Geographic information system in zooarchaeology: A novel technique in analysis of the faunal remains from the Ma’anshan site, Guizhou, China

doi:10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0038

Abstract

Abstract:

Geographic Information System has now found its way into many fields of archaeological research; however, its integration with zooarchaeology is only occasionally practiced, especially in China. In this study, we tentatively adopt this technique in an analysis of the faunal remains from the Ma’anshan site(ca.43-16 kaBP), Guizhou Province of China. Associated with thousands of stone artifacts and dozens of formalized bone tools, this site is exceptional in its excellent preservation of a fairly large bone assemblage. With the assistance of a geoprocessing tool from ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst extension, skeletal remains of Class III animals(including Bubalus sp. and Megatapirus augustus) from the site are quantified in bulk with maximum precision; meanwhile, patterns in bone element abundance of the two species are visually accentuated. The current study indicates that GIS can be a unique and most potent tool in standardizing and simplifying procedures in analyzing animal bones, especially those of extremely large collections from the Paleolithic sites of China.

Key words: Geographic information system, Zooarchaeology, Ma’anshan site, Upper Paleolithic, Subsistence strategies

CLC Number:

Q915

ZHANG Yue, ZHANG Shuangquan, GAO Xing. Geographic information system in zooarchaeology: A novel technique in analysis of the faunal remains from the Ma’anshan site, Guizhou, China[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2019, 38(03): 407-418.

Figures/Tables 6

References 44

[1]	Gaffney V, Stancic Z. GIS Approaches to Regional Analysis: a Case Study of the Island of Hvar[M]. Ljubljana: Research Institute of the Faculty of Arts & Science, University of Ljubljana, 1991
[2]	Ebert D. Applications of archaeological GIS[J]. Canadian Journal Of Archaeology, 2004,28(2):319-341
[3]	Scianna A, Villa B. GIS applications in archaeology[J]. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 2012,22:337-363
[4]	García-Moreno A, Hutson J, Villaluenga A, et al. Counting sheep without falling asleep: using GIS to calculate the minimum number of skeletal elements(MNE) and other archaeozoological measures at Schöningen 13II-4 “Spear Horizon”[A]. In: Giligny F, Djindjian F, Costa L, et al(eds). CAA2014-21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology[C]. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015
[5]	Parkinson JA. A GIS image analysis approach to documenting Oldowan hominin carcass acquisition: Evidence from Kanjera South, FLK Zinj, and neotaphonomic models of carnivore bone destruction[D]. Ph.D Dissertation. New York: City University of New York, 2013
[6]	Fischer A. Computerised bone templates as the basis of a practical procedure to record and analyse graphical zooarchaeological data[J]. Revista Electrónica de Arqueología PUCP, 2007,2(1):
[7]	Parkinson JA, Plummer T, Hartstone-Rose A. Characterizing felid tooth marking and gross bone damage patterns using GIS image analysis: An experimental feeding study with large felids[J]. Journal Of Human Evolution, 2015,80:114-134 URL pmid: 25467112
[8]	Herrmann NP, Joanne BD, Jessica CS. Assessment of commingled human remains using a GIS-based and osteological landmark approach[A]. In: Bradley A, John B, eds. Commingled Human Remains: Methods in Recovery, Analysis, and Identification[C]. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2014, 221-237
[9]	Parkinson JA, Plummer TW, Bose R. A GIS-based approach to documenting large canid damage to bones[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2014,409:57-71 doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.04.019 URL
[10]	Abe Y, Marean CW, Nilssen PJ, et al. The Analysis of Cutmarks on Archaeofauna: A Review and Critique of Quantification Procedures, and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach[J]. American Antiquity, 2002,67(4):643-664 doi: 10.2307/1593796 URL
[11]	Marean CW, Abe Y, Nilssen PJ, et al. Estimating the Minimum Number of Skeletal Elements(MNE) in Zooarchaeology: A Review and a New Image-Analysis GIS Approach[J]. American Antiquity, 2001,66(2):333-348 URL pmid: 20043371
[12]	Nilssen PJ. An actualistic butchery study in South Africa and its implications for reconstructing hominid strategies of carcass acquisition and butchery in the Upper Pleistocene and Plio-Pleistocene[D]. Ph.D Dissertation. Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 2000
[13]	Lyman RL. Vertebrate Taphonomy[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994: 1-552
[14]	Grayson DK. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas[M]. Massachusetts: Academic Press, 1984
[15]	Lyman RL. Quantitative Paleozoology[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008
[16]	Marean CW, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Pickering TR. Skeletal element equifinality in zooarchaeology begins with method: the evolution and status of the "shaft critique"[J]. Journal of Taphonomy, 2004,2(2):69-98
[17]	Faith JT, Gordon AD. Skeletal element abundances in archaeofaunal assemblages: economic utility, sample size, and assessment of carcass transport strategies[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007,34(6):872-882 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2006.08.007 URL
[18]	Faith JT, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Gordon AD. Long-distance carcass transport at Olduvai Gorge? A quantitative examination of Bed I skeletal element abundances[J]. Journal Of Human Evolution, 2009,56(3):247-256 doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.12.008 URL pmid: 19211130
[19]	Zhang S, Li Z, Zhang Y, et al. Skeletal element distributions of the large herbivores from the Lingjing site, Henan Province, China[J]. Science China: Earth Sciences, 2012,55(2):246-253 doi: 10.1007/s11430-011-4279-x URL
[20]	Faith JT, Thompson JC. Low-survival skeletal elements track attrition, not carcass transport behavior in Quaternary large mammal assemblages[A]. In: Giovas CM, LeFebvre MJ, eds. Zooarchaeology in Practice: Case Studies in Methodology and Interpretation in Archaeofaunal Analysis[C]. Gewerbestrasse: Springer, 2018, 109-126
[21]	Lupo KD. Archaeological skeletal part profiles and differential transport: an ethnoarchaeological example from Hadza bone assemblages[J]. Journal Of Anthropological Archaeology, 2001,20(3):361-378 doi: 10.1006/jaar.2000.0378 URL
[22]	Cleghorn N, Marean C. Distinguishing selective transport and in situ attrition: a critical review of analytical approaches[J]. Journal of Taphonomy, 2004,2:43-67
[23]	Cleghorn N, Marean C. The destruction of skeletal elements by carnivores: the growth of a general model for skeletal element destruction and survival in zooarchaeological assemblages[A]. In: Pickering T, Toth N, Schick K, eds. Breathing Life into Fossils: Taphonomic Studies in Honor of CK(Bob) Brain[C]. Indiana: Stone Age Institute Press, 2007, 37-66
[24]	Faith JT. Changes in reindeer body part representation at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007,34(12):2003-2011 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2007.01.014 URL
[25]	Bunn HT, Bartram LE, Kroll EM. Variability in bone assemblage formation from Hadza hunting, scavenging, and carcass processing[J]. Journal Of Anthropological Archaeology, 1988,7(4):412-457 doi: 10.1016/0278-4165(88)90004-9 URL
[26]	Bartram LE. Perspectives on skeletal part profiles and utility curves from eastern Kalahari ethnoarchaeology[A]. In: Hudson J, ed. From bones to behavior: ethnoarchaeological and experimental contributions to the interpretation of faunal remains[C]. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University, 1993, 115-137
[27]	Monahan CM. The Hadza Carcass Transport Debate Revisited and its Archaeological Implications[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1998,25(5):405-424 doi: 10.1006/jasc.1997.0241 URL
[28]	Marean CW, Cleghorn N. Large Mammal Skeletal Element Transport: Applying Foraging Theory in a Complex Taphonomic System[J]. Journal of Taphonomy, 2003,1(1):15-42
[29]	Zhang Y, Stiner MC, Dennell R, et al. Zooarchaeological perspectives on the Chinese Early and Late Paleolithic from the Ma’anshan site(Guizhou, South China)[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2010,37(8):2066-2077 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.012 URL
[30]	Zhang SS. A brief report of the tentative excavation in Ma'anshan Paleolithic site[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 1988,7(1):64-74(in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	Long FX. Analysis of bone fragments from Ma’anshan site, Guizhou[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 1992,11(3):216-229(in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	Zhang S, d'Errico F, Backwell LR, et al. Ma'anshan cave and the origin of bone tool technology in China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2016,65:57-69 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.11.004 URL
[33]	Zhang Y, Wang CX, Zhang SQ, et al. A zooarchaeological study of bone assemblages from the Ma'anshan Paleolithic site[J]. Science China: Earth Sciences, 2010,53(3):395-402 doi: 10.1007/s11430-009-0153-5 URL
[34]	Brain CK. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy[M]: University of Chicago Press, 1981: 1-384
[35]	ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop Help 10.3. http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-analyst-toolbox/equal-to-frequency.htm. Accessed 2018-03-15
[36]	Binford LR. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1978: 1-509
[37]	Perkins JD, Daly P. A hunters' village in Neolithic Turkey[J]. Scientific American, 1968,219(5):97-106 URL pmid: 5680233
[38]	Lyman RL. Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes[J]. Journal Of Anthropological Archaeology, 1984,3(4):259-299 doi: 10.1016/0278-4165(84)90004-7 URL
[39]	Lam YM, Chen Xb, Pearson OM. Intertaxonomic varibility in patterns of bone density and the differential representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid elements in the Archaeological record[J]. American Antiquity, 1999,64(2):343-362 doi: 10.2307/2694283 URL
[40]	Klein RG. The mammalian fauna of the Klasies River mouth sites, southern Cape Province, South Africa[J]. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 1976,31(123/124):75-98 doi: 10.2307/3887730 URL
[41]	Yellen JE. Cultural patterning in faunal remains: evidence from the Kung Bushmen[A]. In: Ingersoll D, Yellen J, Macdonald W, eds. Experimental archeology[C]. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977, 271-331
[42]	O'Connell JF Hawkes K Blurton JN. Reanalysis of large mammal body part transport among the Hadza[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1990,17(3):301-316 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(90)90025-Z URL
[43]	Abe Y. Hunting and butchery patterns of the Evenki in Northern Transbaikalia, Russia[D]. PhD Dissertation. New York: Stony Brook University, 2005
[44]	Schoville BJ, Otárola-Castillo E. A model of hunter-gatherer skeletal element transport: The effect of prey body size, carriers, and distance[J]. Journal Of Human Evolution, 2014,73:1-14 doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.06.004 URL pmid: 25059517

	Upper unit						Lower unit
	NISP	MNE	MNE*	MAU	MAU%	MAU%*	NISP	MNE	MNE*	MAU	MAU%	MAU%*
Cranium	66	27	27	6	100	100	80	16	16	8	42.11	48.34
Mandible	7	3	2	1.5	25	16.67	33	8	8	4	21.05	24.17
Rib	51	10	8.32	0.38	6.41	5.33	81	15	11.44	0.58	3.04	2.66
Scapula	2	1	1.1	0.5	8.33	9.17	3	1	0.5	0.5	2.63	1.51
Humerus	32	3	3	1.5	25	25	187	30	23.4	15	78.95	70.69
Radius/Ulna	29	5	4	2.5	41.67	33.33	184	38	33.2	19	100	100
Pelvis	2	1	1	0.5	8.33	8.33	7	4	3	2	10.53	9.06
Femur	13	2	2	1	16.67	16.67	58	13	11.8	6.5	34.21	35.65
Tiba	24	7	6	3.5	58.33	50	107	17	14.86	8.5	44.74	44.89
Astragulus	18	4	4	2	33.33	50	28	12	11	6	31.58	36.25
Metapodial	48	9	8.8	2.25	37.5	36.67	92	16	14.76	4	21.05	22.3
Phalange1	38	20	18.48	2.5	41.67	38.5	16	7	5.52	0.88	4.61	4.15
Phalange2	30	14	12.8	1.75	29.17	26.7	8	7	6	0.88	4.61	4.5
Phalange3	2	2	1.6	0.25	4.17	3.3	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	362						884

	Upper unit						Lower unit
	NISP	MNE	MNE*	MAU	MAU%	MAU%*	NISP	MNE	MNE*	MAU	MAU%	MAU%*
Cranium	66	27	27	6	100	100	80	16	16	8	42.11	48.34
Mandible	7	3	2	1.5	25	16.67	33	8	8	4	21.05	24.17
Rib	51	10	8.32	0.38	6.41	5.33	81	15	11.44	0.58	3.04	2.66
Scapula	2	1	1.1	0.5	8.33	9.17	3	1	0.5	0.5	2.63	1.51
Humerus	32	3	3	1.5	25	25	187	30	23.4	15	78.95	70.69
Radius/Ulna	29	5	4	2.5	41.67	33.33	184	38	33.2	19	100	100
Pelvis	2	1	1	0.5	8.33	8.33	7	4	3	2	10.53	9.06
Femur	13	2	2	1	16.67	16.67	58	13	11.8	6.5	34.21	35.65
Tiba	24	7	6	3.5	58.33	50	107	17	14.86	8.5	44.74	44.89
Astragulus	18	4	4	2	33.33	50	28	12	11	6	31.58	36.25
Metapodial	48	9	8.8	2.25	37.5	36.67	92	16	14.76	4	21.05	22.3
Phalange1	38	20	18.48	2.5	41.67	38.5	16	7	5.52	0.88	4.61	4.15
Phalange2	30	14	12.8	1.75	29.17	26.7	8	7	6	0.88	4.61	4.5
Phalange3	2	2	1.6	0.25	4.17	3.3	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	362						884