preservation of Community Structure in Assemblages of
Fossil Mammals. Paleobiology 8:434ā“446.
Damuth, J., and B. J. MacFadden (editors). 1990. Body Size in Mammalian Paleobiology: Esti-
mation and Biological Implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Darwent, C., and R. L. Lyman. 2002. Detecting the Postburial Fragmentation of Carpals,
Tarsals, and Phalanges. In Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, edited by W. D. Haglund and
M. H. Sorg, pp. 355ā“377. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Dean, R. M. 2001. Social Change and Hunting During the Pueblo III to Pueblo IV Transition,
East-Central Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:271 ā“285.
Dean, R. M. 2005a. Site-Use Intensity, Cultural Modiļ¬cation of the Environment, and the
Development of Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. American Antiquity
Dean, R. M. 2005b. Old Bones: The Effects of Curation and Exchange on the Interpretation
of Artiodactyl Remains in Hohokam Sites. Kiva 70:255ā“272.
Dechert, B. 1995. The Bone Remains from Hirbet-Ez Zeraqon. In Archaeozoology of the Near
East II, edited by H. Buitenhuis and H.-P. Uerpmann, pp. 79ā“87. Backhuys, Leiden, The
Dodson, P. 1973. The Signiļ¬cance of Small Bones in Paleoecological Interpretation. University
of Wyoming Contributions in Geology 12:15ā“19.
Dodson, P., and D. Wexlar. 1979. Taphonomic Investigations of Owl Pellets. Paleobiology
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 1997. Meat-Eating by Early Hominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus
Site, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): An Experimental Approach Using Cut-Mark Data. Journal
of Human Evolution 33:669ā“690.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 1999a. Flesh Availability and Bone Modiļ¬cations in Carcasses Con-
sumed by Lions: Palaeoecological Relevance in Hominid Foraging Patterns. Palaeogeogra-
phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 149:373ā“388.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 1999b. Distinguishing Between Apples and Oranges: The Application
of Modern Cut-Mark Studies to the Plio-Pleistocene (A Reply to Monahan). Journal of
Human Evolution 37:793ā“800.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 2002. Hunting and Scavenging by Early Humans: The State of the
Debate. Journal of World Prehistory 16:1 ā“54.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 2003a. Bone Surface Modiļ¬cations, Power Scavenging and the āDis-
playā Model at Early Archaeological Sites: A Critical Review. Journal of Human Evolution
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M. 2003b. On Cut Marks and Statistical Inferences: Methodological
Comments on Lupo & Oā™Connell (2002). Journal of Archaeological Science 30:381 ā“386.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M., and R. Barba. 2006. New Estimates of Tooth Mark and Percussion
Mark Frequencies at the FLK Zinj Site: The Carnivoreā“Hominidā“Carnivore Hypothesis
Falsiļ¬ed. Journal of Human Evolution 50:170ā“194.
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, M., and T. R. Pickering. 2003. Early Hominid Hunting and Scavenging:
A Zooarchaeological Review. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:275ā“282.
Driver, J. C. 1992. Identiļ¬cation, Classiļ¬cation and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9(1 ):35ā“47.
Ducos, P. 1968. Lā™Origine des Animaux Domestiques en Palestine. Publications de lā™Institut de
PrĀ“ histoire de lā™UniversitĀ“ de Bordeaux MĀ“ moire 6.
e e e
Dunnell, R. C. 1967. Prehistory of Fishtrap Kentucky: Archaeological Interpretation in Marginal
Areas. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven,
Dunnell, R. C. 1972. Prehistory of Fishtrap Kentucky. Yale University Publications in Anthro-
pology No. 75. New Haven, Connecticut.
During, E. 1986. The Fauna of Alvastra: An Osteological Analysis of Animal Bones from a
Neolithic Pile Dwelling. Ossa 12(Supplement 1):1 ā“210.
Dyck, I., and R. E. Morlan. 1995. The Sjovold Site: A River Crossing Campsite in the Northern
Plains. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 151. Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Hull, Quebec.
Edgar, H. J. H., and P. W. Sciulli. 2006. Comparative Human and Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Taphonomy at the Richards Site, Ohio. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16:124ā“137.
Efremov, I. A. 1940. Taphonomy: New Branch of Paleontology. Pan-American Geologist 74:81 ā“
Egeland, C. P. 2003. Carcass Processing Intensity and Cutmark Creation: An Experimental
Approach. Plains Anthropologist 48:39ā“51.
Egi, N. 2001. Body Mass Estimates in Extinct Mammals from Limb Bone Dimensions: The
Case of North American Hyaenodontids. Paleontology 44:497ā“528.
Ellis, D. V. n.d. Untitled manuscript report on the 1984 Willamette Associatesā™ investigations in
the Meier site locality. Unpublished report on ļ¬le, Department of Anthropology, Portland
State University, Portland.
Emerson, T. E. 1978. A New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the Northern White-
tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 3:35ā“
Emerson, T. E. 1983. From Bones to Venison: Calculating the Edible Meat of a White-Tailed
Deer. In Prairie Archaeology, edited by G. E. Gibbon, pp. 63ā“73. University of Minnesota
Publications in Anthropology No. 3. Minneapolis.
Enloe, J. G. 2003a. Acquisition and Processing of Reindeer in the Paris Basin. In
Zooarchaeological Insights into Magdalenian Lifeways, edited by S. Costamagno and
V. Laroulandie, pp. 23ā“31. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1144.
Enloe, J. G. 2003b. Food Sharing Past and Present: Archaeological Evidence for Economic and
Social Interactions. Before Farming: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers
1 :1 ā“23.
Enloe, J. G., and F. David. 1992. Food Sharing in the Paleolithic: Carcass Reļ¬tting at Pincevent.
In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Reļ¬tting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J. L.
Hoffman and J. G. Enloe, pp. 296ā“315. British Archaeological Reports International Series
Enloe, J. G., F. David, and G. Baryshnikov. 2000. Hyenas and Hunters: Zooarchaeological
Investigations at Prolom II Cave, Crimea. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10:310ā“
Errington, P. L. 1930. The Pellet Analysis Method of Raptor Food Habits Study. Condor 32:292ā“
Everitt, B. S. 1977. The Analysis of Contingency Tables. Chapman and Hall, London.
Ewen, C. R. 1986. Fur Trade Archaeology: A Study of Frontier Hierarchies. Historical Archae-
Fagerstrom, J. A. 1964. Fossil Communities in Paleoecology: Their Recognition and Signiļ¬-
cance. Geological Society of America Bulletin 75:1197ā“1216.
Faith, J. T., and A. D. Gordon. 2007. Skeletal Element Abundances in Archaeofaunal
Assemblages: Economic Utility, Sample Size, and Assessment of Carcass Transport Strate-
gies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:872ā“882.
Fernandez-Jalvo, Y, and P. Andrews. 1992. Small Mammal Taphonomy of Gran Dolina,
Atapuerca (Burgos), Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:407ā“428.
Fieller, N. R. J., and A. Turner. 1982. Number Estimation in Vertebrate Samples. Journal of
Archaeological Science 9:49ā“62.
Fisher, A. K. 1896. Food of the Barn Owl (Strix pratincola). Science 3:624ā“625.
Fisher, J. W., Jr. 1995. Bone Surface Modiļ¬cations in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 2:7ā“68.
Fisher, R. A., A. S. Corbet, and C. B. Williams. 1943. The Relation Between the Number of
Species and the Number of Individuals in a Random Sample of an Animal Population.
Journal of Animal Ecology 12:42ā“58.
Flannery, K. V. 1965. The Ecology of Early Food Production in Mesopotamia. Science 147:1247ā“
Flannery, K. V. 1969. Origins and Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran and the
Near East. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko
and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 73ā“100. Aldine, Chicago.
Ford, J. A. 1962. A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Pan American Union,
Technical Bulletin No. 1.
Francillon-Vieillot, H., V. de BuffrĀ“ nil, J. Castanet, J. GĀ“ raudi, F. J. Meunier, J. Y. Sire, L.
Zylberberg, and A. de Ricql` s. 1990. Microstructure and Mineralization of Vertebrate Skele-
tal Tissues. In Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes, and Evolutionary Trends, edited
by J. G. Carter, pp. 471 ā“530. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Gamble, C. 1978. Optimising Information from Studies of Faunal Remains. In Sampling in
Contemporary British Archaeology, edited by J. F. Cherry, C. Gamble, and S. Shennan,
pp. 321 ā“353. British Archaeological Reports British Series 50. Oxford.
Gangestad, S. W., and R. Thornhill. 1998. The Analysis of Fluctuating Asymmetry Redux:
The Robustness of Parametric Statistics. Animal Behavior 55:497ā“501.
Gargett, R. H., and D. Vale. 2005. Thereā™s Something Fishy Going on Around Here. Journal
of Archaeological Science 32:647ā“652.
Gaston, K. J. 1996. Species Richness: Measure and Measurement. In Biodiversity: A Biology of
Numbers and Difference, edited by K. J. Gaston, pp. 77ā“113. Blackwell Scientiļ¬c, Oxford.
Gautier, A. 1984. How Do I Count You, Let Me Count the Ways? Problems of Archaeozoological
Quantiļ¬cation. In Animals and Archaeology 4: Husbandry in Europe, edited by C. Grigson
and J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 237ā“251. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 227.
Gautier, A. 1993. Trace Fossils in Archaeozoology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:511 ā“523.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. 1989. Ethnographic Analogs for Interpreting Modiļ¬ed Bones: Some
Cases from East Africa. In Bone Modiļ¬cation, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg,
pp. 179ā“246. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Orono, Maine.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. 1991. Bones Are Not Enough: Analogues, Knowledge, and Interpretive
Strategies in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:215ā“254.
Gilbert, A. S. 1979. Urban Taphonomy and Mammalian Remains from the Bronze Age of
Godin Tepe, Western Iran. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Uni-
versity Microļ¬lms, Ann Arbor.
Gilbert, A. S., and B. H. Singer. 1982. Reassessing Zooarchaeological Quantiļ¬cation. World
Archaeology 14:21 ā“40.
Gilbert, A. S., B. H. Singer, and D. Perkins, Jr. 1981. Quantiļ¬cation Experiments on Computer-
Simulated Faunal Collections. Ossa 8:79ā“94.
Gilbert, B. M. 1969. Some Aspects of Diet and Butchering Techniques Among Prehistoric
Indians in South Dakota. Plains Anthropologist 14:277ā“294.
Gilinsky, N. L., and J. B. Bennington. 1994. Estimating Numbers of Whole Individuals from
Collections of Body Parts: A Taphonomic Limitation of the Paleontological Record. Pale-
Gobalet, K. W. 2001. A Critique of Faunal Analysis: Inconsistency Among Experts in Blind
Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:377ā“386.
Gobalet, K. W. 2005. Comment on āSize Matters: 3-mm Sieves Do Not Increase Richness in
a Fishbone Assemblage from Arrawarra I, An Aboriginal Australian Shell Midden on the
Mid-North Coast of New South Wales, Australiaā by Vale and Gargett. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 32:643ā“645.
Gotelli, N. J., and R. K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying Biodiversity: Procedures and Pitfalls in the
Measurement and Comparison of Species Richness. Ecology Letters 4:379ā“391.
Graham, R. W. 1984. Paleoenvironmental Implications of the Quaternary Distribution of the
Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) in Central Texas. Quaternary Research 21 :111 ā“114.
Grayson, D. K. 1973. On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 39:432ā“
Grayson, D. K. 1978a. Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis.
American Antiquity 43:53ā“65.
Grayson, D. K. 1978b. Reconstructing Mammalian Communities: A Discussion of Shotwellā™s
Method of Paleoecological Analysis. Paleobiology 4:77ā“81.
Grayson, D. K. 1979. On the Quantiļ¬cation of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 199ā“237. Academic
Press, New York.
Grayson, D. K. 1981a. A Critical View of the Use of Archaeological Vertebrates in Paleoenvi-
ronmental Reconstruction. Journal of Ethnobiology 1 :28ā“38.
Grayson, D. K. 1981b. The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate
Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:77ā“88.
Grayson, D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological
Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Grayson, D. K. 1988. Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas.
American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers Vol. 66, No. 1 . New York.
Grayson, D. K. 1991a. Alpine Faunas from the White Mountains, California: Adaptive Change
in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeological Science 18:483ā“506.
Grayson, D. K. 1991b. The Small Mammals of Gatecliff Shelter: Did People Make a Difference?
In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited
by J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klippel, and B. W. Styles, pp. 99ā“109. Illinois State Museum Scientiļ¬c
Papers 23. Springļ¬eld.
Grayson, D. K. 1998. Moisture History and Small Mammal Community Richness During the
Latest Pleistocene and Holocene, Northern Bonneville Basin, Utah. Quaternary Research
Grayson, D. K. 2000. The Homestead Cave Mammals. In Late Quaternary Paleoecology in
the Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madsen, pp. 67ā“89. Utah Geological Survey Bulletin
130. Salt Lake City.
Grayson, D. K., and F. Delpech. 1994. The Evidence for Middle Paleolithic Scavenging from
Couche VIII, Grotte Valley (Dordogne, France). Journal of Archaeological Science 21 :359ā“
Grayson, D. K., and F. Delpech. 1998. Changing Diet Breadth in the Early Upper Paleolithic
of Southwestern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1119ā“1129.
Grayson, D. K., F. Delpech, J.-P. Rigaud, and J. F. Simek. 2001. Explaining the Development of
Dietary Dominance by a Single Ungulate Taxon at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal
of Archaeological Science 28:115ā“125.
Grayson, D. K., and C. J. Frey. 2004. Measuring Skeletal Part Representation in Archaeological
Faunas. Journal of Taphonomy 2:27ā“42.
Greenļ¬eld, H. J. 1999. The Origins of Metallurgy: Distinguishing Stone from Metal Cut-Marks
on Bones from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:797ā“808.
Guilday, J. E. 1970. Animal Remains from Archeological Excavations at Fort Ligonier. Annals
of the Carnegie Museum 42:177ā“186.
Guilday, J. E., P. W. Parmalee, and D. P. Tanner. 1962. Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at
the Eschelman Site (36LA12), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist
Guthrie, R. D. 1968. Paleoecology of the Large-Mammal Community in Interior Alaska During
the Late Quaternary. American Midland Naturalist 79:346ā“363.
Guthrie, R. D. 1982. Mammals of the Mammoth Steppe as Paleoenvironmental Indicators. In
Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by D. M. Hopkins, J. V. Matthews, Jr., C. E. Schweger, and
S. B. Young, pp. 307ā“326. Academic Press, New York.
Guthrie, R. D. 1984a. Alaskan Megabucks, Megabulls, and Megagrams: The Issue of Pleistocene
Gigantism. In Contributions in Quaternary Vertebrate Paleontology: A Volume in Memorial
to John E. Guilday, edited by H. H. Genoways and M. R. Dawson, pp. 482ā“510. Carnegie
Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 8. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Guthrie, R. D. 1984b. Mosaics, Allelochemics, and Nutrients: An Ecological Theory of
Late Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revo-
lution, edited by P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 259ā“298. University of Arizona Press,
Hadly, E. A. 1999. Fidelity of Terrestrial Vertebrate Fossils to a Modern Ecosystem. Palaeo-
geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 149:389ā“409.
Hardesty, D. L. 1975. The Niche Concept: Suggestions for Its Use in Human Ecology. Human
Ecology 3:71 ā“85.
Haynes, G. 1980. Evidence of Carnivore Gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent Mammalian
Bones. Paleobiology 6:341 ā“351.
Haynes, G. 1988. Mass Deaths and Serial Predation: Comparative Taphonomic Studies of
Modern Large Mammal Death Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:119ā“135.
Haynes, G. 2002. Archeological Methods for Reconstructing Human Predation on Terrestrial
Vertebrates. In The Fossil Record of Predation, edited by M. Kowalewski and P. H. Kelley,
pp. 51 ā“67. Paleontological Society Paper No. 8. New Haven, Connecticut.
Henderson, R. A., and M. L. Heron. 1977. A Probabilistic Method of Paleobiogeographic
Analysis. Lethaia 10:1 ā“15.
Hesse, B. 1982. Bias in the Zooarchaeological Record: Suggestions for Interpretation of Bone
Counts in Faunal Samples from the Plains. In Plains Indian Studies: A Collection of Essays
in Honor of John C. Ewers and Waldo R. Wedel, edited by D. H. Ubelaker and H. J. Viola,
pp. 157ā“172. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 30. Washington, DC.
Hesse, B., and P. Wapnish. 1985. Animal Bone Archeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Manuals
on Archeology 5. Taraxacum, Washington, DC.
Hibbard, C. W. 1949. Techniques of Collecting Microvertebrate Fossils. University of Michigan
Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology 7(2):7ā“19.
Higham, C. F. W. 1968. Faunal Sampling and Economic Prehistory. Zeitschrift fur
Hoffman, A. 1979. Community Paleoecology as an Epiphenomenal Science. Paleobiology
Hoffman, R. 1988. The Contribution of Raptorial Birds to Patterning in Small Mammal
Assemblages. Paleobiology 14:81 ā“90.
Holland, S. 2005. Analytical Rarefaction, version 1.3. http://www.uga.edu/ā¼strata/software/
software.html. Accessed Nov. 15, 2006.
Holtzman, R. C. 1979. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Fossil Assemblage Composition.
Hopkins, H. L., and M. L. Kennedy. 2004. An Assessment of Indices of Relative and Abso-
lute Abundance for Monitoring Populations of Small Mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin
Horton, D. R. 1984. Minimum Numbers: A Consideration. Journal of Archaeological Science
Howard, H. 1930. A Census of the Pleistocene Birds of Rancho La Brea from the Collections
of the Los Angeles Museum. Condor 32:81 ā“88.
Hudson, J. 1990. Advancing Methods in Zooarchaeology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study Among
the Aka Pygmies. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Hudson, R. J., J. C. Haigh, and A. B. Bubenik. 2002. Physical and Physiological Adaptations.
In North American Elk: Ecology and Management, edited by D. E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas,
pp. 199ā“257. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Huelsbeck, D. R. 1989. Zooarchaeological Measures Revisited. Historical Archaeology 23:113ā“
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The Nonconcept of Species Diversity: A Critique and Alternative Param-
eters. Ecology 52:577ā“586.
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 ā“610.
Jackson, H. E., and S. L. Scott. 2002. Woodland Faunal Exploitation in the Midsouth. In
The Woodland Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 461 ā“482.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Jackson, J. B. C., and K. G. Johnson. 2001. Measuring Past Biodiversity. Science 293:2401 ā“
Jacobson, J. A. 2003. Identiļ¬cation of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) postcranial remains as a means of determining human subsistence
strategies. Plains Anthropologist 48:287ā“297.
Jacobson, J. A. 2004. Determining human ecology on the Plains through the identiļ¬cation of
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) postcranial
remains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
James, S. R. 1990. Monitoring Archaeofaunal Changes During the Transition to Agriculture
in the American Southwest. Kiva 56:25ā“43.
James, S. R. 1997. Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and Their
Effects on Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385ā“397.
Jamniczky, H. A., D. B. Brinkman, and A. P. Russell. 2003. Vertebrate Microsite Sampling:
How Much is Enough? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23:725ā“734.
Janson, S., and J. Vegelius. 1981. Measures of Ecological Association. Oecologia 49:371 ā“376.
Johnson, E. 1989. Human Modiļ¬ed Bones from Early Southern Plains Sites. In Bone Modiļ¬-
cation, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 431 ā“471. University of Maine Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Orono.
Johnson, R. E., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State: Location
Data and Predicted Distributions. Vol. 3. Washington State Gap Analysis Project Final Report,
Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington,
Jones, E. L. 2004. Dietary Evenness, Prey Choice, and Humanā“Environment Interactions.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31 :307ā“317.
Kadane, J. B. 1988. Possible Statistical Contributions to Paleoethnobotany. In Current Pale-
oethnobotany, edited by C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, pp. 206ā“214. University of Chicago
Kehoe, T. F., and A. B. Kehoe. 1960. Observations on the Butchering Technique at a Prehistoric
Bison-Kill in Montana. American Antiquity 25:421 ā“423.
Kent, S. 1981. The Dog: An Archaeologistā™s Best Friend or Worst Enemy ā“ The Spatial Distri-
bution of Faunal Remains. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:367ā“372.
Kerrich, J. E., and D. L. Clarke. 1967. Notes on the Possible Misuse and Errors of Cumulative
Percentage Frequency Graphs for the Comparison of Prehistoric Artefact Assemblages.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:57ā“69.
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of Species Abundance in Marine Death Assemblages. Science
Kidwell, S. M. 2002. Time-Averaged Molluscan Death Assemblages: Palimpsests of Richness,
Snapshots of Abundance. Geology 30:803ā“806.
Kintigh, K. W. 1984. Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated
Assemblages. American Antiquity 49:44ā“54.
Klein, R. G. 1978. The Fauna and Overall Interpretation of the āCutting 10ā Acheulian
Site at Elandsfontein (Hopeļ¬eld), Southwestern Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternary
Klein, R. G. 1980. The Interpretation of Mammalian Faunas from Stone-Age Archeological
Sites, with Special Reference to Sites in the Southern Cape Province, South Africa. In Fossils
in the Making, edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill, pp. 223ā“246. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Klein, R. G. 1989. Why Does Skeletal Part Representation Differ Between Smaller and Larger
Bovids at Klasies River Mouth and Other Archeological Sites? Journal of Archaeological
Klein, R. G., and K. Cruz-Uribe. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archeological Sites.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Klein, R. G., and K. Cruz-Uribe. 1991. The Bovids from Elandsfontein, South Africa, and Their
Implications for the Age, Palaeoenvironment, and Origins of the Site. African Archaeological
Review 9:21 ā“79.
Klein, R. G., and K. Cruz-Uribe. 1994. The Paleolithic Mammalian Fauna from the 1910ā’14
Excavations at El Castillo Cave (Cantabria). Museo y Centro de InvestigaciĀ“n de Altamira,
Monograļ¬as 17:141 ā“158.
Klippel, W. E., L. M. Snyder, and P. W. Parmalee. 1987. Taphonomy and Archaeologi-
cally Recovered Mammal Bone from Southeast Missouri. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:155ā“
Koch, C. F. 1987. Prediction of Sample Size Effects on the Measured Temporal and Geographic
Distribution Patterns of Species. Paleobiology 13:100ā“107.
Kooyman, B. 2004. Identiļ¬cation of Marrow Extraction in Zooarchaeological Assemblages
Based on Fracture Patterns. In Archaeology on the Edge: New Perspectives from the Northern
Plains, edited by B. Kooyman and J. H. Kelley, pp. 187ā“209. Canadian Archaeological
Association Occasional Paper No. 4. Calgary, Alberta.
Korth, W. W. 1979. Taphonomy of Microvertebrate Fossil Assemblages. Annals of the Carnegie
Kowalewski, M. 2002. The Fossil Record of Predation: An Overview of Analytical Methods.
In The Fossil Record of Predation, edited by M. Kowalewski and P. H. Kelley, pp. 3ā“42.
Paleontological Society Paper No. 8. New Haven, Connecticut.
Kowalewski, M., M. Carroll, L. Casazza, N. S. Gupta, B. Hannisdal, A. Hendy, R. A. Krause,
Jr., M. LaBarbera, D. G. Lazo, C. Messina, S. Puchalski, T. A. Rothfus, J. SĀØ lgeback, J.
Stempien, R. C. Terry, and A. Tomasovych. 2003. Quantitative Fidelity of Brachiopodā“
Mollusk Assemblages from Modern Subtidal Environments of San Juan Islands, USA.
Journal of Taphonomy 1 :43ā“66.
Kowalewski, M., G. A. Goodfriend, and K. W. Flessa. 1998. High-Resolution Estimates of
Temporal Mixing Within Shell Beds: The Evils and Virtues of Time-Averaging. Paleobiology
Kowalewski, M., and A. P. Hoffmeister. 2003. Sieves and Fossils: Effects of Mesh Size on
Paleontological Patterns. Palaios 18:460ā“469.
Krantz, G. S. 1968. A New Method of Counting Mammal Bones. American Journal of Archae-
Kranz, P. M. 1977. A Model for Estimating Standing Crop in Ancient Communities. Paleobi-
Krumbein, W. C. 1965. Sampling in Paleontology. In Handbook of Paleontological Techniques,
edited by B. Kummel and D. Raup, pp. 137ā“150. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
Kuehne, W. G. 1971. Collecting Vertebrate Fossils by the Henkel Process. Curator 14:175ā“179.
Kusmer, K. D. 1990. Taphonomy of Owl Pellet Deposition. Journal of Paleontology 64:629ā“
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and Partitioning of Species Diversity, and Similarity Among Multiple
Communities. Oikos 76:5ā“13.
Landon, D. B. 1996. Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zooarchaeological Study. Historical Archae-
ology 30:1 ā“153.
Lapham, H. A. 2005. Hunting for Hides: Deerskins, Status, and Cultural Change in the Proto-
historic Appalachians. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Lawrence, B. 1973. Problems in the Inter-Site Comparison of Faunal Remains. In Domestika-
tionsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by J. Matolcsi, pp. 397ā“402. Akademiai
Lawson, J. D. 1999. Autecology and Communities. In Paleocommunities: A Case Study from the
Silurian and Lower Devonian, edited by A. J. Boucot and J. D. Lawson, pp. 7ā“12. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Leonard, R. D. 1987. Incremental Sampling in Artifact Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology
Leonard, R. D. 1989. Anasazi Faunal Exploitation: Prehistoric Subsistence on Northern Black
Mesa, Arizona. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 13. Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale.
Leonard, R. D. 1997. The Sample Sizeā“Richness Relation: A Comment on Plog and Hegmon.
American Antiquity 62:713ā“716.
Leonardi, G., and G. L. Dellā™Arte. 2006. Food Habits of the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in a Steppe
Area of Tunisia. Journal of Arid Environments 65:677ā“681.
Lepofsky, D., and K. Lertzman. 2005. More on Sampling for Richness and Diversity in Archaeo-
biological Assemblages. Journal of Ethnobiology 25:175ā“188.
Lie, R. W. 1980. Minimum Number of Individuals from Osteological Samples. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 13:24ā“30.
Lie, R. W. 1983. Reply (to Wild and Nichol). Norwegian Archaeological Review 16:49.
Livingston, S. D. 1984. Faunal Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at Sites 45-OK-2 and 45-
OK-2A, Chief Joseph Dam Project, Washington, edited by S. K. Campbell, pp. 191 ā“205. Ofļ¬ce
of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington,
Seattle. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
Loreau, M. 2000. Are Communities Saturated? On the Relationship Between Ī±, Ī² and Ī³
Diversity. Ecology Letters 3:73ā“76.
Lorrain, D. 1968. Analysis of the Bison Bones from Bonļ¬re Shelter. In Bonļ¬re Shelter: A
Stratiļ¬ed Bison Kill Site, Val Verde County, Texas, edited by D. S. Dibble and D. Lorrain ,
pp. 78ā“132. Texas Memorial Museum, Miscellaneous Papers No. 1.
Lubinski, P. M. 2000. Of Bison and Lesser Mammals: Prehistoric Hunting Patterns in the
Wyoming Basin. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by D. B. Madsen and M. D. Metcalf,
pp. 176ā“188. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 122. Salt Lake City.
Lundelius, E., Jr. 1964. The Use of Vertebrates in Paleoecological Reconstructions. Fort Burgwin
Research Center Publication 3:26ā“31.
Lupo, K. D., and J. F. Oā™Connell. 2002. Cut and Tooth Mark Distributions on Large Animal
Bones: Ethnoarchaeological Data from the Hadza and Their Implications for Current Ideas
About Early Human Carnivory. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:85ā“109.
Lyman, R. L. 1977. Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains. Historical Archaeology 11 :67ā“73.
Lyman, R. L. 1979. Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques.
American Antiquity 44:536ā“546.
Lyman, R. L. 1984. Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 3:259ā“299.
Lyman, R. L. 1987a. Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic Perspective. Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory 10:249ā“337.
Lyman, R. L. 1987b. On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost-
Efļ¬cient Meat Purchases. Historical Archaeology 21 :58ā“66.
Lyman, R. L. 1988. Zooarchaeology of 45DO189. In Archaeological Investigations at River Mile
590: The Excavations at 45DO189, edited by J. R. Galm and R. L. Lyman, pp. 97ā“141. Eastern
Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100ā“61. Cheney.
Lyman, R. L. 1989. Taphonomy of Cervids Killed by the 18 May 1980 Volcanic Eruption of
Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S.A. In Bone Modiļ¬cation, edited by R. Bonnichsen and
M. Sorg, pp. 149ā“167. University of Maine Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono.
Lyman, R. L. 1991. Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Excavation Strategies and
Assemblage Size on Archaeological Inquiry. Academic Press, San Diego.
Lyman, R. L. 1992a. Review of āThe Economic Prehistory of Namuā by Aubrey Cannon.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 16:134ā“136.
Lyman, R. L. 1992b. Prehistoric Seal and Sea-Lion Butchering on the Southern Northwest
Coast. American Antiquity 57:246ā“261.
Lyman, R. L. 1994a. Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiq-
Lyman, R. L. 1994b. Relative Abundances of Skeletal Specimens and Taphonomic Analysis of
Vertebrate Remains. Palaios 9:288ā“298.
Lyman, R. L. 1994c. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lyman, R. L. 1995a. Determining When Rare (Zoo)Archaeological Phenomena Are Truly
Absent. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:369ā“424.
Lyman, R. L. 1995b. A Study of Variation in the Prehistoric Butchery of Large Artiodactyls. In
Ancient Peoples and Landscapes, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 233ā“253. Museum of Texas Tech
Lyman, R. L. 2003a. Pinniped Behavior, Foraging Theory, and the Depression of Metapop-
ulations and Nondepression of a Local Population on the Southern Northwest Coast of
North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:376ā“388.
Lyman, R. L. 2003b. The Inļ¬‚uence of Time Averaging and Space Averaging on the Application
of Foraging Theory in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:595ā“610.
Lyman, R. L. 2004a. Prehistoric Biogeography, Abundance, and Phenotypic Plasticity of Elk
(Cervus elaphus) in Washington State. In Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology, edited
by R. L. Lyman and K. P. Cannon, pp. 136ā“163. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lyman, R. L. 2004b. Late-Quaternary Diminution and Abundance of Prehistoric Bison (Bison
sp.) in Eastern Washington State, U.S.A. Quaternary Research 62:76ā“85.
Lyman, R. L. 2004c. The Concept of Equiļ¬nality in Taphonomy. Journal of Taphonomy 2:15ā“
Lyman, R. L. 2004d. Aboriginal Overkill in the Intermountain West of North America: Zooar-
chaeological Tests and Implications. Human Nature 15:169ā“208.
Lyman, R. L. 2005a. Zooarchaeology. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, edited by C.
Chippendale and H. D. G. Maschner, pp. 835ā“870. Altimira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Lyman, R. L. 2005b. Analyzing Cut Marks: Lessons from Artiodactyl Remains in the North-
western United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1722ā“1732.
Lyman, R. L. 2006a. Identifying Bilateral Pairs of Deer (Odocoileus sp.) Bones: How Symmet-
rical is Symmetrical Enough? Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1256ā“1265.
Lyman, R. L. 2006b. Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Abundance of Columbian White-Tailed
Deer, Portland Basin, Washington and Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Wildlife Management
Lyman, R. L. 2006c. Archaeological Evidence of Anthropogenically Induced Twentieth-
Century Diminution of North American Wapiti (Cervus elaphus). American Midland Nat-
Lyman, R. L., and K. A. Ames. 2004. Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: Lessons
from the Portland Basin, Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington. Journal of
Lyman, R. L., and K. A. Ames. 2007. On the Use of Species-Area Curves to Detect the Effects
of Sample Size. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1985ā“1990.
Lyman, R. L., and G. L. Fox. 1989. A Critical Evaluation of Bone Weathering as an Indication
of Bone Assemblage Formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:293ā“317.
Lyman, R. L., J. L. Harpole, C. Darwent, and R. Church. 2002. Prehistoric Occurrence of
Pinnipeds in the Lower Columbia River. Northwestern Naturalist 83:1 ā“6.
Lyman, R. L., and R. J. Lyman. 2003. Lessons from Temporal Variation in the Mammalian
Faunas from Two Collections of Owl Pellets in Columbia County, Washington. International
Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13:150ā“156.
Lyman, R. L., and M. J. Oā™Brien. 1987. Plow-Zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentation and
Identiļ¬ability. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:493ā“498.
Lyman, R. L., and M. J. Oā™Brien. 1999. Americanist Stratigraphic Excavation and the Mea-
surement of Culture Change. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:55ā“108.
Lyman, R. L., and M. J. Oā™Brien. 2005. Within-Taxon Morphological Diversity as a Paleoen-
vironmental Indicator: Late-Quaternary Neotoma in the Bonneville Basin, Northwestern
Utah. Quaternary Research 63:274ā“282.
Lyman, R. L., E. Power, and R. J. Lyman. 2001. Ontogeny of Deer Mice (Peromyscus manicu-
latus) and Montane Voles (Microtus montanus) as Owl Prey. American Midland Naturalist
Lyman, R. L., E. Power, and R. J. Lyman. 2003. Quantiļ¬cation and Sampling of Faunal Remains
in Owl Pellets. Journal of Taphonomy 1 :3ā“14.
Lyman, R. L., and J. Zehr. 2003. Archaeological Evidence of Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia
rufa) Mandibles as Chisels and Engravers on the Northwest Coast. Journal of Northwest
MacKenzie, D. I. 2005. What are the Issues with Presenceā“Absence Data for Wildlife Managers?
Journal of Wildlife Management 69:849ā“860.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press,
Maltby, J. M. 1985. Assessing Variation in Iron Age and Roman Butchery Practices: The Need
for Quantiļ¬cation. In Paleobiological Investigations: Research Design, Methods and Data
Analysis, edited by N. R. J. Fieller, D. D. Gilbertson, and N. G. A. Ralph, pp. 19ā“30. British
Archaeological Reports International Series 266. Oxford.
Marean, C. W. 1992. Hunter to Herder: Large Mammal Remains from the Hunter-Gatherer
Occupation at Enkapune Ya Muto Rockshelter, Central Rift, Kenya. The African Archaeo-
logical Review 10:65ā“127.
Marean, C. W. 1995. Of Taphonomy and Zooarcheology. Evolutionary Anthropology 4:64ā“72.
Marean, C. W., Y. Abe, C. J. Frey, and R. C. Randall. 2000. Zooarchaeological and Taphonomic
Analysis of the Die Kelders Cave 1 Layers 10 and 11 Middle Stone Age Larger Mammal Fauna.
Journal of Human Evolution 38:197ā“233.
Marean, C. W., Y. Abe, P. Nilssen, and E. Stone. 2001. Estimating the Minimum Number of
Skeletal Elements (MNE) in Zooarchaeology: A Review and A New Image-Analysis GIS
Approach. American Antiquity 66:333ā“348.
Marean, C. W., M. DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo, and T. R. Pickering. 2004. Skeletal Element Equi-
ļ¬nality in Zooarchaeology Begins with Method: The Evolution and Current Status of the
āShaft Critique.ā Journal of Taphonomy 2:69ā“98.
Marean, C. W., and C. L. Ehrhardt. 1995. Paleoanthropological and Paleoecological Impli-
cations of the Taphonomy of a Sabertoothā™s Den. Journal of Human Evolution 29:515ā“
Marean, C. W., and C. J. Frey. 1997. Animal Bones from Caves to Cities: Reverse Utility Curves
as Methodological Artifacts. American Antiquity 62:698ā“711.
Marean, C. W., and S. Y. Kim. 1998. Mousterian Large-Mammal Remains from Kobeh Cave:
Behavioral Implications for Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Current Anthropol-
Marean, C. W., and L. M. Spencer. 1991. Impact of Carnivore Ravaging on Zooarchaeological
Measures of Element Abundance. American Antiquity 56:645ā“658.
Marshall, F., and T. Pilgram. 1991. Meat versus Within-Bone Nutrients: Another Look at
the Meaning of Body-Part Representation in Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological
Marshall, F., and T. Pilgram. 1993. NISP vs. MNI in Quantiļ¬cation of Body-Part Representa-
tion. American Antiquity 58:261 ā“269.
Marti, C. D. 1987. Raptor Food Habits Studies. In Raptor Management Techniques Manual,
edited by B. A. G. Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird, pp. 67ā“80. National
Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Matthews, T. 2002. South African Micromammals and Predators: Some Comparative Results.
Mayhew, D. F. 1977. Avian Predators as Accumulators of Fossil Mammal Material. Boreas
McCartney, P. H., and M. F. Glass. 1990. Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archae-
ological Diversity. American Antiquity 55:521 ā“536.
McClure, S. B. 2004. Small Mammal Procurement in Coastal Contexts: A California Perspec-
tive. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 24:207ā“232.
McKenna, M. C. 1962. Collecting Small Fossils by Washing and Screening. Curator 5:221 ā“235.
McMahon, T. A. 1975. Allometry and Biomechanics: Limb Bones in Adult Ungulates. American
McMeekan, C. P. 1940. Growth and Development in the Pig, with Special Reference to Carcass
Quality Characters, Part I. Journal of Agricultural Science 30:276ā“343.
Mendoza, M., C. M. Janis, and P. Palmqvist. 2006. Estimating the Body Mass of Extinct
Ungulates: A Study on the Use of Multiple Regression. Journal of Zoology 270:90ā“101.
Miller, A. I., and M. Foote. 1996. Calibrating the Ordovician Radiation of Marine Life:
Implications for Phanerozoic Diversity Trends. Paleobiology 22:304ā“309.
Miller, G. R., and A. L. Gill. 1990. Zooarchaeology at Pirincay, a Formative Period Site in
Highland Ecuador. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:49ā“68.
Milo, R. G. 1998. Evidence for Hominid Predation at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa, and Its
Implications for the Behaviour of Early Modern Humans. Journal of Archaeological Science
Mollhagen, T. R., R. W. Wiley, and R. L. Packard. 1972. Prey Remains in Golden Eagle Nests:
Texas and New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:784ā“792.
Monahan, C. M. 1999. Comparing Apples and Oranges in the Plio-Pleistocene: Methodological
Comments on āMeat-Eating by Early Hominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus Site, Olduvai
Gorge (Tanzania): An Experimental Approach Using Cut-Mark Data.ā Journal of Human
Monks, G. G. 2000. How Much is Enough? An Approach to Sampling Ichthyofaunas. Ontario
Moore, P. D., J. A. Webb, and M. E. Collinson. 1991. Pollen Analysis, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientiļ¬c,
Morlan, R. E. 1983. Counts and Estimates of Taxonomic Abundance in Faunal Remains:
Microtine Rodents from Blueļ¬sh Cave I. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 7:61 ā“76.
Morlan, R. E. 1994. Bison Bone Fragmentation and Survivorship: A Comparative Method.
Journal of Archaeological Science 21 :797ā“807.
Morrison, D. A. 1997. Caribou Hunters in the Western Arctic: Zooarchaeology of the Rita-
Claire and Bison Skull Site. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 157.
Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec.
Muir, R. J., and J. C. Driver. 2002. Scale of Analysis and Zooarchaeological Interpretation:
Pueblo III Faunal Variation in the Northern San Juan Region. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 21 :165ā“199.
Munro, N. D., and G. Bar-Oz. 2005. Gazelle Bone Fat Processing in the Levantine Epipale-
olithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:223ā“239.
Nagaoka, L. 2001. Using Diversity Indices to Measure Changes in Prey Choice at the Shag
River Mouth Site, Southern New Zealand. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11 :101 ā“
Nagaoka, L. 2002. Explaining Subsistence Change in Southern New Zealand Using Foraging
Theory Models. World Archaeology 34:84ā“102.
Nagaoka, L. 2005a. Declining Foraging Efļ¬ciency and Moa Carcass Exploitation in Southern
New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1328ā“1338.
Nagaoka, L. 2005b. Differential Recovery of Paciļ¬c Island Fish Remains. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 32:941 ā“955.
Nance, J. D. 1983. Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:289ā“356.
Needs-Howarth, S. 1995. Quantifying Animal Food Diet: A Comparison of Four
Approaches Using Bones from a Prehistoric Iroquoian Village. Ontario Archaeology 60:92ā“
Nichol, R. K., and G. A. Creak. 1979. Matching Paired Elements Among Archaeological Bone
Remains: A Computer Procedure and Some Practical Limitations. Newsletter of Computer
Nichol, R. K., and C. J. Wild. 1984. āNumbers of Individualsā in Faunal Analysis: The Decay
of Fish Bone in Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11 :35ā“51.
Nichols, J. D. 1992. Captureā“Recapture Models: Using Marked Animals to Study Population
Dynamics. BioScience 42:94ā“102.
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1977. Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a Taphonomic Factor in Archae-
ological Deposits. Paleobiology 3:218ā“237.
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1989. Man-Made Trace Fossils on Bones. Human Evolution 4:461 ā“491.
Noodle, B. 1973. Determination of the Body Weight of Cattle from Bone Measurements. In
Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by J. Matolcsi, pp. 377ā“389.
Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Oā™Connell, J. F. 1987. Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American
Oā™Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes, K. D. Lupo, and N. G. Blurton Jones. 2003. Another Reply to
DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo. Journal of Human Evolution 45:417ā“419.
Oā™Connell, J. F., and K. D. Lupo. 2003. Reply to DomĀ“nguez-Rodrigo. Journal of Archaeological
Oā™Connor, T. 2000. The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College
Oā™Connor, T. P. 2001. Animal Bone Quantiļ¬cation. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences,
edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 703ā“710. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Oā™Connor, T. P. 2003. The Analysis of Urban Animal Bone Assemblages: A Handbook for Archae-
ologists. Archaeology of York 19(2):69ā“224. Council for British Archaeology, York.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Oliver, J. S. 1994. Estimates of Hominid and Carnivore Involvement in the FLK Zinjanthropus
Fossil Assemblage: Some Socioecological Implications. Journal of Human Evolution 27:267ā“
Olsen, S. L., and P. Shipman. 1988. Surface Modiļ¬cation on Bone: Trampling versus Butchery.
Journal of Archaeological Science 15:535ā“553.
Olszewski, T. 1999. Taking Advantage of Time Averaging. Paleobiology 25:226ā“238.
Olszewski, T. D. 2004. A Uniļ¬ed Mathematical Framework for the Measurement of Richness
and Evenness Within and Among Multiple Communities. Oikos 104:377ā“387.
Olszewski, T. D., and S. M. Kidwell. 2007. The Preservational Fidelity of Evenness in Molluscan
Death Assemblages. Paleobiology 33:1 ā“23.
Orchard, T. J. 2005. The Use of Statistical Size Estimations in Minimum Number Calculations.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15:351 ā“359.
Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Osman, R. W., and R. B. Whitlatch. 1978. Patterns of Species Diversity: Fact or Artifact?
Paleobiology 4:41 ā“54.
Palmer, A. R. 1986. Inferring Relative Levels of Genetic Variability in Fossils: The Link Between
Heterozygosity and Fluctuating Asymmetry. Paleobiology 12:1 ā“5.
Palmer, A. R. 1994. Fluctuating Asymmetry Analyses: A Primer. In Developmental Instability,
edited by T. A. Markow, pp. 335ā“364. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Palmer, A. R. 1996. Waltzing with Asymmetry. BioScience 46:518ā“532.