Faunal Analysis

Method of Identification

The assemblages discussed here were analyzed using conventional zooarchaeological techniques and sources. ¹ Whenever possible, each bone or bone fragment was identified to species level. When this level of identification was not possible, higher-order taxonomic categories were used. The sheep/goat category was used for almost all caprine remains. Historic information indicates that sheep were much more common in Pennsylvania in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Additionally, no bones were identified as having specifically goat-like characteristics. ² Given these factors, it is assumed that the majority of the bones in the sheep/goat category belonged to sheep. When bones could not be identified to either species or family, they were assigned to categories such as large, medium, or small mammal, as explained further below. Other small bone fragments were simply assigned to class (such as mammal, bird, or fish). A small number of bone fragments remained entirely unidentifiable.

Mammal and bird bones in these assemblages were placed into designated size classes. This technique facilitated the classification of bones that could not be identified to a more specific taxonomic level. Table 1 details the size categories used in these analyses.

Mammals
Small	Cat-sized or smaller
Medium	Dog, sheep/goat, and small pig
Medium/large	Large pig and small (immature) cattle
Large	Larger than small (immature) cattle
Birds
Small	Small songbirds (such as robins)
Medium	Pigeons, ducks, chickens, and a variety of other wild fauna
Medium/large	Larger than chicken, smaller than turkey
Large	Turkeys, geese, and other large birds

Table 1. Size-class category descriptions for mammal and bird bones

Faunal analysis was recorded in the form of a Microsoft Excel database. Aside from the identification of each bone or bone fragment to the most specific taxonomic degree possible, bones were further identified by element, side, completeness (fragment or whole), state of fusion (fused or unfused), weight (in grams), incidence of cut marks, gnaw marks, degree of weathering, heat exposure (burned black or calcined), relevant measurements, ³ and aging based on dental eruption and wear. ⁴ Measurements were taken using a dial caliper to the tenth of a millimeter.

Qualification Techniques

Units of quantification used in these analyses include the number of identified specimens (NISP), the minimum number of individuals (MNI), bone weight (Wt) in grams, and the minimum number of meat cuts (MNMC). All of these techniques are subject to critique, but, when taken together, they facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of the total faunal assemblage.

The NISP is a straightforward count of all identifiable bone fragments. It is used to assess the relative abundance of a particular species within an assemblage. The main problem and the implicit assumption embedded within NISP calculations is the presupposition that each bone or bone fragment originated from a separate individual. However, some—if not many—of the bones in the assemblages may have derived from the same animal or same cut of meat, and would consequently be counted numerous times when using this quantification technique. This is referred to as the problem of interdependence. This technique also does not take into account differential preservation, differences in collection techniques, or variability in the identifiability of certain skeletal elements. ⁵

NISP calculations in faunal analysis are often counterbalanced by MNI calculations, which estimate the smallest number of individual specimens that would be necessary to account for all the bones represented in a given assemblage. This technique estimates the relative importance of the various species found present by using the most commonly identified element in each species. It provides a conservative estimate of the number of animals represented by the bones in any given assemblage. The problem with MNI is that it can result in an overestimation of the importance of the less common species in an assemblage. Small sample sizes, in particular, tend to overemphasize the relative abundance of the rare or less abundant species within a particular sample. ⁶

Problems with NISP and MNI can be exacerbated in historic faunal assemblages because smaller fauna (such as fish or birds) were often sold whole, whereas larger animals (such as cattle, pigs, and sheep) were often, but not always, sold as individual cuts of meat. Consequently, preference for a particular cut of meat might result in overrepresentation of the MNI of a particular species in an assemblage. ⁷

Another method of quantification is the calculation of weight. This technique rests on the notion that “a predictable and sufficiently constant proportion of the weight of a mammal is its skeleton, and another predictable and sufficiently constant proportion is potentially edible muscle.” ⁸ Given this fact, comparing the relative abundance of taxa by weight of bone fragments should provide an estimate of their potential dietary contribution. Many varied concerns have been raised over the use of weight as a valuable quantification technique. For example, differential destruction and transport of bone fragments of different densities can skew the composition of an assemblage. Additionally, the bone weight to total body weight ratio is not consistent throughout the animal kingdom. ⁹ However, comparing the weights of the bones of animals in the same class with relatively similar body sizes should allow an analyst to estimate potential dietary contribution.

The final quantification technique used in these analyses focuses on MNMC. In historic assemblages, this method can be particularly revealing, as animals were often butchered and sold/purchased as cuts of meat rather than whole animals. This level of analysis allows an analyst to more accurately predict and discuss the meat packages present in a particular assemblage. In the analyses presented here, the bones from these specific assemblages were assigned, wherever possible, to specific meat cuts based on butchery diagrams found in cookbooks from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Further information about these meat cuts can be found in the Learn More section on historical cuts of meat. One major problem with this method is that the archaeological record only provides evidence for bone-in cuts of meat. Some of the least expensive cuts of meat were the boneless cuts (bacon, sausages, flanks, chops, and stew meats). It is quite possible that this technique fails to identify or acknowledge the presence of cuts of meat that may have been the most prevalent in any given context.

Ultimately, it is the combination of all of these techniques that yields the clearest picture of the meaning of faunal remains in any given assemblage. Incorporating multiple methods, while keeping in mind each of their strengths and weaknesses, culminates in the best possible understanding of the zooarchaeological remains.

Comparative Collections and References Used in Analysis

Comparative zooarchaeological collections utilized for the faunal analyses described here include those housed in the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and materials from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.

In addition, numerous published reference materials were utilized during the analysis, as listed below:

Amorosi, Thomas
1989	A Postcranial Guide to Domestic Neo-Natal and Juvenile Mammals: The Identification and Aging of Old World Species. BAR International Series 533, Oxford.
Asmussen, Brit
2009	Intentional or incidental thermal modification? Analyzing site occupation via burned bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2):528-536.
Balkwill, Darlene McQuaig, and Stephen L. Cumba
1992	A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos taurus and Bison bison. Syllogeus No. 71. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.
Boessneck, J.
1970	Osteological Differences Between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goats (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, edited by D. R. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, pp. 331–358. Praeger, New York.
Brown, Christopher L., and Carl E. Gustafson
1979	A Key to Postcranial Skeletal Remains of Cattle/Bison, Elk, and Horse. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Cohen, Alan, and Dale Serjeantson
1996	A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites. Archetype Publications, London.
Davis, Simon J. M.
1987	The Archaeology of Animals. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Derue, A.
2004	La découpe des viandes de boucherie. Éditions Delagrave, Paris.
Ford, Pamela J.
1990	Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: A Guide to the Carpals. Journal of Ethnobiology 10(2):169–181.
Gilbert, B. Miles
1973	Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.
Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage
1981	Avian Osteology. B. M. Gilbert, Laramie, Wyoming.
Grant, Annie
1982	The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, pp. 91–108. BAR British Series 109, Oxford.
Grayson, Donald K.
1978	Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 43:53–65.
1979	On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 199–237. Academic Press, New York.
1984	Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Hale, Sarah Josepha Buell
1839	The Good Housekeeper, or The Way to Live Well and to Be Well While We Live Containing Directions for Choosing and Preparing Food in Regard to Health, Economy and Taste. Weeks, Jordan, Boston.
Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish
1985	Animal Bone Archaeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Manuals on Archaeology 5. Taraxacum, Washington.
Hildebrand, Milton
1955	Skeletal differences between deer, sheep, and goats. California Fish and Game 41:327–346.
Hillson, Simon
1986	Teeth. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe
1984	The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lyman, R. Lee
1994	Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Milne, Claudia
2002	Appendix C: The Faunal Assemblages from the Block 2 Features. In Hudson's Square – A Place Through Time: Archaeological Data Recovery on Block 2 of Independence Mall. John Milner Associates. Submitted to Day & Zimmerman Infrastructure. Copies available from Independence National Historic Park, Philadelphia
Milne, Claudia, and Pam Crabtree
2000	Revealing Meals: Ethnicity, Economic Status, and Diet at Five Points, 1800–1860. In An Interpretive Approach to Understanding Working-Class Life, edited by R. Yamin, pp. 130–196. Tales of Five Points: Working-Class Life in Nineteenth Century New York, Vol. II. John Milner Associates, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Nicholson, R. A.
1993	A morphological investigation of burnt animal bone and an evaluation of its utility in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:411–428.
O'Connor, Terry
2000	The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Olsen, Stanley J.
1964	Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites. Part I – Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol. 56, No. 1. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1968	Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites. Part I – Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Vol. 56, No. 2. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1979	Osteology for the Archaeologist. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 56 (nos. 1–5). Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Payne, Sebastian
1969	A Metrical Distinction between Sheep and Goat Metacarpals. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 295–306. Aldine, Chicago.
1985	Morphological Differences between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:139–147.
Prummel, Wietske
1987a	Atlas for identification of foetal skeletal elements of Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Pig – Part 1. Archaeozoologia 1:23–30.
1987b	Atlas for identification of foetal skeletal elements of Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Pig – Part 2. Archaeozoologia I(2):11–42.
1988	Atlas for identification of foetal skeletal elements of Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Pig – Part 3. Archaeozoologia II(1, 2):13–26.
Reitz, Elizabeth Jean, and Elizabeth S. Wing
1999	Zooarchaeology. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter
1998	Improved Separation of Neolithic Metapodials of Sheep (Ovis) and Goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(3):251–258.
Schmid, Elisabeth
1972	Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam.
Shipman, P., G. Foster, and M. Schoeninger
1984	Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:307–325.
Sisson, Septimus and James Daniels Grossman
1953	The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 4th ed. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
von den Driesch, Angela
1976	A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Walker, Rikki
1985	A Guide to Post-Cranial Bones of East African Animals. Hylochoerus, Norwich, England.
Wilson, Bob, Caroline Grigson, and Sebastian Payne
1982	Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. BAR British Series 109, Oxford.