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

Journal of Archaeological Science

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1854-1861

  Lyman, R Lee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Rodent teeth; Screen mesh size; Tooth shape; Tooth size; Zooarchaeology

Indexed keywords

ARCHAEOLOGY; BODY SIZE; MESH SIZE; RODENT; SKELETAL REMAINS; TAXONOMY; TOOTH;

UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

RODENTIA;

EID: 84860618195     PISSN: 03054403     EISSN: 10959238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.027     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ball B.F., Bobrowsky P.T. Cost effectiveness and time management evaluation of intensive recovery techniques. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1987, 11:75-97.
2. Bell C.J., Mead J.I. Late Pleistocene microtine rodents from Snake Creek Burial Cave, White Pine County, Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 1998, 58:82-86.
3. Binford L.R. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology 1978, Academic Press, New York.
4. Binford L.R., Bertram J.B. Bone frequencies-and attritional processes. For Theory Building in Archaeology 1977, 77-153. Academic Press, New York. L.R. Binford (Ed.).
5. Brain C.K. The contribution of the Namib Desert Hottentots to an understanding of australopithecine bone accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 1969, 39:13-22.
6. Butler V.L. Fish remains. The Duwamish No. 1 Site: 1986 Data Recovery 1987, URS Corporation and BOAS, Inc., Seattle, Washington, Report submitted to METRO, pp. 10.1-10.37.
7. Butler V.L. Natural versus cultural salmonid remains: origin of The Dalles Roadcut bones, Columbia River, Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 1993, 20:1-24.
8. Casteel R.W. Some biases in the recovery of archaeological faunal remains. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1972, 38:382-388.
9. Clason A.T., Prummel W. Collecting, sieving and archaeozoological research. Journal of Archaeological Science 1977, 4:171-175.
10. Dalquest, W.W., Stangl, F.B., Jr., 1983. Identification of Seven Species of Peromyscus from Trans-Pecos Texas by Characteristics of the Lower Jaws. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University 90, 1-12.
11. Darwent C.M., Lyman R.L. Detecting the postburial fragmentation of carpals, tarsals, and phalanges. Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives 2002, 355-377. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. W.D. Haglund, M.H. Sorg (Eds.).
12. DeMarcay G.B., Steele D.G. The value of fine screening on inland based hunter-gatherer habitation sites. Choke Canyon Series No. 11 1986, 250-264. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio. C.L. Highley (Ed.).
13. Densmore N. Discussion of screen size and resource depression: using an examination of Faleloa, Tonga. Nexus: The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology 2009, 21:41-48.
14. Feldhamer G.A. Vegetative and edaphic factors affecting abundance and distribution of small mammals in southeast Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 1979, 39:207-218.
15. Fitch J.E. Fish remains recovered from a Corona del Mar, California, Indian midden (ORA-190). California Fish and Game 1967, 53:185-191.
16. Fryxell R., Bielicki T., Daugherty R.D., Gustafson C.E., Irwin H.T., Keel B.C. A human skeleton from sediments of mid-Pinedale age in southeastern Washington. American Antiquity 1968, 33:511-515.
17. Fryxell R., Bielicki T., Daugherty R.D., Gustafson C.E., Irwin H.T., Keel B.C., Krantz G.S. Human skeletal material and artifacts from sediments of Pinedale (Wisconsin) glacial age in southeastern Washington, United States. Ethnology and Archaeology 1968, vol. 3:176-181.
18. Fryxell R., Keel B.C. Emergency Salvage Excavations for the Recovery of Early Human Remains and Related Scientific Materials from the Marmes Rockshelter Archaeological Site, Southeastern Washington 1969, (Final report from the Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington).
19. Gifford E.W. Composition of California Shell-mounds 1916, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 12, pp. 1-29.
20. Gobalet K.W. Remains of tiny fish from a late prehistoric Pomo site near Clear Lake, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 1989, 11:231-239.
21. Gordon E.A. Screen size and differential faunal recovery: a Hawaiian example. Journal of Field Archaeology 1993, 20:453-460.
22. Marmes Rockshelter: A Final Report on 11,000 Years of Cultural Use 2004, Washington State University Press, Pullman. B.A. Hicks (Ed.).
23. Hooper E.T. Dental Patterns in Mice of the Genus Peromyscus 1957, Miscellaneous Pubications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 99. Ann Arbor.
24. James S.R. Methodological issues concerning screen size recovery rates and their effects on archaeofaunal interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 1997, 24:385-397.
25. Jenkins, R.A., 2006. From midden to sieve: the impact of differential recovery and quantification techniques on interpretations of shellfish remains in Australian coastal archaeology. Bachelor's degree Honours Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
26. Kobori L.S. Differential Bone Recovery Experiment. Ezra's Retreat: A Rockshelter/Cave Occupation Site in the North Central Great Basin 1979, 228-229. University of California at Davis, Center for Archaeological Research Publication 6. J.C. Bard, C.I. Busby, L.S. Kobori (Eds.).
27. Krumbein W.C. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 1941, 11:64-72.
28. Lees G. A new method for determining the angularity of particles. Sedimentology 1964, 3:2-21.
29. Lyman R.L. Quantitative Paleozoology 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
30. Lyman R.L. Rodent-prey content in long-term samples of barn owl (Tyto alba) pellets from the northwestern United States reflects local agricultural change. American Midland Naturalist 2012, 167:150-163.
31. Maser C., Storm R.M. A Key to Microtinae of the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho) 1970, Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis.
32. McGuire J.L. Identifying California Microtus species using geometric morphometrics documents Quaternary geographic range contractions. Journal of Mammalogy 2011, 92:1383-1394.
33. Mehringer P.J. Columbia River Basin Ecosystems: Late Quaternary Environments 1996, USDA Forest Service, Walla Walla, Washington, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
34. Muckle R.J. Differential recovery of mollusk shell from archaeological sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 1994, 21:129-131.
35. Nagaoka L. Differential recovery of Pacific island fish remains: evidence from the Moturakau rockshelter, Aitutaki, Cook Islands. Asian Perspectives 1994, 33:1-17.
36. Nagaoka L. Differential recovery of Pacific Island fish remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 2005, 32:941-955.
37. Nichol R.K., Williams L.J. Screen size and sample stratification in efficient shell midden analysis. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 1980, 2:141-148.
38. Ozbun T.L. The inadequacy of the 1/4 inch mesh screen in archaeology. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 2011, 45:235-242.
39. Palmiotto A. A zooarchaeological synthesis of South Carolina's prehistoric coastal sites. Southeastern Archaeology 2011, 30:166-175.
40. Partlow M.A. Sampling fish bones: a consideration of the importance of screen size and disposal context in the north Pacific. Arctic Anthropology 2006, 43:67-79.
41. Payne S. Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving experiments. Papers in Economic Prehistory 1972, 49-64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. E.S. Higgs (Ed.).
42. Payne S. Partial recovery and sample bias. Archaeozoological Studies 1975, 7-17. North-Holland, Amsterdam. A.T. Clason (Ed.).
43. Quitmyer I.R. What kind of data are in the back dirt? An experiment on the influence of screen size on optimal data recovery. Archaeofauna 2004, 13:109-129.
44. Ross A., Duffy R. Fine mesh screening of midden material and the recovery of fish bone: the development of flotation and deflocculation techniques for an efficient and effective procedure. Geoarchaeology 2000, 15:21-41.
45. Semken H.A. Holocene climatic reconstructions derived from the three micromammal bearing cultural horizons of the Cherokee Sewer Site, northwestern Iowa. The Cherokee Excavations: Holocene Ecology and Human Adaptations in Northwestern Iowa 1980, 67-99. Academic Press, New York. D.C. Anderson, H.A. Semken (Eds.).
46. Semken H.A., Wallace S.C. Key to arvicoline (" microtine" rodents) and arvicoline-like lower first molars recovered from late Wisconsinan and Holocene archaeological and palaeontological sites in eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 2002, 29:23-31.
47. Shaffer B.S. Quarter-inch screening: understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity 1992, 57:129-136.
48. Shaffer B.S., Sanchez J.L.J. Comparison of 1/8 in.- and 1/4 in.-mesh recovery of controlled samples of small-to-medium-sized mammals. American Antiquity 1994, 59:525-530.
49. Sneed E.D., Folk R.L. Pebbles in the Lower Colorado River, Texas: a study in particle morphogenesis. Journal of Geology 1958, 66:114-150.
50. Stewart K.M., Coupland G., Naughton D. Effects of screen size on fish element recovery in northern Northwest Coast middens. Transitions in Zooarchaeology 2003, 53-63. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa. K.M. Stewart, F.L. Stewart (Eds.).
51. Stewart K.M., Wigen R.J. Screen size and the need for reinterpretation: a case study from the Northwest Coast. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 2003, vol. 44:27-34. University of Florida, Gainesville. F.W. King, C.M. Porter (Eds.).
52. Thomas D.H. Great Basin hunting patterns: a quantitative method for treating faunal remains. American Antiquity 1969, 34:392-401.
53. Vale D., Gargett R.H. Size 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. Journal of Archaeological Science 2002, 29:57-63.
54. Verts B.J., Carraway L.N. Land Mammals of Oregon 1998, University of California Press, Berkeley.
55. Wing E.S., Quitmyer I.R. Screen size for optimal data recovery: a case study. Zooarchaeology 1985, vol. 2:49-58. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations No. 2. W.H. Adams (Ed.).
56. Zingg T. Beitrage zur schatteranalyse. Schweizerische Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen 1935, 15. pp. 39-140.
57. Zohar I., Belmaker M. Size does matter: methodological comments on sieve size and species richness in fishbone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 2005, 32:635-641.