You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body-Part Representation
Fiona Marshall and Tom Pilgram
Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 261-269
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281968
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Goats, Archaeological sites, Bones, Paleoanthropology, Quantification, Fauna, Anthropology, Pastoralism, Humerus, Femur
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In an effort to understand the relative advantages and drawbacks of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) and number of identifiable specimens (NISP) for quantifying body-part representation in faunas from archaeological sites, we analyzed relations among NISP, MNI, fragmentation, and bulk density in the fauna from Ngamuriak, a Kenyan pastoral Neolithic site. Our findings suggest that MNI is at least as sensitive as NISP to effects of fragmentation. While MNI decreases with increasing fragmentation, NISP moves in two directions with fragmentation, increasing at low levels of fragmentation and decreasing at high levels of fragmentation. In addition, MNI appears more sensitive than NISP to the relative identifiability of different body parts. We believe MNI may be a less representative descriptor of relative element frequency than NISP in highly fragmented assemblages.
American Antiquity © 1993 Society for American Archaeology