Plains Indian Studies - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

Bias in the Zooarcheological Record:
Suggestions for Interpretation of Bone Counts in
ABSTRACT
Faunal Samples from the Plains
A model of information content in archeological
animal bone samples is presented as an introduction
to the problem of identifying bias in the
faunal record. A solution to the problem will
require both attention to the assumptions implied
by the use of different methods of analysis and
development of rigorous quantitative models linking
human behavior and natural phenomena to
the archeological record.
Introduction
Waldo R. Wedel's critique of Two House Sites in
the Central Plains: An Experiment in Archaeology
(Wood, 1969) contains the following passage
(Wedel, 1970:16):
If ten bison scapulae were recognized in the refuse bone, we
can infer that no less than five animals died to furnish the
hoe-makings. Are we then to assume that only the scapulae
were utilized and the meat was ignored? It would seem
likelier that the animals were butchered at a watering place
in the nearby creek valley and only the wanted meat, plus
such bones and other parts as were desired for tool-making
and other specific aims, were carried back to the house on
Mowry Bluff.
This comment clearly reflects Dr. Wedel's deep
concern for the care with which inferences about
Plains human ecology are made. It also attests
Brian Hesse, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama in
Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.
Brian Hesse
157
to his long-standing interest in the study of faunal
remains, and, therefore, is an excellent starting
point for a discussion of zooarcheological
method. The passage distinguishes between two
conflicting interpretations drawn from the same
animal bone sample. In one view, the distorted
nature of a bison bone sample is emphasized
(almost all scapulae), an observation that leads
to the conclusion that the pursuit of bison was a
less important subsistence activity at Mowry Bluff
than in other Plains sites. On the other hand, the
relative frequency of bison bones in the collection
and the nature of Plains bison processing activities
is emphasized, leading to the contrasting
conclusion that bison and other Plains forms were
the mainstay of Mowry Bluff subsistence. Resolution
of these contradictory interpretations requires
an evaluation of quantitative methods in
zooarcheology. Before we can answer the question
about Mowry Bluff hunting, we need to understand
how bone counts reflect species frequency.
Since bias in these counts can arise from a wide
range of sources, it is useful to preface a discussion
of bone counting problems with an outline of the
nature of the zooarcheological record.
The Zooarcheological Record
Several authors stress the important idea that
archeological collections are samples drawn from
populations of contemporary phenomena (Binford
and Bertram, 1977:77; Cowgill, 1970:163;