Numerous simple measures are available for integrating both archaeological plant and animal data. It is difficult to provide a complete coverage of all these measures in this chapter for lack of space (for further reading see Grayson 1984; Hastorf and Popper 1988; Reitz and Wing 2008). Hence, the focus is on simple yet common measures that can be used to characterize both types of data, producing results that can be compared to achieve a broader understanding of ancient subsistence: ubiquity, diversity, ratios, correlation, and spatial analysis. For each measure, basic information is provided on the method of calculation and the method of-integration of plant and animal data. The published cases that have attempted to integrate plant and animal data using these measures are also discussed. The introductory chapter to this volume briefly discussed publications that incorporate both archaeological plant and animal data. Most of the works cited treat plant and animal data separately in terms of analysis and quantification, followed by an interpretive discussion that integrates independent patterns in a qualitative and complementary fashion. Very few authors have actually attempted to quantitatively integrate plant and animal datasets; these are the cases that have particular relevance to this chapter. I begin with a review of simple comparative measures and discuss the best way to arrive at appropriate comparative results. Most of the more integrative measures (also discussed below) can build on these simple measures. © 2010 Springer-Verlag New York.
CITATION STYLE
Vanderwarker, A. M. (2010). Simple measures for integrating plant and animal remains. In Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases (pp. 65–74). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0935-0_4
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.