Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Critical review of the MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooarchaeological unit of quantification

Critical review of the MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooarchaeological unit of... The use of minimum number of individuals (MNI) in the analysis of mammal archaeofaunal assemblages has received intense criticism for its derived nature and its dependence of biasing variables. Some authors have argued that similar taxonomic variability as documented by MNI can be achieved with other less biased measuring units, such as number of identified specimens (NISP) and derivates thereof. The present study is the first experimentally controlled test that shows the degree of bias of estimates of MNI and NISP by different analysts. It shows that the margins of error of both measuring units are independent and that MNI can be more accurately estimated than NISP, despite its “derived” inferential nature. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Springer Journals

Critical review of the MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooarchaeological unit of quantification

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/critical-review-of-the-mni-minimum-number-of-individuals-as-a-seWlM17oyu

References (57)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by Springer-Verlag
Subject
Earth Sciences; Earth Sciences, general; Archaeology; Chemistry/Food Science, general; Geography, general; Life Sciences, general; Anthropology
ISSN
1866-9557
eISSN
1866-9565
DOI
10.1007/s12520-011-0082-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The use of minimum number of individuals (MNI) in the analysis of mammal archaeofaunal assemblages has received intense criticism for its derived nature and its dependence of biasing variables. Some authors have argued that similar taxonomic variability as documented by MNI can be achieved with other less biased measuring units, such as number of identified specimens (NISP) and derivates thereof. The present study is the first experimentally controlled test that shows the degree of bias of estimates of MNI and NISP by different analysts. It shows that the margins of error of both measuring units are independent and that MNI can be more accurately estimated than NISP, despite its “derived” inferential nature.

Journal

Archaeological and Anthropological SciencesSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 15, 2011

There are no references for this article.