Loading…
Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites
Identification of faunal specimens based on a morphological comparison with known‐identity reference specimens is the standard methodology used in zooarchaeological analysis. However, the accuracy of identifications is rarely considered. In this paper, we report results of an experiment in which 13...
Saved in:
Published in: | International journal of osteoarchaeology 2022-05, Vol.32 (3), p.694-705 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3 |
container_end_page | 705 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 694 |
container_title | International journal of osteoarchaeology |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Hawkins, Alicia L. Buckley, Michael Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne Orchard, Trevor J. |
description | Identification of faunal specimens based on a morphological comparison with known‐identity reference specimens is the standard methodology used in zooarchaeological analysis. However, the accuracy of identifications is rarely considered. In this paper, we report results of an experiment in which 13 analysts were asked to identify 50 fish skeletal elements from a reference collection and 50 fish skeletal elements from an archaeological collection in southern Ontario. The type and level of experience of the analysts and the amount of time they invested in the identification were controlled. The archaeological specimens were subsequently identified taxonomically using ZooMS. Our findings demonstrate that taxonomic and element identifications are far from perfect, both in the reference collection set and in the archaeological collection set. Probable contributing factors include the richness of taxonomic groups; distinctiveness of skeletal morphology; experience level of the analyst; and size of the individual specimens and whether the analyst had access to comprehensive, well‐labeled reference collections. We recommend emphasis be placed in training on the importance, for most species, of not making a taxonomic identification unless the element identification is certain; conservatism in identification of species in groups with many members; clear knowledge of the range of species possible within a region; and active involvement by the instructor or mentor to ensure that neophyte analysts are corrected. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/oa.3096 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2678335861</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2678335861</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10M1KAzEQAOBFFKxVfIWABw-yNT-7SfYkpfhTKNSDgrcQ48Sm7m7aJFV68xF8Rp_ErevV0_x9DMxk2SnBI4IxvfR6xHDF97IBwVWVE0ro_i4vRF5I-nSYHcW4xLibUTrI1vdBm-QMoEa_QUQrCBZMukLTNkH4_vzSra63MaF3HZxOzrfItSgtALkXaJOzzvRdb5F1cYECNNq1EdngG6SDWWjwtX_tWI2iSxCPswOr6wgnf3GYPd5cP0zu8tn8djoZz3LDKOW5lQWmUmIGkpqyYhwXnFMshZEgKlwxUgAV3MpnaQQjnJcltoYKwSTuamDD7Kzfuwp-vYGY1NJvQndNVJQLyVgpOenUea9M8DEGsGoVXKPDVhGsdv9UXqvdPzt50csPV8P2P6bm41_9A18Idak</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2678335861</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Hawkins, Alicia L. ; Buckley, Michael ; Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne ; Orchard, Trevor J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Alicia L. ; Buckley, Michael ; Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne ; Orchard, Trevor J.</creatorcontrib><description>Identification of faunal specimens based on a morphological comparison with known‐identity reference specimens is the standard methodology used in zooarchaeological analysis. However, the accuracy of identifications is rarely considered. In this paper, we report results of an experiment in which 13 analysts were asked to identify 50 fish skeletal elements from a reference collection and 50 fish skeletal elements from an archaeological collection in southern Ontario. The type and level of experience of the analysts and the amount of time they invested in the identification were controlled. The archaeological specimens were subsequently identified taxonomically using ZooMS. Our findings demonstrate that taxonomic and element identifications are far from perfect, both in the reference collection set and in the archaeological collection set. Probable contributing factors include the richness of taxonomic groups; distinctiveness of skeletal morphology; experience level of the analyst; and size of the individual specimens and whether the analyst had access to comprehensive, well‐labeled reference collections. We recommend emphasis be placed in training on the importance, for most species, of not making a taxonomic identification unless the element identification is certain; conservatism in identification of species in groups with many members; clear knowledge of the range of species possible within a region; and active involvement by the instructor or mentor to ensure that neophyte analysts are corrected.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1047-482X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1212</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/oa.3096</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Archaeology ; Fish ; fish remains ; ichthyoarchaeology ; Identification ; inter‐analyst variation ; quality assurance ; Taxonomy ; zooarchaeology ; Zoology ; ZooMS</subject><ispartof>International journal of osteoarchaeology, 2022-05, Vol.32 (3), p.694-705</ispartof><rights>2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4040-0810 ; 0000-0002-4166-8213 ; 0000-0002-4173-9835 ; 0000-0001-9040-7522</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Alicia L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckley, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orchard, Trevor J.</creatorcontrib><title>Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites</title><title>International journal of osteoarchaeology</title><description>Identification of faunal specimens based on a morphological comparison with known‐identity reference specimens is the standard methodology used in zooarchaeological analysis. However, the accuracy of identifications is rarely considered. In this paper, we report results of an experiment in which 13 analysts were asked to identify 50 fish skeletal elements from a reference collection and 50 fish skeletal elements from an archaeological collection in southern Ontario. The type and level of experience of the analysts and the amount of time they invested in the identification were controlled. The archaeological specimens were subsequently identified taxonomically using ZooMS. Our findings demonstrate that taxonomic and element identifications are far from perfect, both in the reference collection set and in the archaeological collection set. Probable contributing factors include the richness of taxonomic groups; distinctiveness of skeletal morphology; experience level of the analyst; and size of the individual specimens and whether the analyst had access to comprehensive, well‐labeled reference collections. We recommend emphasis be placed in training on the importance, for most species, of not making a taxonomic identification unless the element identification is certain; conservatism in identification of species in groups with many members; clear knowledge of the range of species possible within a region; and active involvement by the instructor or mentor to ensure that neophyte analysts are corrected.</description><subject>Archaeology</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>fish remains</subject><subject>ichthyoarchaeology</subject><subject>Identification</subject><subject>inter‐analyst variation</subject><subject>quality assurance</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>zooarchaeology</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><subject>ZooMS</subject><issn>1047-482X</issn><issn>1099-1212</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10M1KAzEQAOBFFKxVfIWABw-yNT-7SfYkpfhTKNSDgrcQ48Sm7m7aJFV68xF8Rp_ErevV0_x9DMxk2SnBI4IxvfR6xHDF97IBwVWVE0ro_i4vRF5I-nSYHcW4xLibUTrI1vdBm-QMoEa_QUQrCBZMukLTNkH4_vzSra63MaF3HZxOzrfItSgtALkXaJOzzvRdb5F1cYECNNq1EdngG6SDWWjwtX_tWI2iSxCPswOr6wgnf3GYPd5cP0zu8tn8djoZz3LDKOW5lQWmUmIGkpqyYhwXnFMshZEgKlwxUgAV3MpnaQQjnJcltoYKwSTuamDD7Kzfuwp-vYGY1NJvQndNVJQLyVgpOenUea9M8DEGsGoVXKPDVhGsdv9UXqvdPzt50csPV8P2P6bm41_9A18Idak</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Hawkins, Alicia L.</creator><creator>Buckley, Michael</creator><creator>Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne</creator><creator>Orchard, Trevor J.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-0810</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4166-8213</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-9835</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-7522</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites</title><author>Hawkins, Alicia L. ; Buckley, Michael ; Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne ; Orchard, Trevor J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Archaeology</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>fish remains</topic><topic>ichthyoarchaeology</topic><topic>Identification</topic><topic>inter‐analyst variation</topic><topic>quality assurance</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>zooarchaeology</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><topic>ZooMS</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Alicia L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckley, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orchard, Trevor J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>International journal of osteoarchaeology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hawkins, Alicia L.</au><au>Buckley, Michael</au><au>Needs‐Howarth, Suzanne</au><au>Orchard, Trevor J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites</atitle><jtitle>International journal of osteoarchaeology</jtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>694</spage><epage>705</epage><pages>694-705</pages><issn>1047-482X</issn><eissn>1099-1212</eissn><abstract>Identification of faunal specimens based on a morphological comparison with known‐identity reference specimens is the standard methodology used in zooarchaeological analysis. However, the accuracy of identifications is rarely considered. In this paper, we report results of an experiment in which 13 analysts were asked to identify 50 fish skeletal elements from a reference collection and 50 fish skeletal elements from an archaeological collection in southern Ontario. The type and level of experience of the analysts and the amount of time they invested in the identification were controlled. The archaeological specimens were subsequently identified taxonomically using ZooMS. Our findings demonstrate that taxonomic and element identifications are far from perfect, both in the reference collection set and in the archaeological collection set. Probable contributing factors include the richness of taxonomic groups; distinctiveness of skeletal morphology; experience level of the analyst; and size of the individual specimens and whether the analyst had access to comprehensive, well‐labeled reference collections. We recommend emphasis be placed in training on the importance, for most species, of not making a taxonomic identification unless the element identification is certain; conservatism in identification of species in groups with many members; clear knowledge of the range of species possible within a region; and active involvement by the instructor or mentor to ensure that neophyte analysts are corrected.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/oa.3096</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-0810</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4166-8213</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-9835</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-7522</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1047-482X |
ispartof | International journal of osteoarchaeology, 2022-05, Vol.32 (3), p.694-705 |
issn | 1047-482X 1099-1212 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2678335861 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Archaeology Fish fish remains ichthyoarchaeology Identification inter‐analyst variation quality assurance Taxonomy zooarchaeology Zoology ZooMS |
title | Practice makes perfect? Inter‐analyst variation in the identification of fish remains from archaeological sites |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T12%3A15%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Practice%20makes%20perfect?%20Inter%E2%80%90analyst%20variation%20in%20the%20identification%20of%20fish%20remains%20from%20archaeological%20sites&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20osteoarchaeology&rft.au=Hawkins,%20Alicia%20L.&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=694&rft.epage=705&rft.pages=694-705&rft.issn=1047-482X&rft.eissn=1099-1212&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/oa.3096&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2678335861%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3226-f84028803e82c593604662087c8e7909314e276f8b8c73166550fc277380731e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2678335861&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |