Testing the robustness of NISP and MNE: Results of a blind test

Summary

Archaeozoologists generally consider that counts are replicable data accurately representing the initial abundances of elements, individuals or taxa. However, few studies have examined these assumptions with control data. To test the robustness of NISP (Number of Identified SPecimens) and MNE (Minimum Number of Element) counts, we conducted a blind test that involved the analysis of two large experimental samples composed of known red deer (Cervus elaphus) and cattle (Bos taurus) elements. The two samples differ in fragmentation levels, ranging from simple marrow extraction to extensive comminution for bone grease rendering. Our results suggest that NISP and MNE are accurate and replicable measures of abundance for whole assemblages and for samples limited to non-long bones, even at the ratio scale. However, when analyses were restricted to long bones or long bone portions, both quantification methods poorly predicted abundances, including the ordinal level. Moreover, the blind test indicates that MNE is more robust at predicting skeletal abundances than NISP. The poorer performance of NISP in the blind test probably results from substantial variations in rates of long bone fragmentation and identification.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Rethinking Methods of Faunal Analysis   •
• Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC (2017)

Keywords

Record Identifiers

Abstract Id(s): 15011