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

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

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

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

5. Evaluation of recording & quantification method Richardson’s original method recorded all specimens, but also identified ‘diagnostic zones’ Thus rapid system can be compared to 2 levels to the original report: 1) Evaluate value of recording all specimens 2) Investigate affect of different zone criteria on analysis A LL SPECIMENS Z ONES R APID Z ONES O RIGINAL REPORT

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

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

8. Method summary All material recorded Zones: 34 post cranial zones 2 teeth 38 post-cranial Measurements Only material with zones is recorded: 22 post-cranial zones all teeth zones on prox. epiphyses not included in quantification 57 post-cranial measurements and tooth measurements O RIGINAL M ETHOD R APID Z ONE M ETHOD

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

10. Recording comparison Total Recorded Material 5000 + more specimens~ 800 more measurements O RIGINAL M ETHOD R APID Z ONE M ETHOD Both in MS Access Database

11. Quantification comparison Absolute Frequency O RIGINAL M ETHOD R APID Z ONE M ETHOD NISP – number of identified specimens Zone count – number of zones More material recorded than counted Instead of NISP use NCSP – number of counted specimens NISP = 6965 NCSP = 1218.5 Includes ‘animal-sized’ material Only 2 teeth Includes all teeth Z ONE C OUNT = 1498

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

13. Different zone criteria emphasize different body parts Absolute Frequency Difference in zone count 3 zones on limb shafts Only 2 teeth O RIGINAL Z ONE M ETHOD R APID Z ONE M ETHOD 1 zone per bone All teeth H YPOTHESIZED B IASES Fragmentation bias more equal: only 1 zone per bone More conservative system better describes recorded material Bias against animals not eaten (no dP 4 s) Bias toward animals with less-fragmented limbs zones (smaller)

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

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

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

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

18. Original Number of Limb Bone Zones Total MAU4764 6 MAU 3 MAU 4.5

19. Total MAU43153 4 Original Number of Limb Bone Zones MAU 4 MAU 6 MAU 5 MAU 3

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

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