Faunal Analysis Assignment | Custom Assignment Help

The 1849 California Gold Rush attracted miners from across the United States and around the world to seek their fortunes. Camp Salvado was established on the flat top of Shawmut Grade, not far from what was once Woods Creek (now part of the Don Pedro Reservoir), by a group of miners from El Salvador (Figure 1). A few months later, another camp was founded about 1.5 miles to the northwest by a group of Cantonese miners after they were forced out of Camp Salvado; it became known as Chinese Camp. These camps were similar in many ways. Each was occupied for about five years, then abandoned; each was occupied by about 500 people, mostly young men; each procured its food from the countryside and from the provisioning town of Jamestown (5-6 miles to the north along a dirt road). Excavations are underway at Chinese Camp and Camp Salvado, and you have been asked to analyze and compare the faunal assemblages from each site, summarized in the attached Excel table (the table has two tabs, one for Chinese Camp and one for Camp Salvado). First you will need to calculate the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) of each species for each of the two assemblages. From those results, calculate the Flesh Weight (FW) of each species for each of the two assemblages. Finally, in 1-2 pages (Times, 12 point, double-spaced), evaluate how different or similar the diets were at the two communities. Your interpretation of the data should take into account: The importance of meat in the overall diet The diversity of animals in the assemblage The ratio of wild to domesticated animals Why there might be evidence for preferences for particular species What is the relevance of butchering marks: Were the animals represented in the assemblage eaten by the camps’ inhabitants? Are there patterns in which bones are being processed? If the animals were not being butchered, did they serve some other function at the camp? Conclude your interpretation with a paragraph about how this kind of faunal analysis, based on MNI and Flesh Weight, can help us understand diet at the mining camps, and what this kind of analysis might be missing or misrepresenting. *Adapted from Barber (1994: 93-106)

How to Calculate MNI and Flesh Weight
Calculating MNI
The minimum number of individuals (MNI) is the smallest number of animals that could
have produced the remains of a species. MNI is the most commonly used measure of the
relative numbers of different species contained in an assemblage. MNI is calculated by
examining the number of each element (kind of bone) within a species; the greatest
number of unique bones is the MNI. For example, a faunal assemblage with 2 skulls, 4
right thigh bones, and 7 left thigh bones would have an MNI of 7.
Remember that the NISP and the # of Elements are two different measures: for example,
if 3 fragments of a left thigh bone fit together, the NISP is 3 but the # of elements is 1
(there is 1 bone that has broken into 3 pieces). Calculate the MNI using the # of
Elements, not the NISP. Do not ignore the NISP entirely: what processing techniques,
depositional circumstances, or post-depositional events could cause a difference between
the original # of elements and the NISP that are recovered?
Be careful with ribs, vertebrae, and digits: for example, if the faunal assemblage lists 8
T2 thoracic coyote vertebrae, you can be confident that there are a minimum of 8
individual coyote present in the assemblage; if the list simply states that there are 8
vertebrae, they could all be from the same individual .
Calculating Flesh Weight
Flesh Weight is an estimate of how much meat would have been available from the
animals represented by the remains of a species. The simplest way of calculating flesh
weight (and the only way you will have available to you in this exercise) is to multiply
the MNl by an estimated average amount of meat per individual of each species. There
are more sophisticated ways to estimate flesh weights, many of which are based on
calculated relationships between flesh weight and certain dimensions of bones of that
species. There is a cultural element that enters into the calculation of flesh weights and
makes them a bit tricky to use, since some social groups eat practically everything from
horn to hoof, while others are more selective and throw away considerable quantities that
really are edible. While flesh weight calculation can be tricky, its value is obvious: equal
MNIs for bears and squirrels don’t yield equal amounts of food.
Species Weight (lbs)
Quail 0.4
Squirrel 1.5
Pheasant 2.3
Jackrabbit 4.1
Duck 5.8
Heron 6
Chicken 6.5
Trout 7.2
Goose 9
Turkey 17.5
Dog 70
Sheep 120
Deer 210
Pig 260
Elk 600
Horse 1100
Cattle 1660
Table 1: Flesh Weight Calculation