Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:50:40.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying Shell: Comments on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cheryl Claassen
Cheryl Claassen*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone NC 28608
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mason et al. recently revived a debate as to the suitability of shell weights or shell MNI, with several interesting points. Among the points they raised are two with which I take exception: that MNI is always better than weight, and that relative percentages are the analytical tool of choice.

Resumen

Resumen

Hace uñ aho Mason et al. restablecieron la discusión sobre el uso del peso de conchas o del MNI. Mi desacuerdo es en dos printos: que MNI es siempre mejor que peso y que por centajes relativos son la herramienta preferida.

Information

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 2000, pp. 415 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Bailey, G. 1993 Shell Mounds in 1972 and 1992 : Reflections on Recent Controversies at Ballina and Weipa. Australian Archaeology 37 : 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begler, E., and Keatinge, R. 1979 Theoretical Goals and Methodological Realities : Problems in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. World Archaeology 11 : 208–226.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1986 Temporal Patterns in Marine Shellfish Species Use along the Atlantic Coast in the Southeastern U.S. Southeastern Archaeology 5(2) : 120–137.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1990 The Role of Technique in Shell Seasonality Studies : A Reply to Lightfoot and Cerrato. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18 : 75–87.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1991 Normative Thinking and Shell-Bearing Sites. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Scbiffer, M. B., p. 249-298. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cox, K. 1994 Oysters as Ecofacts. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 62 : 219–247.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. 2000 Weighing vs. Counting Shellfish Remains : A Comment on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American Antiquity 65 : 407–414 Google Scholar
Grayson, D. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology : Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jerardino, A. 1995 The Problem with Density Values in Archaeological Analysis : A Case Study from Tortoise Cave, Western Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50 : 21– 27.Google Scholar
Koike, H. 1979 Seasonal Dating and the Valve-Pairing Technique in Shell-midden Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 6 : 63–74.Google Scholar
Mason, R., Peterson, M. L., and Tiffany, J. A. 1998 Weighing vs. Counting : Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63 : 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, D. 1989 Shellfishing Seasonality : Some Midden Sampling Requirements. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Fredericton.Google Scholar
Shackleton, J. 1988 Marine Molluscan Remains from Franchthi Cave. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Thomas, K. 1985 Land Snail Analysis in Archaeology : Theory and Practice. In Palaeobiological Investigations, edited by Fieller, N., D.Gilbertson,andN. Ralph, p. 131-155. BAR International Series 266. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar