Ontario Archaeological Society
Recommendations for zooarchaeology in Ontario archaeology
This draft is under review for release by the Ontario Archaeological Society. This is a
working document. If you have feedback or would like to cite parts of this document,
please contact Alicia Hawkins (alicia.hawkins@utoronto.ca).
Version 1.1—6 February 2023
Alicia L. Hawkins,1 Suzanne Needs-Howarth,2,3 Trevor J. Orchard,1 Frances L. Stewart,4 Eric Tourigny,5 and
Eric J. Guiry 6,7
1
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga
Perca Zooarchaeological Research, Toronto
3
The Archaeology Centre, University of Toronto
4
Stewart Faunal Analyses, Kitchener
5
School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University
6
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester
7
Trent University Archaeological Research Centre
2
2023
Draft under review
Table of Contents
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1
Recovery............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1
Stage 2........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2
Stage 3........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3
Stage 4........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Flotation Sampling and Associated Lab Processing ...................................................................... 7
1.5
Associated Bone Groups ............................................................................................................... 9
2
Identification and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 10
2.1
Education and Training ............................................................................................................... 10
2.2
Reference Materials .................................................................................................................... 11
2.3
Stage 2......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4
Stage 3......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5
Stage 4......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.6
Destructive Analysis .................................................................................................................... 16
3
Reporting......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1
Personnel Credentials and Site Information ............................................................................... 20
3.2
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 22
3.4
Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 23
3.5
List of Identifications ................................................................................................................... 23
4
Short- and Long-Term Care ............................................................................................................. 25
4.1
Packing in the Field ..................................................................................................................... 25
4.2
Cleaning and Re-packing by the Consultant ............................................................................... 26
4.3
Re-packing by the Zooarchaeologist ........................................................................................... 30
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 31
List of Genera to Be Included in Reference Collection ............................................................................... 40
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
2
Draft under review
Territorial Acknowledgement
Encompassing archaeological practice in Ontario, the Society acknowledges the Indigenous (First
Nations, Inuit and Métis) peoples and communities who have previously made and continue to
make meaning on and of this land. The Society encourages members to come to know,
acknowledge and respect the Indigenous peoples, communities and protocols particular to the
places and territories archaeologists work within. In reciprocation, the Society expects members
to share their research and insights with Indigenous communities, promoting a diverse
appreciation for the continuum of Indigenous presence in the province.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
3
Draft under review
Purpose
The Ontario Archaeological Society (“Society”) represents a wide range of interests in
archaeology from students and those with avocational interest to professional archaeologists
working in academia and cultural resource management. In recognition of this diversity, the
guides in this series are designed to support all levels of archaeological practice by providing best
practices for a wide range of fieldwork methods, laboratory process and data analysis.
The Society encourages all researchers to:
● apply best practices wherever possible;
● publish their work to broaden our understanding;
● share knowledge and engage in respectful, constructive dialogue about Ontario’s
archaeological record.
These guides are intended to provide guidance from the perspective of the archaeological
process. Through a shared common practice we can support archaeologists in Ontario to be
leaders in the practice of archaeology. Wherever possible, researchers are encouraged to seek
out traditional knowledge, including care practices.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
1
Draft under review
Introduction
This guide is concerned with the animal bones, teeth, and
shells found in human-associated contexts during
archaeological excavations in Ontario, commonly referred
to as faunal remains. The subdiscipline of archaeology
relating to these remains is known as zooarchaeology.
This guide is aimed at building in mechanisms to ensure
quality assurance of both input and output. The quality of
the input is determined by recovery in the field. If this is
inadequate, there is no remedy after the fact: once the site
has been excavated, there is no way to make up for poor
recovery. The quality of the output is determined by
sampling and the method and scale of analysis and by the
competence and experience of the analyst. If a particular
zooarchaeological analysis needs revisiting, it can be done,
because under the terms and conditions of licencing in
Ontario the licensee is required to care for assemblages
until they can be permanently placed in a public
institution. Thus, in theory assemblages should be
available in perpetuity for re-study and there is a remedy
after the fact. But, there is also a very real potential for
poor-quality data to be generated. This means, in turn,
that we cannot be sure that we will end up with reliable
and accurate data on which to base future decisions
around sampling, analysis, and reporting. Additionally, we
have the potential for poor-quality data being on file at the
Ministry in perpetuity, to be used by others as fact.
Our most pressing concern therefore is recovery and onsite sampling. But we also have significant concerns
relating to analyst qualifications and the reference
materials used.
This guide was prepared by a group of
professional zooarchaeologists
working in consulting and academic
settings, who are experienced in the
excavation, processing, and analysis
of faunal remains from a wide variety
of Ontario sites, both Indigenous and
settler.
This document reflects not only our
professional opinions on the subject
of animal remains from
archaeological sites, but also
evidence-based recommendations
resulting from our own (peerreviewed) research on the subject
and on the careful evaluation of other
scientific papers and the standards
and/or guidelines adopted in other
jurisdictions (e.g., Baker and Worley
2019; Cavallo et al. 2006).
We discuss our concerns under
general headers that follow the
archaeological process
chronologically. We do so bearing in
mind that consulting archaeology in
particular operates within time and
financial constraints. In many cases
the recommendations in this guide
therefore fall short of what we might
consider ideal in a purely research
setting.
The suggestions below represent our consensus on what
seems reasonable. We start each section with bullet points
outlining our recommendations for good practice. We follow this with a discussion of the context and
the rationale. Since the majority of the archaeology in the province is governed by the Standards and
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
2
Draft under review
Guidelines published by the provincial government, we frame our recommendations in relation to
current practice under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines. We consider this the first step in a process of
developing guidance that is broad enough to accommodate the range of scenarios likely to take place in
Ontario compliance archaeology and that is restrictive enough to result in more reliable datasets and
better curation.
We feel very strongly that we must be able to justify any decisions that we as archaeologists make in
terms of what is good archaeology. Not collecting inferentially useful animal bones during excavation
does not constitute good archaeology. We need to focus on the quality of the analysis as well, because it
informs future excavation strategies and is the foundation of our knowledge base.
1
Recovery
Large mesh sizes introduce bias based on fragment size.
With respect to faunal remains, it is accepted wisdom that
this fragment size bias will disproportionately affect the
recovery of small-bodied taxa or smaller elements from
larger taxa, from all animal classes.
In cases where different mesh sizes have been used on
Iroquoian sites, it is clear that 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) or smaller
mesh results in the recovery of more small remains, more
remains of smaller-bodied fish (which can dramatically
change the interpretation of fishing location, method, and
season), and in some cases new taxa, compared with 1/4
inch (6.4 mm) mesh. This matters because the presence of
these species provides invaluable information for
reconstructing the lives of people in the past and better
understanding changes in climate and environment, and in
human interactions with these. All else being equal, the
inescapable conclusion is that such items fell through the
1/4 inch mesh.
Zooarchaeological and stable isotope evidence (e.g.,
Needs-Howarth 1999; Pfeiffer et al. 2016) indicates that for
at least some of the Indigenous people living in Ontario,
fish were a major component of the diet. Recent Bayesian
modelling of stable isotope results on human tissues
With the exception of a proportion of
Early Archaic and Paleo deposits, the
maximum mesh size permitted by the
2011 Standards and Guidelines for
recovery in the field is 1/4 inch. The
limitations of such larger mesh sizes
and the effects of different mesh sizes
on taxonomic and element
representation have been noted by
many researchers elsewhere in the
world (e.g. Barker 1975; Campbell
and Nims 2019; Casteel 1972, 1976;
Clason and Prummel 1977; Gordon
1993; James 1997; Nagaoka 2005;
Rebolledo et al. 2021; Partlow 2006;
Payne 1972; Shaffer 1992; Thomas
1969; Zohar and Belmaker 2005).
The limitations of 1/4 inch mesh have
been noted specifically in an Ontario
context as far back as 1985 (Prevec
1985; Stewart 1991a), and recent
research only confirms these
limitations (e.g., Hawkins et al. 2015,
2017).
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
3
Draft under review
suggests that fish were much more important to the diet than would be suggested by fragment counts
(Feranec and Hart 2019). The fact that assemblages recovered in compliance with the 2011 Standards
and Guidelines are systematically biased against fish is therefore a huge concern, both in terms of the
archaeology itself and in terms of what this loss of data may mean for Indigenous peoples. But even on
historic sites, we could have fish bone ending up in the back dirt pile when 1/4 inch mesh is used.
In addition to fish, there is increasing scientific recognition of the value of smaller mammal and bird
bone specimens from archaeological sites for biomolecular studies seeking to reconstruct past
environmental conditions as well as human subsistence activities (e.g., Guiry and Gaulton 2016; Lyman
1996). In Ontario, for instance, recent isotopic analyses of small animal specimens have provided new
insights into major extinction events (Guiry, Orchard et al. 2020), how pests exploit urban spaces (Guiry
and Buckley 2018), the existence of garden hunting (Guiry et al. 2021), and the polluting of the Great
Lakes (Guiry, Buckley et al. 2020). Important specimens of the type used for all of these studies will have
been lost in cases where screening was conducted with 1/4 inch mesh.
We acknowledge that recovery will be the most difficult area to address, since any recovery for faunal
remains will impact recovery overall, and any reduction in mesh size will add extra processing times and
analysis costs. But use of smaller mesh sizes for at least part of the sediments is not a luxury in this
regard; this is an essential part of doing good archaeology—just like using smaller mesh sizes on singlecomponent Early Archaic and Paleo sites is doing good archaeology. None of us are in a position to
calculate what proportion of the total project costs 1/8 inch mesh faunal recovery might represent
ahead of time.
The use of 1/4 inch mesh effectively constitutes sampling at the point of recovery. It is time we acted on
this knowledge.
“Each assemblage should be tested during the preliminary field work to determine the appropriate
recovery technique” (Reitz and Wing 2008:148).
1.1
Stage 2
● Where sediments are sandy, archaeologists should consider using 1/8 inch
mesh in order not to miss sites where most of the material consists of small
faunal remains.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
4
Draft under review
Although the definition of the spatial extent should not be
uniquely based on faunal remains, we argue that inferentially
useful faunal remains should be part of what is used to define
site limits, especially if other artifact categories are not
enough to say that it is a site. In this regard, we are specifically
talking about faunal remains that can be identified below class
and that can be assigned to a particular temporal period with
some confidence. Note that this would require analysis by a
specialist, who can separate out an Indigenous animal
internment from a woodchuck burrow death and a deer bone
relating to an Indigenous occupation from sheep bone from an
overlying twentieth-century farm that was mixed into the
Indigenous deposits by the plough.
1.2
Stage 3
● Use non-recent faunal material to help define
site extent (whereby units yielding five or
more such faunal remains are considered part
of the site).
● Especially on Indigenous sites, screen at least
some of the 1 × 1 m test pits over likely
midden locations through 1/8 inch mesh (dry
or water) to evaluate an appropriate faunal
recovery strategy for excavation.
As with Stage 2, in the 2011 Standards and Guidelines, faunal
remains play no role in decisions regarding the spatial extent
of the site or recovery strategies, either at the standard or at
the guideline level. We argue that they should.
Especially on Indigenous sites, we would therefore
recommend screening at least some of the 1 × 1 m test pits
over likely midden locations through 1/8 inch mesh to
evaluate an appropriate recovery strategy for Stage 4. Similar
to Stage 2, we recommend that faunal remains be used to
determine site extent and significance, especially in the
absence of other categories of artifacts.
Care must be taken when using fauna
for cut-offs to determine site extent
on sites that may have had historic
manuring, as the manuring waste
may include fauna that are not part of
any site. At the same time, burnt
faunal remains should not be
interpreted as debris from historic
manuring unless they include items in
the same taphonomic condition that
have been securely identified as a
farm animal.
It is not beyond the realm of
possibility that a test pit would
contain nothing but bone, and that
some of it can be argued to be
archaeological, but under the current
Standards and Guidelines, this is not
used to determine site extent.
Remains of animals are just as much
part of the site as remains of ceramic
vessels. Though for the most part
faunal remains are not temporally
diagnostic per se, it should be
relatively straight-forward to spot
recent material encroaching on an
earlier Indigenous site. For example, if
the analysis indicates the presence of
non-fossorial, non-livestock taxa that
are not obviously recent based on
colour or preservational state, this
suggests they arrived there by human
agency and hence that the location
likely represents an archaeological
site.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
5
Draft under review
1.3
Stage 4
● Sampling strategies need to be clearly
A recent recovery experiment using
justified and documented (see section 2.5
nested sieves on a contact-period
Iroquoian site (Hawkins et al. 2017)
for more discussion of this).
indicates that at the particular site
● Clearly defined, stratified and well-sealed
used in the experiment, 1/8 inch
archaeological contexts, especially those
recovery did improve the quality of
with rich bone deposits, as well as those
faunal data, and that the time
investment in sorting water-screened
from sites shown in Stage 3 to have faunal
artifacts in a laboratory context was
remains smaller than 9 mm (the
approximately doubled. In this
hypotenuse of 1/4 inch) in at least one
instance, the 1/4 inch fraction was
dimension, should be further sampled to
sorted separately from the 1/8 inch
fraction. If the two fractions were to
retrieve a representative range of species
be combined, the time investment
and body portions not often recovered by
may be less. On the other hand,
using 1/4 inch mesh size, including
recovery on 1/16 inch mesh provided
manufacturing debris from artifact and tool diminishing returns in terms of
inferentially useful faunal remains, for
manufacture.
vastly increased time outlay.
● The decision to further sample for animal
bones using a smaller mesh size or flotation
should be taken by the archaeologist on a site-by-site basis, in consultation
with an experienced zooarchaeologist.
● Fine screen or flotation samples should be collected from different areas
and/or strata within a context in order to be representative of the entire
deposit. A systematic strategy is best to accomplish this. If fine-mesh recovery
is applied to middens, it should be done in a 50 × 50 cm checkerboard.
● Bags must be clearly labelled with sampling context and mesh size in order for
the zooarchaeologist to properly identify where the materials originated.
● In the case of Indigenous sites or of settler sites with fish, a proportion of the
matrix (for example, the undisturbed portion) should be screened on 1/8 inch
mesh to improve the diagnostic faunal sample obtained.
Since most archaeological soils are screened through 1/4 inch mesh in Ontario, further sampling for
animal bones should be used to retrieve a representative range of species and body portions not often
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
6
Draft under review
recovered by using this mesh size (e.g., loose teeth of medium-sized mammals, most bones of smaller
birds, bones of most medium- and small-sized fish; bones of smaller amphibians, reptiles, birds, and
mammals; exoskeletons of invertebrates; and smaller proportions of skeletal elements of any size), as
well as manufacturing debris from artifact and tool manufacture (Gates St-Pierre and Boisvert 2015).
The decision to further sample for animal bones using a smaller mesh size or flotation should be taken
by the archaeologist on a site-by-site basis, in consultation with an experienced zooarchaeologist.
Clearly defined, stratified and well-sealed archaeological contexts, especially those with rich bone
deposits, should be further sampled. Fine screen or flotation samples should be collected from different
areas and/or strata within a context in order to be representative of the entire deposit. A systematic
strategy is best to accomplish this. In most cases, there is little value in sampling mixed or poorly defined
historic-era archaeological deposits if we cannot be certain that all of the recovered materials were
deposited by the same people (except for extirpated or extinct species, which from an isotope and DNA
analysis perspective are valuable regardless of context).
“Just as it is necessary for the person who interprets the settlement data to be involved in the
excavation of the site and sample selection, it is essential for the zooarchaeologist and other
specialists to be involved from the start” (“Stage 4 Draft Guidelines: Recommendations Concerning
Zooarchaeological Remains” – Cooper et al. 1995: 31).
1.4
Flotation Sampling and Associated Lab Processing
● In cases where 1/8 inch sampling is not increased, increase sampling for
flotation to improve faunal recovery.
● Record and make available to the zooarchaeologist flotation sample or bulk
sample volumes.
● Analyze all the faunal remains from the heavy fractions to improve faunal
datasets.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
7
Draft under review
Vastly increased sampling for flotation would improve
faunal recovery, as would a requirement to analyze the
faunal remains from the flotation heavy fraction to the
same level of detail as the screened remains. Without the
requirement to analyze in detail, we could lack information
on portions of the site, frequently features, to add to our
knowledge base and to inform future sampling strategies.
Although flotation will ensure
excellent faunal recovery, large
volumes are usually required to
provide an adequate sample of faunal
remains. However, at one Iroquoian
site, the 338 faunal items from
flotation yielded two additional fish
species, compared with a 1/4 inch
screened sample of 1529 (NeedsHowarth 2016).
Decisions on bulk sampling should be made in consultation
with an experienced zooarchaeologist and the method
should be based on the types of faunal remains likely to be
encountered, the research questions being addressed, and
the sediment type. Whole matrix samples should be processed through the selected method and all
encountered bone specimens or bone fragments should be retained and sent for identification to the
zooarchaeologist. If flotation samples are taken in order to address both palaeobotanical and
zooarchaeological research questions, the zooarchaeologists and the palaeobotanists should collaborate
to ensure that any plant remains and animal remains in the heavy fraction are fully recovered and
submitted for analysis.
Finally, we suggest that there be a requirement for flotation volume to be recorded on any bags and
tags associated with bulk samples or residues, so that the zooarchaeologist does not need to hunt for
this information.
Picking the faunal material from the light fractions is best done by the faunal or palaeobotanical
specialist. Picking the faunal material from the heavy fractions is best done either by the palaeobotanical
specialist or by the faunal specialist.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
8
Draft under review
1.5
Associated Bone Groups
● Associated bone groups should be mapped and photographed in situ.
● All associated bone group (ABG) deposits should be recovered and the bones
kept as part of the physical archive.
● Determinations about whether ABGs are intrusive to the archaeological site
should be done by a zooarchaeological expert before excavation.
When the archaeologist encounters an ABG, whether of a
Complete individual skeletons offer a
partial or complete skeleton, it should be mapped and
wealth of information about the lives
photographed in situ, showing the location of the individual
of individual animals living at a
skeletal elements. ABG deposits from all occupation periods
particular point in time (e.g., Tourigny
should be recovered and the bones kept as part of the
et al. 2016). Their composition (bones
physical archive. Determinations about whether ABGs are
present) and taphonomic alterations
intrusive to the archaeological site (e.g., a woodchuck
(e.g., butchery, differential
burrow death or discrete disposal, in a purpose-dug pit, of
weathering, gnawing) can inform on
non-food-waste-related domestic livestock carcasses
the deposition of the individual, while
related to farming activity that is not part of the registered
metric information, age at death, and
archaeological site) should be done by a zooarchaeological
pathology can inform on its life
expert. The bones should be stored separately. Elements of
history and relationship with people.
the axial skeleton should be bagged separately from one
another according to left or right hindlimb or forelimb. Care
should be taken when screening soils near the feet, tail and abdomen as the small bones present in
these parts of the body may be lost through larger screen sizes. ABGs should be assigned specific
numbers, allowing them to be identified separately from disarticulated bones found at the site.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
9
Draft under review
2
Identification and Analysis
As noted in the introduction to this guide, while recovery and on-site sampling are our primary concern,
we also want to emphasize the importance of several aspects of the identification and analysis of
recovered faunal samples.
2.1
Education and Training
● The person conducting the zooarchaeological analysis must have completed a
university-level zooarchaeology lab course or its credit equivalent and/or have
undergone mentoring while analyzing real collections, as outlined in Figure 1.
“It is irresponsible to treat the archaeozoological materials recovered from archaeological sites with
anything other than the best possible methods employed by scholars trained to maximize the
interpretive potential of each assemblage” (International Council for Archaeozoology [ICAZ])
Professional Protocols for Archaeozoology – Reitz et al. 2009).
At the moment, there is no requirement that the zooarchaeological analysis be undertaken by someone
qualified to do the work. This means that literally anyone could be undertaking zooarchaeological
analysis, and we could end up with, at best, datasets that are not comparable or, at worst, datasets that
are largely inaccurate.
It is impossible to generate an accurate and reliable dataset
Hawkins et al. (2022) provide
without a considerable amount of training and experience.
examples of the qualitative and
We acknowledge that training and experience can be
quantitative differences that can
achieved via formal educational pathways and via
occur between analysts of different
mentorship. The most common pathways to achieving a
levels of training and experience in an
suitable level of expertise are outlined in the text box below
Ontario Indigenous setting. See Nims
as a series of and/or options. Other scenarios would be
and Butler (2017) for an example
considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, time spent
from the West Coast of North
as a teaching assistant in an Ontario zooarchaeology course
America.
could also count toward accreditation. We recommend the
OAS move to a formal system of zooarchaeological
certification. To this end, we recommend the Society establish a peer group to evaluate experience and
set each individual’s parameters for gaining certification. This could be done based on a questionnaire
with a Lickert scale, which is evaluated by each member of the peer group, anonymously from the other
members and from the applicant. In the absence of a formal certification system, we recommend
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
10
Draft under review
analysis be carried out by someone who is experienced, defined here as someone who has undertaken a
lab course or has obtained lab experience in all taxa that could reasonably be expected on an Ontario
site. This implies all local genera of wild species (see Appendix); all species of farm animals and common
pets; and the most common imported marine taxa (e.g., oyster, Clupeidae, Gadidae).
Figure 1. Examples of Pathways to Becoming a Certified Ontario Zooarchaeologist.
2.2
Reference Materials
● Conduct taxonomic identification using physical reference materials of all of
the Ontario genera, with the exception of currently extinct or endangered
taxa, including the domesticated introduced taxa as well as the native taxa.
● State the name, location, and limits of the reference collection in the
introduction to the report.
● Do not identify to a lower taxonomic level than what is available in the
reference materials used.
“... how similar is similar enough involves not only similarity with a series of reference specimens
representing a particular species, but also dissimilarity with all other reference specimens of all other
species.” (Lyman 2019:1390).
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
11
Draft under review
Use of appropriate comparative or reference material is
critical to the successful identification and analysis of a
zooarchaeological assemblage. We therefore suggest
analysts be required to use physical reference materials
(either real skeletons or 3D print-outs), if necessary from
more than one reference collection, of all of the genera that
you could reasonably expect at that time and place, with
the exception of currently extinct or endangered taxa. We
have included a list of all the genera any of us have ever
identified from an Ontario site at the end of this guide.
Reference materials need to include the domesticated
introduced taxa as well as the native taxa, because
nineteenth-century sites often yield wild animal remains
and pre-colonization Indigenous sites can include intrusive
skeletal remains of farm animals. A genus-level
identification will indicate the ballpark in terms of habitat
and behaviour for most, although certainly not all, taxa.
The limits of the reference collection should be explicitly
stated in every report. Identifications made should not
exceed the limits of the reference materials used. The
taxonomic level of the identifications must not exceed the
limits of the reference material used. For example, do not
identify to species when the collection does not include all
of the species it could possibly be. Instead, identify to the
next-highest taxonomic level that is represented in the
reference collection.
One of the important limitations of most
keys and digital collections is that they do
not include the range of individual, age or
sex variability that can often be well
represented in a real reference
collection. We therefore strongly
recommend that analysts not be allowed
to rely on keys or digital collections
exclusively. On the other hand, requiring
the comparative reference collection to
contain all the species that may possibly
be encountered in an assemblage is not
realistic or, in the case of endangered or
extinct species, even feasible. Even the
most complete collections in the
province are incomplete.
We suggest that the best practice is to
use a reference collection containing
most of the species in the area, and
examples of different biological ages. If
the reference material has been
assembled by the analyst, all the
taxonomic identifications need to have
been checked against an institutional
reference collection by an experienced
zooarchaeologist.
Guesses should be listed in a comments field and in any tables produced, so that future researchers
know not to rely on the taxonomic identification (especially if it is of something rare and/or inferentially
particularly significant). Likely taxonomic identifications that could not be fully confirmed with the
reference collection in use can be flagged with a cf., either in a separate field or in the taxon field.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
12
Draft under review
“... a seldom acknowledged fact—that with experience comes greater knowledge of which
osteological traits are and which are not taxonomically diagnostic, and thus, greater experience can
sometimes result in fewer high-resolution (species-level) identifications, somewhat contrary to the
often expressed belief that experience is critical to thorough identification” (Lyman 2019:1378).
The report must include a clear statement on what reference materials were used to make taxonomic
and skeletal element identifications, as this will help other researchers evaluate how reliable the
identifications are. It is recommended that the dates of use of the reference collection are indicated in
the report, as many collections grow over time. Where the utilized reference collections are lacking
common taxa recovered in archaeological contexts of similar age in the same region, zooarchaeologists
should be asked to provide a list of either what is present or what is not present in reference to the taxa
recorded in the database. The report should also cite the source(s) used for the scientific names.
2.3
Stage 2
● If the other artefact categories provide insufficient evidence to determine site
significance, a rudimentary analysis of the fauna should be performed, by an
experienced zooarchaeologist, to help determine significance.
No faunal analysis at all is currently required for Stage 2 test pit or pedestrian survey. We argue that
animal bones should be used as an indicator that a site is present, just like ceramics and lithics are used,
and for this to work, Stage 2 faunal material therefore should be analyzed.
2.4
Stage 3
● If the other artefact categories provide insufficient evidence to determine site
significance, analysis of the fauna should be performed to help determine site
extent.
For Stage 3, faunal analysis is currently not required. We think it should be, especially in cases where the
Stage 3 material happens to be better preserved than the Stage 4 material and in cases where the
sample size from the Stage 4 is too small. Analysis of Stage 3 faunal material would also help inform
excavation strategies at Stage 4.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
13
Draft under review
2.5
Stage 4
● Sampling of the excavated faunal assemblage is permitted to address research
questions. Sampling strategies should be designed for each site individually. In
most cases, it will make sense to use a sequential sampling strategy.
● Sampling must occur across all identified contexts, because faunal remains,
and other archaeological remains, are likely to be heterogeneously distributed
across site features and contexts.
● Within the analyzed sample, identify all recovered faunal remains to the
lowest taxonomic level possible.
● For settler sites that have adequate samples from other contexts, scan the
ploughzone units for ABGs and rare/unusual items and, optionally, omit the
remainder from the analysis.
● Describe all of the artifactually modified material to at least the same level of
detail as the non-modified material.
● Analyze all faunal material from the flotation heavy fractions and light
fractions. These samples will be particularly important in contexts where small
fish and other small animals (small birds, micro-mammals) are likely to be
present.
The 2011 Ministry guideline suggesting
Although most CRM projects do not aim to address specific
research questions, we suggest that all CRM projects are
meant, at the very least, to recover the archaeological remains
sufficiently well to allow characterization of the extant
archaeological record and to describe the archaeological
remains within a site sufficiently well to facilitate an
assessment of the future research potential of the recovered
assemblages. We argue that, via the following criteria, analysis
should meet the 2011 Ministry standard that allows generated
data to be used to assess if a site would be useful for further,
future research.
For both settler and Indigenous collections, it will be impossible
to find the kind of one-size-fits-all approach that works well.
that only 500 specimens need to be
“identified” is too restrictive, whether
it be 500 below class or 500 total.
Evidence has shown (see Tourigny
2016, 2017) that, for settler domestic
context assemblages, far greater
sample sizes identified to the level of
taxonomic family or lower are needed
to account for the full range of species
and body parts present on
archaeological sites. It seems likely
that the same pertains to Indigenous
sites. For the background to this 500
item cut-off, see Friesen et al. (in
review).
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
14
Draft under review
Since one cannot decide what proportion or number is adequate before one has actually done the IDs,
at least not without some prior knowledge of the likely population parameters of the fauna within a
given site, a better solution would be to employ a sequential sampling approach (e.g., Banning 2020:47–
48). One such approach commonly employed by zooarchaeologists is context-based sampling to
redundancy (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2005; Lyman and Ames 2004), although other approaches can also
be used (e.g., Ullah et al. 2015: 1254–1256). In other words, we suggest that all recovered faunal
remains be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, unless the archaeologist can justify sampling of the
excavated faunal assemblage by providing compelling arguments that a larger sample size will not result
in additional useful data. There will be some cases where sampling may be necessary, and this necessity
should be demonstrated by the zooarchaeologist. Recent research on spatial sampling (Hawkins 2017)
suggests that the standards for Stage 4 should be amended to require sampling across contexts. Cluster
sampling for the purposes of zooarchaeological analysis must ensure that all unique site contexts are
sampled sufficiently to characterize spatial variability within the site. Faunal remains, and other
archaeological remains, are likely to be heterogeneously distributed across site features and contexts, so
any cluster sampling approach employed must aim to capture and describe that heterogeneity in a
meaningful way.
All zooarchaeological assemblages are themselves samples of a larger population, limited by multiple
factors, such as areas of excavations, recovery strategies, and taphonomy. Further sampling in the lab
affects the composition of faunal assemblages, including which species and body portions are
represented. In effect, the strategies employed can limit or enhance our ability to address various
research questions and inform us on the past people and animals who lived in our province.
In cases where sampling is justifiable, sequential sampling is recommended. It should consider criteria in
addition to taxonomic diversity. On historic sites, it is likely to involve age categories and butchering
evidence (Crabtree 1999; Landon 2005). If research questions consider such aspects as body portion
representation, butchery practices or age-at-death reconstructions for specific species, then a greater
number of animal remains originating from that species needs to be identified. This means that a
greater overall sample needs to be recovered. Faunal assemblages from sites whose occupants drew
from a wider range of wild species would likely require greater sample sizes.
It is important that samples be drawn from different contexts—this will need to be determined on a
site-by-site basis with consultation between the lead archaeologist and one or more experienced
zooarchaeologists.
Where relevant, sequential sampling should be done context by context, not at the site level.
On settler sites, if the undisturbed matrix provides a representative sample (by including faunal material
from privies, root cellars and other features), the ploughzone material need not be analyzed (even to
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
15
Draft under review
class), except in the case of animal burials (ABGs). However, all of the ploughzone material should be
scanned for specimens from species that are atypical or currently rare (e.g., lake sturgeon, lake trout)
and that are probably not modern or intrusive species—namely, those that are currently extirpated
(e.g., Atlantic salmon) or extinct (e.g., passenger pigeon). Knowing about the presence of these taxa,
even in the ploughzone, would be useful to future researchers, including those working on metaanalyses (e.g., Guiry et al. 2016; Orchard et al. 2022). The remainder of the ploughzone can always be
analyzed in more detail in the future.
Having the rest of the assemblage identified to class would potentially provide useful information about
whether the random sample was indeed random.
2.6
Destructive Analysis
● When selecting items to be sampled for destructive analyses, consider the
value of the information gained from analyses of the portion of the specimen
that is taken and the value of leaving that specimen fully intact for posterity.
● When selecting items to be sampled for destructive analyses from Indigenous
archaeological sites, communicate with descendant First Nation(s) to explain
the research, obtain their consent, and share the results.
● Streamline multiple types of analyses on the same specimen to maximize gains
while minimizing losses.
● Avoid selecting faunal specimens that have been modified to become cultural
artifacts unless special, stronger justifications are provided (e.g., research
questions relate to nature of the artifact itself; artifact type is ubiquitous and
artifact is the only possible sample source); that have such cultural significance
“Destructive analysis (e.g. AMS dating, genetic analysis, and isotope analysis) may provide information
that is not otherwise available; however, decisions about destructive analysis should be taken
carefully with the likely benefits balanced against the loss of the material, and consideration as to
whether the information might be obtained without destruction or at a future time. The process
should be carefully documented” (International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) Professional
Protocols for Archaeozoology – Reitz et al. 2009).
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
16
Draft under review
that any destructive treatment would be
inappropriate; or that are so rare that any
alteration to its physical characteristics is
deemed unacceptable.
● Keep a record with the collection of which
collections and specimens have received
different kinds of analyses to avoid
unnecessary duplication of sampling of a
given specimen for application of the same
technique.
The creative potential of stable isotope, ancient DNA, ZooMS
(protein analysis by mass spectrometry), and AMS 14C dating
analyses of archaeological animal bones and teeth from
Ontario archaeological sites is tremendous. These and other
biomolecular techniques can generate new insights on topics
at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Traditionally,
stable isotope analysis has been used to understand the
social and economic dimensions of past human subsistence.
But it can also be used to understand animal husbandry and
trade; the behavioural and evolutionary history of animals;
and ecological issues, including past environmental
conditions and how they relate to climate change (Guiry and
Buckley 2018; Guiry et al. 2016, 2017, 2021; Guiry, Orchard
et al. 2020; Katzenberg 1989; McGrath et al. 2019; Morris et
al. 2016; Pfeiffer et al. 2016; Royle et al. 2020; Tourigny et al.
2016; van der Merwe et al. 2003).
Stable isotope and biomolecular techniques typically require
that a portion (usually between 10 and 1000 mg, depending
on the number and types of analyses involved) of a bone or
tooth specimen be removed for destructive testing (often
accomplished using a handheld rotary tool (e.g., Dremel) or
dental microdrill equipped with a cut-wheel or grinding burr).
These kinds of analyses necessarily come with trade-offs
between the value of the information gained from analyses
of the portion of the specimen that is taken and the value of
leaving that specimen fully intact for posterity; it is therefore
It is useful to consider whether sampling
would be sufficiently invasive as to
affect the ability of zooarchaeologists to
use the specimen’s morphological
characteristics for future research. In
many cases, particularly where bones
are large, samples can be removed
targeting broken or non-diagnostic
areas so as to avoid impacting the
suitability of a specimen for future
morphological analyses. This issue can
also be further mitigated by using
sampling tools that minimize the
amount of specimen lost due to cutting
or drilling activities (e.g., using thinner,
steel dental cut-wheels rather than
thicker, carbide cut-wheels). However,
when specimens are small,
proportionally more, or all, of the
specimen may be required for testing. In
these cases, pre-sampling photographs
should be taken to provide a permanent
record of the specimen’s appearance.
Typically, two or three images from
different angles with a scale in view
captured with a standard camera in
good lighting will suffice to provide a
sense of the specimen’s appearance and
dimensions for posterity. If a bone has
special diagnostic features, additional
photos may be warranted. In general, it
is advisable to take photos of all bones
prior to sampling. Likewise, while not
always possible, a “best practice” is to
record standardized measurements of
generic dimensions (e.g. Von Den
Driesch 1976; Morales & Rosenlund
1979; Rojo 2013), particularly for
specimens that are of special concern
(see below).
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
17
Draft under review
important that decisions about conducting destructive analyses take into account both potential gains
and potential losses (Matisoo-Smith 2019; Pálsdóttir et al. 2019). ZooMS analysis can be performed
using minimally invasive techniques (Evans et al. 2023).
In circumstances in which the animal bone will be destroyed for the purposes of analysis comes from
Indigenous archaeological sites, it is important to communicate with descendant First Nation(s) about
the project, to ensure that 1) the research is completely explained; 2) the need for destructive analysis
and the taxonomic and numeric scope of the sampling is justified by the principal investigator and is
then agreed upon by the descendant First Nation(s); and 3) results of the analysis are shared with the
descendant First Nation(s).
With respect to potential losses associated with destructive analyses, there are qualitative and
quantitative areas of concern: 1) the effect that sample removal will have on a specimen’s
morphological characteristics; and 2) the fact that sample removal will reduce the quantity of that
specimen that is available for future analyses. In “best case” scenarios, streamlining for the application
of multiple types of analyses to a single sample will maximize gains while minimizing losses. There are
some scenarios in which sampling for destructive analysis should be avoided. As a general rule, sampling
of faunal specimens that have been modified to become cultural artifacts should be avoided unless
special, stronger justifications are provided (e.g., research questions relate to nature of the artifact
itself; artifact type is ubiquitous, and the artifact is the only possible sample source). It is also possible
that a faunal specimen has such cultural significance that any destructive treatment would be
inappropriate. In other cases, a specimen may be so rare that any alteration to its physical
characteristics is also deemed unacceptable, such as when a specimen is the only example of its kind or
when it represents a highly unusual discovery for a particular area. However, given that objects can now
be scanned and 3D printed, this kind of total prohibition on destructive analysis is uncommon,
particularly in the context of analyses involving Ontario faunal remains.
Checklist for the (zoo)archaeologist:
Collaborate in sample selection. “Have a sampling strategy.... Know your samples.... Obtain written
permission from all relevant parties.” Document the specimen before sampling. “Take enough to
maximize the likelihood of useable results.... Ensure it is easy to trace each sample from your
published papers and raw data back to the holding institution, site publications, archaeological
context and specialist reports.... Know what you have in your laboratory.... Share generated data....
Publish negative results” (Pálsdóttir et al. 2019:5-6).
Special scenarios aside, in most cases permission to sample for destructive analysis is provided by
curators or custodians after due consideration of relevant qualitative and quantitative concerns for how
sampling can proceed with minimal impacts on the long-term preservation of relevant faunal
collections. The following are some considerations for anticipating common concerns and mitigating
sampling impacts.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
18
Draft under review
In most cases, destructive analysis will impact only a small fraction of a given faunal collection. This is
because faunal collections typically contain multiple examples of relevant species or elements, such
that, even for projects with relatively large sampling requirements, there can be numerous specimens
that are left untouched for posterity. However, some projects require samples from bones or teeth that
may be the only specimens from a given site or area. In this context it is important to consider the
quantity of material that would remain after sampling and whether this would prevent future analyses
using other techniques. In cases where insufficient sample material would remain, it is helpful to assess
whether similar samples are likely to be recovered during future excavations in the area or whether
other sites in the region might contain alternative sources of similar specimens for future research. If the
person pursuing permission to sample is not an experienced Ontario zooarchaeologist following the
criteria set out in section 2.1, that person should consult with such an experienced zooarchaeologist
before proceeding. The person conducting removing the items destined for destructive sampling needs
to be someone with knowledge of appropriate handling of archaeological artefacts and of making sure
contextual information for the item and for the bag it came from is retained.
It is also important for curators or custodians to keep track of which collections and specimens have
received different kinds of analyses to avoid unnecessary duplication of sampling of a given specimen
for application of the same technique (this can be done by adding a note in the catalogue that an item
has been sampled, indicating the name of the PI, the date, and the type of analysis). At the same time, it
should be borne in mind that it is possible that other/future researchers may still seek to re-sample a
specimen in order to confirm past results or even apply similar but enhanced techniques. It is also
possible that researchers may wish to apply the same or similar techniques to a particular faunal
collection but using different taxa or elements that are better suited for addressing a different set of
research questions.
Checklist for the archaeologist/ institution:
“Create a paper trail.... Consult with specialists.... Know the project.” Sample size: “Ideally there should
be an open dialogue about sample selection, sample sizes and sampling locations.” Documentation:
“Require detailed documentation before sampling.... State clearly what should be returned.... Require
access to resulting data.... Require clear acknowledgement of the holding institution in all
publications.... Rejections should be given in a timely manner and state clearly why the request was
declined. In some cases, alternative samples or sampling strategies can be suggested which would still
allow a project to reach most of its goals.... Share results” (Pálsdóttir et al. 2019:6-7).
Specimens from extinct or extirpated species require a special note. They are inherently of special
concern, but they are also of tremendous value for current and future studies employing destructive
techniques. Biomolecular analyses of specimens from extinct or extirpated species provide otherwiseimpossible opportunities to understand, among many things, the ecology of ecosystems that are no
longer with us (Guiry, Buckley et al. 2020) and to answer major questions about how conservation crises
unfolded in the past (Guiry, Royle et al. 2020) or how we might develop better conservation strategies
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
19
Draft under review
for the future (Guiry et al. 2016). The important lessons that can be learned from these analyses need to
be balanced against their relative availability and accessibility for research. Broadly speaking, analyses of
specimens from extinct or extirpated species should use extra caution when specimens are particularly
rare. Fortunately, specimens from many such species in Ontario (e.g., passenger pigeons, Atlantic
salmon, lake trout, beavers) can be relatively abundant at archaeological sites. Specimens of the famed
passenger pigeon, for example, are commonly observed at archaeological sites across Ontario (Sadler
and Savage 2003). In this context, while analyses of specimens from extinct or extirpated species should
not necessarily require de facto special justifications (e.g., when the analyses will not meaningfully
impact the number of specimens available for future research), they should always be sampled in ways
that minimize factors that could constrain future studies. Prior to submitting such specimens to
destructive analysis (whether part of the item or the entire item), record relevant standard osteometric
dimensions and preferentially use bones that are incomplete.
3
Reporting
If we hope to share our faunal reports—to be included in larger datasets for future research—it may be
wiser to write them up as stand-alone reports, complete with basic site information already covered in
the licensee report. We need to provide paradata, as well as solid basic information to allow other
researchers to decide whether the assemblage is worth taking further.
3.1
Personnel Credentials and Site Information
● Provide name and email address of the zooarchaeologist.
● Outline the zooarchaeologist’s academic credentials, including
zooarchaeology-related courses taken and zooarchaeology-related advanced
degrees. If the assemblage is Indigenous, include a brief statement of level of
expertise with bone tool technology.
● Provide name and company affiliation of the licence holder.
● Title and date the report.
● Provide name and Borden number of the site.
● Provide the year(s) when the laboratory component of the analysis was
conducted, as well as the name and location of the reference collection used.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
20
Draft under review
● Provide general information about the site(s), including name, relative date
and cultural affiliation of site, and general location. Add citations to available
publications or reports on the site.
● List and summarize the deposits included in the analysis. If possible, indicate
the dates associated with each one and whether or not deposits have been
disturbed since their initial deposition (e.g., plough disturbance).
● If the faunal material was sampled by the zooarchaeologist at the request of
the consultant, list the sampling method with references to support/justify it.
If the faunal material was sampled by the consultant, provide references to the
section in the main report where the sampling methodology is explained and
justified. List the approximate proportion sampled.
● Provide summary of taphonomic history of the assemblage, including how
screen size or post-depositional impacts may affect interpretations.
3.2
Method
● Describe the resources used for taxonomic identification (name/location of lab
and published guides used).
● Provide list of local specimens present in the collection.
● Describe how tentative identifications were handled (e.g., because of
deficiencies in reference collection, morphological similarities between bones
of two species). Be aware not to identify to taxonomic levels that exceed your
experience or that exceed the taxa present in the reference collection.
● Define any size classes used.
● Provide details regarding your database. What and how are you recording?
Define your categories and explain your criteria (e.g., completeness or portion,
age and sex determination, measurements taken, taphonomic signatures,
etc.). Cite any relevant sources.
● Provide bone counts of all the items in the assemblage, regardless of level of
taxonomic detail (i.e., including to-class-only identifications).
● Describe quantification methods used.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
21
Draft under review
● If minimum number of individual (MNI) estimates are used, note the method
used and note the skeletal element, portion, and side used in the calculations,
to help people collecting samples for other scientific analyses maximize sample
size.
● Describe butchery/meat cuts and detail how they were done.
● Present element or body part distribution for taxa of analytical interest and/or
taxa represented by a significant number of specimens.
“All published datasets should come with an “Operator's Manual” — paradata that permits
informed reuse by other analysts. These reports should be included not only with
zooarchaeological reports published in traditional academic venues, but also accompany primary
data publication. These explanations of methodologies should contain 1) an explanation of
recovery methods, 2) an explanation of identification methodology as described by Driver (2011)
and, if relevant, 3) an evaluation of interanalyst variation or possible observer bias” Lau and Kansa
(2018:37).
It is essential that analysts be explicit and transparent about their methodological choices (for
zooarchaeology, see Driver 2011; Gobalet 2001; Lyman 2002; Wolverton 2013).
3.3
Results
● Provide a general characterization of your assemblage and the results of all
analyses.
● Discuss taxa in taxonomic order or by whatever makes most sense for the site
(e.g., procurement method, domestic vs. wild).
● Provide a table including scientific and common names along with
quantification data, separated by major context and by recovery method.
● Include information regarding relative abundance, procurement strategies,
processing/butchering, cooking methods and preservation.
● Provide information regarding preferred habitat, breeding, hibernation and
migration cycles of wild taxa if relevant.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
22
Draft under review
● Summarize taphonomic signatures observed on-site.
● Present separate analyses or summaries based on context that reflect the
different depositional histories of individual locations (e.g., by relative date,
deposit type).
● Explain how and why deposits are the same or different based on data you
collected and analyses you performed. Provide a table with numbers.
● Summarize the number and type of butchery marks present on animal bones
and provide a description of any evidence for trauma and pathology identified
in the faunal assemblage.
3.4
Summary and Conclusions
● Provide a summary of your data and interpretations.
● Address research questions that were set or interesting data/trends that were
observed.
● Where applicable, note the potential for the collection to be used for
additional analyses that may help reveal patterns or relationships beyond the
scope of the project (for future research).
● Briefly discuss how the faunal data may fit within a regional scheme.
3.5
List of Identifications
Note the detail listed in the bullet list below.
● Store a paper copy of the identifications by provenience with the site records
and with the collection.
● Label each box on the outside indicating how many boxes of faunal material
there are in total.
●
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
23
Draft under review
A paper copy of the identifications by provenience must be
stored with the site records and with the collection. Each
box should have a label on the outside indicating how
many boxes of faunal material there are in total. This
makes the job of any future researcher a bit easier in case
an electronic data set is no longer available and that
person, for whatever reason, cannot get access to hard
copies of the report via the consultant or the Ministry.
Also, it would help future researchers determine whether
they have got all the bags/boxes in the collection.
Since with a few exceptions (e.g., sturgeon dermal scutes)
making the taxonomic identification requires knowing the
element, the element identification will be made anyway,
and then it may as well be written down.
According to what we know of
nineteenth-century butchery
practices and market prices in North
America, the perceived quality and
hence price of the meat cuts varies
along the thoracic spine. Therefore,
cow thoracic vertebrae and ribs on
eighteenth- through twentiethcentury sites should be identified at
least to the anterior, middle, or
posterior of column whenever
possible, to get some idea of meat
cuts.
The list for the specimens identified to the lowest taxonomic level feasible should include, where
applicable and where required:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
mesh size (just in case the database ever becomes separated from the report)
name of the analyst
collection used
provenience
scientific name and common name for the taxonomic identification
the element name; for vertebrae of sheep/goat and pig, this should include the part of the
column and the number; for cow thoracic vertebrae this should additionally include the
approximate location (anterior, mid, posterior in thoracic series); for cow ribs, this should
include the approximate location (anterior, mid, posterior in series)
side of body the element is from or axial
portion or fragment of the specimen
skeletal age of the specimen (epiphysis fused, fusing, unfused)
evidence of burning
location of butchering cut and implement used for butchering
brief description of artifactual modification
presence of pathology
presence and nature of gnawing
presence of traces of digestion
evidence of erosion
relationship to other specimens in the sample in the case of associated bone groups
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
24
Draft under review
Optional:
o
o
o
o
o
4
age estimate of the animal it came from if possible
sex of animal it came from
type of burning
nature of pathology
photos of the artifacts and typical types of butchering evidence
Short- and Long-Term Care
Bone that is broken is often more difficult to identify, resulting in loss of data resolution. Therefore care
should be taken to avoid any further breakage during excavation, transport, and storage. The guiding
rationale for any decisions around handling and packing of faunal remains should be to avoid rotting or
other degradation, mechanical damage and/or breakage, or loss of associated provenience information.
Beyond that, it makes sense to us to ensure that any
Even collections not destined for
recommendations do not conflict with Sustainable
Sustainable Archaeology would
Archaeology requirements (see
benefit from following the general
http://sustainablearchaeology.org/proceduresSustainable Archaeology guidelines,
practices.html#pakcaging), so that collections may be
as they are aimed at ensuring the
placed in Sustainable Archaeology facilities. It also makes
long-term preservation and
sense to us to be mindful of the fact that consultant
sustainability of collections.
zooarchaeologists operate in an environment with funding
constraints and that best practices for packaging and
labelling, while obviously ideal, could use up funds that might be better spent elsewhere in the process.
It should be understood that the consulting firm is responsible for the costs involved—either directly,
through employment of their staff in best practices of packaging and labelling, or indirectly, through
payment to subcontracted zooarchaeologists.
In some instances, First Nations have outlined preferred storage protocols for artifacts, including animal
bone, from their ancestors’ sites. In these cases, archaeologists should make every effort to respect
these protocols, and at the same time ensure the preservation of bone for future research.
4.1
Packing in the Field
● Handle and pack faunal remains to avoid rotting or other degradation,
mechanical damage and/or breakage, or loss of associated provenience
information.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
25
Draft under review
● Where First Nations have outlined preferred storage protocols for artifacts,
including animal bone, from their ancestors’ sites, respect these protocols, and
at the same time ensure the preservation of bone for future research.
● Place faunal material in paper or plastic bags.
● Label bags in such a way that the label cannot rub or fall off.
● Separate out fragile from non-fragile items, to avoid breakage.
Upon excavation, faunal material should be placed in labelled paper or plastic bags. Paper bags should
be labelled in ballpoint pen or indelible marker directly onto the outside of the bag. Plastic patch bags
must be labelled directly on the patch using ballpoint pen or indelible marker. Clear plastic bags must be
labelled using either a Tyvek label or similar inserted into the bag, or a paper label inside a little plastic
bag inserted into the main bag, or a sticker affixed to the inside of the bag. Marker must not be used on
the outside of non-patch plastic bags, because there is a risk it will rub off over time. Stickers or masking
tape must not be affixed to the outside of the bag, because there is a risk the adhesive will fail over
time.
Unwashed bone should not be left in plastic bags for more than a few days, in order to ensure that the
contents do not go mouldy. Small holes may be punctured in plastic bags used for field packing using a
paperclip or mechanical pencil to facilitate drying.
We argue that the packing in the field should separate out fragile from non-fragile items, to avoid
breakage. This can be done subjectively, rather than strictly by zoological class, to avoid the field crew
having to use up to six bags for each context.
Fish and micro-mammals should be kept separate at all times, before and after field recovery, from
other large and heavy non-faunal finds and from the larger mammal (roughly anything larger than dog,
and certainly anything larger in either dimension or weight than either a golf ball or a tennis ball). For
example, we really do not want the end of a cow limb bone bagged with the passenger pigeon and
perch bones at any point. Eggshell and remains of invertebrates should be bagged separately. Mollusc
shell should be bagged separately, as shell will behave differently than bone as it dries out. If there are
multiple items of larger mammal tooth row with in-situ dentition, with enamel visible in the field (i.e.,
not protected by mud), these should be packaged in such a way that the teeth cannot come into contact
with each other and cause spalling.
4.2
Cleaning and Re-packing by the Consultant
● Clean faunal material promptly to avoid deterioration. If the soil matrix is
easily removed with a dry brush, use only a dry brush.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
26
Draft under review
● Handle and pack faunal remains to avoid rotting or other degradation,
mechanical damage and/or breakage, or loss of associated provenience
information.
● Where First Nations have outlined preferred storage protocols for artifacts,
including animal bone, from their ancestors’ sites, respect these protocols, and
at the same time ensure the preservation of bone for future research. If the
curating institution requires labelling of the remains themselves and if the
descendant group(s) permit it, label them in such a way that the label cannot
rub or fall off.
● Separate out fragile from non-fragile items, to avoid breakage.
● Make sure items are completely dry before re-bagging.
● Label bags in such a way that the label cannot rub or fall off.
● Place faunal material in plastic bags.
● Place each item worked bone or manufacturing waste in its own bag or
container, with full provenience information.
“...the first step in processing artifacts coming out of the field is to clean them, in order to properly
expose surfaces for analysis, and to remove any residues that, if left long term with the artifact or in
a bag of artifacts, can cause degradation” Sustainable Archaeology
http://sustainablearchaeology.org/procedures-practices.html.
Faunal remains that are not clean can degrade over time and can be more difficult to identify, resulting
in loss of data resolution. Therefore, bone and shell should be cleaned at some point not too long after
excavation, either by the consultant’s lab personnel or by the zooarchaeologist. For bone, usually this is
best done by very gentle brushing with a toothbrush, optionally preceded by agitation in water. The key
word is gentle, as vigorous brushing can cause damage, as well as alteration to the surface that could be
mistaken for working or burnishing. Care must be taken, particularly with fragile items, such as fish
bones, to ensure items are not damaged or broken during cleaning. Sustainable Archaeology
recommends that faunal material should never be fully immersed in water, but we would argue that
there are situations where full submersion would be appropriate. For certain kinds of soil matrix, it
allows the adhering sediment to dissolve off rather than having it turn to a layer of sludge on the
surface.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
27
Draft under review
The decision whether to wash or not should be left up to the lab personnel or the zooarchaeologist, who
are in a position to decide which method of cleaning is most appropriate. There are arguments to be
made against washing: it avoids another handling procedure that could result in provenience errors; it
avoids breakage or damage to the surface of the specimen if it became spongy; it avoids distortion that
might affect osteometrics; and it avoids removing residue that might be useful in future analysis. The
most appropriate treatment will also be dependent on the soil conditions. We agree with the following
from the Sustainable Archaeology website: “Artifacts should be laid out and allowed to dry naturally
away from direct sources of heat (e.g., direct sunlight, radiator, or space heater).” We emphasize the
necessity for the bones to be absolutely dry before being packed and stored.
Fish scales and fish otoliths (which are calcium carbonate) should not be washed at all, as this can easily
damage the outer margin, which is crucial for seasonality studies. As noted by Sustainable Archaeology,
unstable bone, horn, the keratinous covering on turtle shell, and gastropod shell should not be washed
with water. Cleaned items should be bagged separately from items that still have some soil matrix
adhering.
Some of us have had experience with older collections that had been bagged in Kraft paper bags, plastic
bags, or gel vials that, decades later, are disintegrating.
The faunal material has to be absolutely dry before it is packed, to prevent moisture build-up inside the
bag or vial. As an extra precaution, each zip-locking bag should have perforations made with a paperclip
or similar to allow any remaining moisture to escape.
The packing in the lab should retain the separation of fragile from non-fragile items achieved in the field.
Multiple items of mammal tooth row with in-situ dentition should be bagged in such a way that the
teeth cannot come into contact with each other and cause spalling. The zooarchaeologist may decide to
further subdivide the collection based on the research objectives or other considerations, including
protection of fragile items. Each of these further sub-bags should be labelled with the catalogue
number(s).
Each item of worked bone or manufacturing waste should go in its own bag or container, with full
provenience information, since the worked bone and debris may, after analysis, be stored separately
from the non-worked bone.
For the main/outer bag for each context, we suggest that patch bags should have full provenience
labelling (site/location, Borden number, full context info, material type) on the patch in ballpoint and
that non-patch bags should have a paper or Tyvek label inside the bag—because marker writing on the
outside of non-patch bags can rub off. If there is a paper label inside the bag, then all of the bone must
be further bagged in plastic sub-bags so that the bone is not in contact with the non-archival paper
provenience label. Placing the label from the original bag into the plastic bag could prove useful in cases
where provenience info on the patch label or on the bag insert is incomplete, because it will list the
excavators (something that is not required for the Sustainable Archaeology labelling) and can thus be
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
28
Draft under review
tied to the field notes in more detail, especially for units or features that were excavated over several
days.
Catalogue numbers do not need to be assigned at the
Separating within classes except for
preliminary report stage. However, we recommend that
dentition tends not to be helpful,
the faunal material be assigned a single catalogue
because the zooarchaeologist will
number and count per unique provenience, and that
almost inevitably use different criteria
this should be written on the respective bag labels. This
than the lab personnel to subdivide
numbering can take place either before completion of
the collection below class. Even
the preliminary report or after completion of the
separating out the butchered material
preliminary report, depending on preference, but it
and worked bone is not helpful, since
should happen before the material is handed over to
non-specialists are not always
the zooarchaeologist for analysis. The zooarchaeologist
accurate in assessing what has and
should run a parallel numbering system for the faunal
has not been butchered or
identification numbers and add their number (or
artifactually modified, and since the
number range) to the bag labels. Note that this faunal
zooarchaeologist will be looking at
identification number forms part of an analytical
the material by taxon and by element,
numbering system, as distinct from the catalogue
and then describe any butchering or
numbering system mentioned above. Where the two
cut marks or artifactual alteration as
systems do not match up, this faunal identification
they record each item.
number does not need to be tied to the main catalogue
numbering system. However, the database produced by
the zooarchaeologist should of course contain those main catalogue numbers as well as the faunal
identification numbers.
In a consulting setting, if the person in-house doing the sorting to class has some experience in
identification of faunal remains, bag counts by class may be noted on the bags, as this may save money
where there is a differential in hourly rate (even if the in-house class assignments are not 100%
accurate). In all cases, the faunal analyst should be the one responsible for assigning faunal
identification numbers beyond that main number per unique context.
Any labelling on the bones themselves should follow Sustainable Archaeology guidelines. For the inner
bags, use patch bags or regular bags with internal stickers, so that the zooarchaeologist can easily label
them with the zooarchaeological catalogue number range and the label cannot become separated from
the sub-bag. It would be good practice to label any inner bags with full provenience info in the lab as
well, but that is not quite as crucial, since each sub-bag will have the catalogue number written on it by
the zooarchaeologist, and this allows it to be tied to its provenance. Bag labelling can take up a lot of
time, so it may not be feasible to require that every single bag is labelled with full provenience info.
Again, that time and money might be better spent elsewhere in the process. However, if full
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
29
Draft under review
provenience information is not given on the inner bags, then each inner bag must be labelled with the
catalogue number range.
We completely agree with Sustainable Archaeology’s requirement that “artifact bags should not be
more than two-thirds full; they should not be overstuffed” and with the statement “do not force an
oversized object into a bag.” Both of these practices can cause breakage and they make it timeconsuming for the zooarchaeologist to fit everything back into the bag it came from. Bones should be
placed inside the main bag in such a way that fragile fish and bird bones do not end up underneath
heavy mammal bones and that any plastic vials used do not end up crushing bone that is not in vials. The
main bags should, in turn, be placed in the box in a way that also prevents crushing. In general, boxes
should not exceed the dimensions of a letter-sized banker’s box, unless the items themselves exceed
those dimensions (e.g., complete horse skull). Boxes should also not be overstuffed. Insert trays can be
used to make optimal use of space. In the case of faunal material, Sustainable Archaeology’s maximum
weight of 13.6 kg per box will almost always be too much to ensure the integrity of the material, so
boxes should not be filled to that maximum weight.
For collections taking up more than one box, the faunal remains should be boxed separately from other
classes of artifacts, because this goes partway toward protecting fragile material. For collections fitting
into one box, it may not be necessary to pack separately in order to protect fragile material. Boxes
should be labelled with full site information, the consultant’s name, the artifact type, the
zooarchaeologist’s name, and the catalogue number range of the bags within it.
4.3
Re-packing by the Zooarchaeologist
● Separate and bag any worked bone or debris that went unrecognized in the
initial sort, and label the bag with full provenience information and the
catalogue number.
● If necessary to avoid breakage, further subdivide the collection into sub-bags.
● Make sure any sub-bags added in the faunal lab are labelled with the
catalogue number range.
● Wherever feasible, sequence the bags within the box to match the main
catalogue.
To speed up data entry and make it easier for future researchers to relocate individual bones, the
material should be organized in such a way that the contents of the box match the contents of the
faunal identification list in the respective final licence report. The bags should be sequenced to match
the main catalogue (i.e., by context), and within that, the faunal identification number list, with the
possible exception of historic sites with lots of tiny bags from mixed/redeposited contexts. Then
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
30
Draft under review
organizing that material in such a way that the bags remain in provenience sequence at all times may
not be as crucial.
All of the sub-bags added in the faunal lab should be labelled with the unique catalogue number or
catalogue number range assigned by the zooarchaeologist that ties the faunal remains to the
zooarchaeology catalogue. The outer bag should be labelled with the catalogue number range as well.
Since packing appropriately in order to avoid breakage is a bit subjective, it may be necessary for the
zooarchaeologist to further subdivide the collection during analysis and create extra sub-bags. The
general recommendation should be to subdivide and package fauna in such a way as to maximize data
preservation and minimize the potential for subsequent damage, and not to prioritize cost savings
through the minimal use of packing supplies. It may also be necessary for the zooarchaeologist to label
additional bags for worked bone that went unrecognized in the field or the lab, and these should be
labelled with full provenience info.
A paper copy of the faunal identifications list, containing catalogue numbers, faunal identification
numbers, and the identifications, themselves should be inserted into the first of the faunal boxes
relating to each licence report.
Bibliography
Baker, Polydora, and Fay Worley
2019 Animal Bones and Archaeology: Recovery to Archive. Historic England, Portsmouth.
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/animal-bones-and-archaeology/
Banning, Edward B.
2020 Spatial Sampling. In Archaeological Spatial Analysis: A Methodological Guide, edited by Mark
Gillings, Piraye Hacıgüzeller, and Gary Lock, pp. 41–59. London, Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351243858-3
Barker, Graeme
1975 To Sieve or Not to Sieve. Antiquity 49:61–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00103655
Campbell, Matthew, and Reno Nims
2019 Small Screens, Small Fish and the Diversity of Pre-European Māori Fish Catches. Journal of
Pacific Archaeology 10(2):43–54.
https://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal/article/view/290
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
31
Draft under review
Casteel, Richard W.
1972 Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 38:382–388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00012172
1976 Comparison of Column and Whole Unit Samples for Recovering Fish Remains. World
Archaeology 8:192–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1976.9979663
Cavallo, Chiara, Kinie Esser, Roel Lauwerier, Wietske Prummel, Liesbeth Smits, and Jørn T. Zeiler
2006 Archeozoölogie en Fysische Antropologie. In Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie.
Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort.
https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/onderwerpen/bronnen-enkaarten/documenten/publicaties/2006/01/01/nationale-onderzoeksagenda-archeologie-1.0
Clason, Anneke T., and Wietske Prummel
1977 Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:171–
175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(77)90064-4
Cooper, Janet, Peter Hamalainen, Heather Henderson, James MacLean, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Anne
Meachem Rick, and Stephen Cox Thomas
1995 Stage 4 Draft Guidelines: Recommendations Concerning Zooarchaeological Remains. ArchNotes
95(5):29–35. https://www.ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/ArchNotes/an95-5.pdf
Crabtree, Pam J.
1999 Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade,
Social Status, and Ethnicity. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited
by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 155–205. Academic Press, San Diego.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170207
Driesch, Angela Von den
1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum
Bulletin No. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.
Driver, Jonathan C.
2011 Identification, Classification and Zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Letters 2(1):19–39.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26419924
Evans, Zara, Lindsey Paskulin, Farid Rahemtulla, and Camilla F. Speller
2023 A Comparison of Minimally-Invasive Sampling Techniques for ZooMS Analysis of Bone Artifacts.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 47: 103738.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103738
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
32
Draft under review
Feranec, Robert S., and John P. Hart
2019 Fish and Maize: Bayesian Mixing Models of Fourteenth- through Seventeenth-Century AD
Ancestral Wendat Diets, Ontario, Canada. Scientific Reports 9:16658.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53076-7
Friesen, T. Max, Alicia L. Hawkins, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Trevor J. Orchard, and Frances L. Stewart
In review
The Unanticipated Legacy of Howard G. Savage: Reflections on Teaching, Learning, and
Practising Zooarchaeology in Ontario. Special volume of the Canadian Journal of Archaeology,
titled “Foundations of Story and Stone,” guest-edited by Amy Fox and Michael Chazan.
Gates St-Pierre, Christian, and Marie-Ève Boisvert
2015 L’industrie osseuse. In Mailhot-Curran : un village iroquoien du XVIe siècle, edited by Claude
Chapdelaine, pp. 261–290. Paléo-Québec No. 35. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec,
Montreal.
Gobalet, Kenneth W.
2005 Comment on “Size Matters: 3-mm Sieves Do not Increase Richness in a Fishbone Assemblage
from Arrawarra I, an Aboriginal Australian Shell Midden on the Mid-North Coast of New South
Wales, Australia” by Vale and Gargett. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:643–645.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.002
Gordon, Elizabeth A.
1993 Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery: A Hawaiian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology
20:453–460. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1993.20.4.453
Guiry, Eric J., and Michael Buckley
2018 Urban Rats Have Less Variable, Higher Protein Diets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B
285(1889):20181441. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1441
Guiry, Eric J., Michael Buckley, Trevor J. Orchard, Alicia L. Hawkins, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Erling
Holm, and Paul Szpak
2020 Deforestation Caused Abrupt Shift in Great Lakes Nitrogen Cycle. Limnology and Oceanography
65:1921–1935. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11428
Guiry, Eric. J., and Barry Gaulton
2016 Inferring Human Behaviors from Isotopic Analyses of Rat Diet: A Critical Review and Historical
Application. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23(2):399–426
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
33
Draft under review
Guiry, Eric J., Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Kevin D. Friedland, Alicia L. Hawkins, Paul Szpak, Rebecca
Macdonald, Michelle Courtemanche, Erling Holm, and Michael P. Richards
2016 Lake Ontario Salmon (Salmo salar) Were Not Migratory: A Long-standing Historical Debate
Solved through Stable Isotope Analysis. Scientific Reports 6:36249.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36249
Guiry, Eric J., Trevor J. Orchard, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, and Paul Szpak
2021 Isotopic Evidence for Garden Hunting and Resource Depression in the Late Woodland of
Northeastern North America. American Antiquity 86:90–110.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.86
Guiry, Eric J., Trevor J. Orchard, Thomas C.A. Royle, Christina Cheung, and Dongya D. Yang
2020 Dietary Plasticity and the Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius).
Quaternary Science Reviews 233:106225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106225.
Eric Guiry, Thomas C.A. Royle, R.G. Matson, Hillary Ward, Tyler Weir, Nicholas Waber, Thomas J. Brown,
Brian P.V. Hunt, Michael H.H. Price, Bruce P. Finney, Masahide Kaeriyama, Yuxue Qin, Dongya Y.
Yang, and Paul Szpak
2020 Differentiating Salmonid Migratory Ecotypes through Stable Isotope Analysis of Collagen:
Archaeological and Ecological Applications. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0232180.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232180
Guiry, Eric J., Paul Szpak, and Michael P. Richards
2017 Isotopic Analyses Reveal Geographical and Socioeconomic Patterns in Historical Animal Trade
Between Predominantly Wheat- and Maize-Growing Agricultural Regions in Eastern North
America. American Antiquity 82:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2016.34
Hawkins, Alicia L.
2017 Sampling and Subsampling at the Allandale Site: An Evaluation of the Standards of Practice in
Zooarchaeology in Compliance Archaeology in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology
41:308–329.
Hawkins, Alicia L., Michael Buckley, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, and Trevor J. Orchard
2022 Practice Makes Perfect? Inter-analyst Variability in the Identification of Fish Bones from
Archaeological Sites. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 32(3):694–705.
https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.3096
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
34
Draft under review
Hawkins, Alicia L., Jake Cousineau, and Kaitlyn Malleau
2017 Weighing the Evidence: An Experiment in Nested Screening on Contact Period Iroquoian Sites.
Poster presented at the 44th Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society,
Brantford, Ontario.
Hawkins, Alicia L., and Suzanne Needs-Howarth
2017a Diagnostic Elements and Interobserver Variation in the Identification of Fish Bones. Poster
presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315973180_Diagnostic_Elements_and_Interobserve
r_Variation_in_the_Identification_of_Fish_Bones
2017b Are All Identifications Created Equal? An Experiment in Inter-Analyst Variation. Poster presented
at the 19th International Council for Archaeozoology Fish Remains Working Group, Alghero and
Stintino, Italy.
Hawkins, Alicia L., Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Michelle Courtemanche, and Christian Gates St-Pierre
2015 Screen Mesh Size and Fish Bone Recovery on Iroquoian Sites. Poster presented at the joint
Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society and the Eastern States Archaeological
Federation, Midland, Ontario.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282875860_Screen_mesh_size_and_fish_bone_reco
very_on_Iroquoian_sites
James, Steven R.
1997 Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and Their Effects on
Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385–397.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0123
Katzenberg, M. Anne
1989 Stable Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Faunal Remains from Southern Ontario. Journal of
Archaeological Science 16(3):319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(89)90008-3
Landon, David B.
2005 Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and Prospects. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 12:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-2395-7
Lau, Hannah, and Sarah W. Kansa
2018 Zooarchaeology in the Era of Big Data: Contending with Interanalyst Variation and Best Practices
for Contextualizing Data for Informed Reuse. Journal of Archaeological Science 95:33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.03.011
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
35
Draft under review
Lepofsky, Dana, and Ken Lertzman
2005 More on Sampling for Richness and Diversity in Archaeobiological Assemblages. Journal of
Ethnobiology 25(2):175–188. https://doi.org/10.2993/02780771(2005)25[175:MOSFRA]2.0.CO;2
Lyman, R. Lee
2019 Assumptions and Protocol of the Taxonomic Identification of Faunal Remains in Zooarchaeology:
a North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26:1376–1438.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09414-0
Lyman, R. Lee, and Kenneth M. Ames
2004 Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: Lessons from the Portland Basin, Northwestern
Oregon and Southwestern Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 24(2):329–346.
https://ethnobiology.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/JoE/24-2/LymanAmes2004.pdf
Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth
2019 Working with Indigenous Communities in Genomic Research: A Pacific Perspective. SAA
Archaeological Record 19:14–19.
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=572958&article_id=3327747&view=articleBrowser
&ver=html5
McGrath, Krista, Keri Rowsell, Christian Gates St-Pierre, Andrew Tedder, George Foody, Camilla Speller,
and Matthew Collins
2019 The Identification of Archaeological Bone through Non-Destructive ZooMS and the Materiality of
Symbolic Expressions: The Example of Iroquoian Bone Projectile Points. Scientific Reports
9:11027. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47299-x
Ministry of Tourism and Culture
2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/archaeology/archaeology_s_g.shtml
Morales, Arturo, and Knut Rosenlund
1979 An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites. Steenstrupia,
Copenhagen.
Morris, Zoe, Christine White, Lisa Hodgetts, and Fred Longstaffe
2016 Maize Provisioning of Ontario Late Woodland Turkeys: Isotopic Evidence of Seasonal, Cultural,
Spatial and Temporal Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:596–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.017
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
36
Draft under review
Nagaoka, Lisa
2005 Differential Recovery of Pacific Island Fish Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:941–
955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.12.011
Needs-Howarth, Suzanne
2016 Artifact Analysis—Zooarchaeological Assemblage. In Stage 4 Archaeological Salvage Excavation
and Ossuary Potential Monitoring of the Otsistoret Site (BaGv-75), edited by Archaeological
Services Inc., pp. 69–85. Submitted to Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
1999 Native Fishing in the Great Lakes—A Multidisciplinary Approach to Zooarchaeological Remains
from Precontact Iroquoian Villages near Lake Simcoe, Ontario. PhD dissertation, Groningen
Institute of Archaeology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. http://hdl.handle.net/11370/f1686b3f156f-4361-a3af-47f2d9ec623a
Nims, Reno, and Virginia L. Butler
2017 Assessing Reproducibility in Faunal Analysis Using Blind Tests: A Case Study from Northwestern
North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11:750–761.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.012
Orchard, Trevor J., Suzanne Needs-Howarth, Alicia L. Hawkins, Louis Lesage, Eric J. Guiry, and Thomas
C.A. Royle
2022 Considering Passenger Pigeon Abundance and Distribution in the Late Woodland
Zooarchaeological Record of Southern Ontario, Canada. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology [Early View]. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.3163
Pálsdóttir, Albina H., Auli Bläuer, Eve Rannamäe, Sanne Boessenkool, and Jón H. Hallsson
2019 Not a Limitless Resource: Ethics and Guidelines for Destructive Sampling of Archaeofaunal
Remains. Royal Society Open Science 6:191059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191059
Partlow, Megan A.
2006 Sampling Fish Bones: A Consideration of the Importance of Screen Size and Disposal Context in
the North Pacific. Arctic Anthropology 43:67–79. https://doi.org/10.1353/arc.2011.0064
Payne, Sebastian
1972 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in
Economic Prehistory, edited by Eric S. Higgs, pp. 49–64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
37
Draft under review
Pfeiffer, Susan, Judith C. Sealy, Ronald F. Williamson, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, and Louis Lesage
2016 Maize, Fish, and Deer: Investigating Dietary Staples among Ancestral Huron-Wendat Villages, as
Documented from Tooth Samples. American Antiquity 81:515–532.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002731600003978
Prevec, Rosemary
1985 The Advantages of Flotation and Fine Screening to the Faunal Analyst. ArchNotes 85(2):22–27.
https://www.ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/ArchNotes/an85-2.pdf
Rebolledo, Sandra, Philippe Béarez, Débora Zurro, Calogero M. Santoro, and
Claudio Latorre
2021 Big Fish or Small Fish? Differential Ichthyoarchaeological Representation Revealed by Different
Recovery Methods in the Atacama Desert Coast, Northern Chile. Environmental Archaeology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2021.1886647
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing
2008 Zooarchaeology. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., Donald Grayson, Guy Bar-Oz, Luis Borrero, Kim Dammers, Keith Dobney, Sebastian
Payne, and Melinda Zeder
2009 International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) Professional Protocols for Archaeozoology.
Electronic document, http://alexandriaarchive.org/icaz/pdf/protocols2009.pdf, accessed March
4, 2021.
Rojo, Alfonso
2013 Osteological Atlas of the Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) from Nova Scotia Waters: A
Morphological and Biometric Study. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax.
Royle, Thomas C.A., Hua Zhang, Eric Guiry, Trevor J. Orchard, Suzanne Needs-Howarth, and Dongya Y.
Yang
2020 Investigating the Sex Selectivity of a Middle Ontario Iroquoian Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and
Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Fishery through Ancient DNA Analysis. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 31:102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102301
Shaffer, Brian S.
1992 Quarter-inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains.
American Antiquity 57:129–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694839
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
38
Draft under review
Stewart, Frances L.
1991a Floating for Fauna: Some Methodological Considerations Using the Keffer Site (AkGv-14) Midden
57 Faunal Sample. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:97–115.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41102478
1991b The Faunal Remains from the Keffer Site (AkGv-14), a Southern Ontario Iroquois Village. Museum
of Indian Archaeology Research Report No. 21. Museum of Indian Archaeology, London.
Thomas, David H.
1969 Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains. American
Antiquity 34:392–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/277736
Tourigny, Eric
2016 Upper Canada Foodways: An Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from Urban and Rural
Domestic Sites in Toronto (York), AD 1794–1900. PhD dissertation, School of Archaeology and
Ancient History, University of Leicester.
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/39388/1/2016TOURIGNYEDPhD.pdf
2017 Minimum Sample Sizes, Recovery Techniques, and the Reporting of Animal Bones from Historic
Period Assemblages in Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 97:44–61.
Tourigny, Eric, Richard Thomas, Eric J. Guiry, Richard Earp, Andrew Allen, Jamie L. Rothenburger, Dennis
Lawler, and Marc Nussbaumer
2016 An Osteobiography of a 19th‐Century Dog from Toronto, Canada. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 26:818–829. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2483
Ullah, Isaac I., Paul R. Duffy, and Edward B. Banning
2015 Modernizing Spatial Micro-Refuse Analysis: New Methods for Collecting, Analyzing, and
Interpreting the Spatial Patterning of Micro-Refuse from House-Floor Contexts. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 22:1238–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9223-x
van der Merwe, Nikolaas J., Ronald F. Williamson, Susan Pfeiffer, Stephen Cox Thomas, and Kim Oakberg
Allegretto
2003 The Moatfield Ossuary: Isotopic Dietary Analysis of an Iroquoian Community, Using Dental
Tissue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(3):245–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S02784165(03)00038-2
Zohar, Irit, and Miriam Belmaker
2005 Size Does Matter: Methodological Comments on Sieve Size and Species Richness in Fishbone
Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03054403(03)00037-2
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
39
Draft under review
List of Genera to Be Included in Reference Collection
Nomenclature based on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS—www.itis.gov); accurate
as of November 23, 2020. Relative ubiquity in previously analyzed faunal assemblages is categorized
along the following scale: Ubiquitous (i.e., present in essentially all assemblages) > Common (i.e.,
present in most assemblages) > Moderate (i.e., present in fewer that 50% of assemblages) > Rare (i.e.,
present in very few assemblages). Introduced and/or modern domestic animals are labelled as
"Settler-era" in the Ubiquity column.
(Super)class
Order
Family
Genus
Ubiquity
Bivalvia
Bivalvia
Bivalvia
Bivalvia
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Gastropoda
Gastropoda
Unionoida
Unionoida
Unionoida
Unionoida
Ostreoida
Neotaenioglossa
Neotaenioglossa
Basommatophora
Unionidae
Unionidae
Unionidae
Unionidae
Ostreidae
Pomatiopsidae
Pleuroceridae
Lymnaeidae
Elliptio
Potamilus
Ligumia
Lampsilis
Crassostrea
Pomatiopsis
Pleurocera
Pseudosuccinea
Common
Gastropoda
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Stylommatophora
Acipenseriformes
Lepisosteiformes
Amiiformes
Salmoniformes
Salmoniformes
Salmoniformes
Salmoniformes
Esociformes
Gadiformes
Gadiformes
Gadiformes
Clupeiformes
Cypriniformes
Cypriniformes
Cypriniformes
Cypriniformes
Polygyridae
Acipenseridae
Lepisosteidae
Amiidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Salmonidae
Esocidae
Gadidae
Gadidae
Gadidae
Clupeidae
Catostomidae
Catostomidae
Catostomidae
Cyprinidae
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Cypriniformes
Siluriformes
Siluriformes
Cyprinidae
Ictaluridae
Ictaluridae
Triodopsis
Acipenser
Lepisosteus
Amia
Salmo
Salvelinus
Coregonus
Prosopium
Esox
Gadus
Melanogrammus
Lota
Clupea
Catostomus
Moxostoma
Carpiodes
Semotilus
various genera
(baitfish sized)
Ameiurus
Ictalurus
Settler-era
Rare
Rare
[land snail; likely
intrusive]
Common
Moderate
Common
Moderate
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Settler-era
Settler-era
Moderate
Settler-era
Common
Moderate
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Common
Common
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
40
Draft under review
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Actinopterygii
Amphibia
Amphibia
Amphibia
Amphibia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Reptilia
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Siluriformes
Anguilliformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Perciformes
Anura
Anura
Caudata
Caudata
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Testudines
Squamata
Gaviiformes
Podicipediformes
Suliformes
Pelecaniformes
Pelecaniformes
Pelecaniformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Ictaluridae
Anguillidae
Moronidae
Centrarchidae
Centrarchidae
Centrarchidae
Centrarchidae
Percidae
Percidae
Sciaenidae
Bufonidae
Ranidae
Proteidae
various families
Chelydridae
Kinosternidae
Emydidae
Emydidae
Emydidae
Emydidae
Emydidae
Trionychidae
Colubridae
Gaviidae
Podicipedidae
Phalacrocoracidae
Ardeidae
Ardeidae
Ardeidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Noturus
Anguilla
Morone
Ambloplites
Lepomis
Micropterus
Pomoxis
Perca
Sander
Aplodinotus
Anaxyrus
Lithobates
Necturus
various genera
Chelydra
Sternotherus
Chrysemys
Emydoidea
Glyptemis
Graptemys
Terrapene
Apalone
various genera
Gavia
Podiceps
Phalacrocorax
Botaurus
Ardea
Nycticorax
Anser
Chen
Branta
Cygnus
Anas
Aix
Aythya
Histrionicus
Melanitta
Clangula
Bucephala
Rare
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Moderate
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Moderate
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Common
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Rare
Settler-era?
Common
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
41
Draft under review
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Aves
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Anseriformes
Accipitriformes
Accipitriformes
Accipitriformes
Accipitriformes
Accipitriformes
Accipitriformes
Falconiformes
Galliformes
Galliformes
Galliformes
Galliformes
Gruiformes
Gruiformes
Charadriiformes
Charadriiformes
Columbiformes
Columbiformes
Strigiformes
Strigiformes
Strigiformes
Strigiformes
Strigiformes
Strigiformes
Piciformes
Piciformes
Piciformes
Piciformes
Piciformes
Passeriformes
Passeriformes
Passeriformes
Soricomorpha
Soricomorpha
Lagomorpha
Lagomorpha
Lagomorpha
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Pandionidae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Phasianidae
Phasianidae
Phasianidae
Phasianidae
Rallidae
Gruidae
Laridae
Laridae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Corvidae
Corvidae
various families
Soricidae
Talpidae
Leporidae
Leporidae
Leporidae
Lophodytes
Mergus
Somateria
Oxyura
Pandion
Haliaeetus
Circus
Accipiter
Buteo
Aquila
Falco
Bonasa
Falcipennis
Gallus
Meleagris
Fulica
Grus
Larus
Sterna
Zenaida
Ectopistes
Otus
Bubo
Strix
Surnia
Asio
Aegolius
Colaptes
Dryocopus
Melanerpes
Picoides
Sphyrapicus
Cyanocitta
Corvus
various genera
various genera
various genera
Sylvilagus
Oryctolagus
Lepus
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Rare
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Rare
Common
Moderate
Settler-era
Common
Rare
Common
Rare
Rare
Rare
Ubiquitous
Rare
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Moderate
Moderate
Rare
Rare
Moderate
Settler-era
Common
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
42
Draft under review
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Rodentia
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Carnivora
Perissodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Castoridae
Cricetidae
Cricetidae
Cricetidae
Cricetidae
Cricetidae
Dipodidae
Muridae
Muridae
Erethizontidae
Canidae
Canidae
Canidae
Ursidae
Procyonidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Mephitidae
Felidae
Felidae
Felidae
Equidae
Suidae
Cervidae
Cervidae
Cervidae
Cervidae
Bovidae
Bovidae
Bovidae
Tamias
Marmota
Sciurus
Tamiasciurus
Glaucomys
Castor
Peromyscus
Microtus
Ondatra
Phenacomys
Synaptomys
Zapus
Rattus
Mus
Erethizon
Canis
Vulpes
Urocyon
Ursus
Procyon
Martes
Mustela
Neovison
Gulo
Lontra
Mephitis
Felis
Lynx
Puma
Equus
Sus
Odocoileus
Alces
Rangifer
Cervus
Bos
Ovis
Capra
Common
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Rare
Rare
Settler-era
Settler-era
Moderate
Ubiquitous
Common
Moderate
Common
Common
Common
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Settler-era
Rare
Settler-era
Settler-era
Ubiquitous
Moderate
Rare
Moderate
Settler-era
Settler-era
Settler-era
The Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Encouraging the ethical practice of archaeology.
43
View publication stats
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Ontario Archaeological Society Recommendations for zooarchaeology in Ontario archaeology
2023
Draft best practices document for zooarchaeology in Ontario...Read more
Related Papers
International Journal of Marine Science, 2016
Download
Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany, 2010
Download
Download
Download
Download
Download
LAMAR INSTITUTE PUBLICATION SERIES REPORT NUMBER 227, 2020
Download
Download
Northeast Historical Archaeology, 2013
Download
Download
Download
Zooarchaeology BEYOND FOOD 2nd Faunal Interest Group Symposium, 2021
Download
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 2016
Download
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2019
Download
