(22SU526) a Freshwater Mussel Shell Ring in the Mississippi Delta
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 8-1-2012 Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site (22SU526) a freshwater mussel shell ring in the Mississippi Delta Joseph Alan Mitchell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td Recommended Citation Mitchell, Joseph Alan, "Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site (22SU526) a freshwater mussel shell ring in the Mississippi Delta" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 385. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/385 This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Automated Template B: Created by James Nail 2011 Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site (22SU526): a freshwater mussel shell ring in the Mississippi Delta By Joseph Mitchell A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Applied Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures Mississippi State, Mississippi August 2012 Copyright by Joseph Mitchell 2012 Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site (22SU526): a freshwater mussel shell ring in the Mississippi Delta By Joseph Mitchell Approved: _________________________________ _________________________________ Evan Peacock Janet Rafferty Professor and Graduate Coordinator of Professor of Anthropology Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures (Committee Member) (Major Professor) _________________________________ _________________________________ James Hardin Gary L. Myers Associate Professor of Anthropology Professor and Dean, College of Arts & (Committee Member) Sciences Name: Joseph Mitchell Date of Degree: August 11, 2012 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Applied Anthropology Major Professor: Evan Peacock Title of Study: Addressing sample bias and representativeness at the Kinlock site (22SU526): a freshwater mussel shell ring in the Mississippi Delta Pages in Study: 105 Candidate for Degree of Applied Anthropology Applied zooarchaeology provides baselines which can be used in modern conservation biology to better understand how faunal communities have changed over time. This goal can only be accomplished, however, by first accounting for the multiple biases present within the archaeological record, and how they may affect sample representativeness. Taxonomic analysis was conducted on freshwater mussel shell from the late prehistoric (ca. A.D. 700 - 1200) Kinlock site, Sunflower County, Mississippi. Species- area curves and biodiversity indices demonstrate that random sampling of surface clusters of shell, up to about 4,000 valves, provides an adequate picture of the overall surface assemblage. Comparison of surface and subsurface contexts shows a highly significant difference in species numbers and proportions, indicating a need for multi-context sampling when dealing with archaeological shell deposits. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Evan Peacock, my major advisor, for his guidance and support throughout these past three years. Thank you for getting my attention back in undergrad, taking a chance on me, and enabling me to realize my interest in such a cool field as archaeology. Also, thank you for introducing me to the fascinating (and dusty) world of freshwater mussel shell; your encouragement and direction here has been truly invaluable, and is something I hope to take forward in future research. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Drs. Janet Rafferty and Jimmy Hardin, for your ideas, assistance, conversations, and timely humor throughout my coursework and thesis research. A big thanks to my friend Shon Myatt for writing the program that I used to conduct my redundancy and diversity analysis; your assistance with this no doubt saved me hours and hours of painful number crunching. I would like to thank my family for their constant support throughout my collegiate experience, especially when I decided to take on this crazy career path. Lastly, many thanks go to my girlfriend, Claire, for motivating me during this entire process with persistent encouragement and moral support. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ......................................................................................... 1 The Kinlock Site (22SU526) .......................................................................... 5 Field Methods (2009 MSU Field School) ................................................. 7 II. FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN NORTH AMERICA ................................... 10 Mussel Ecology and Morphology ................................................................. 10 Mussel Conservation and Modern Applications............................................ 14 III. SAMPLING AND BIAS .............................................................................. 19 Archaeological Sampling Theory ................................................................. 19 Plow-zone Archaeology ......................................................................... 22 Bias in Archaeology ..................................................................................... 25 Sources of Bias ...................................................................................... 25 To screen, or not to screen? That is the question. .................................... 27 Taphonomy .................................................................................................. 29 Taphonomy and Faunal Analysis ............................................................ 31 Taphonomy of Shellfish ......................................................................... 33 The Wolverton et al. Model .................................................................... 34 IV. MATERIALS & METHODS ....................................................................... 38 Redundancy Analysis & Species-Area Curves ............................................. 38 Select-Coverage Analysis ....................................................................... 39 Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index ................................................................. 40 Test of the Wolverton et al. Model ............................................................... 42 V. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 46 iii The Kinock Shell Assemblage...................................................................... 46 Redundancy Analysis and Species-Area Curves ........................................... 49 Preliminary Analysis .............................................................................. 49 Select-Coverage Analysis ....................................................................... 55 Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index ................................................................. 58 Wolverton et al. Model................................................................................. 60 Shell Preservation at the Kinlock Site ........................................................... 64 VI. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 72 Biogeography ............................................................................................... 74 VII. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 76 Future Applications and Considerations ....................................................... 78 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 82 APPENDIX A. SPECIES TABULATIONS AND VALVE COUNTS FOR EXCAVATION UNITS ................................................................... 93 B. SPECIES TABULATION AND VALVE COUNTS FOR SURFACE UNITS.............................................................................................. 95 iv LIST OF TABLES 4.1 Modern specimens and provenience list for testing the Wolverton et al. (2010) Shell Preservation Model......................................................... 44 5.1 Species list and valve counts for excavation units. .......................................... 47 5.2 Species list and valve counts for surface collection......................................... 48 5.3 Valve counts for select-coverage analysis (23 of 25 species), experiments 1-25. .............................................................................. 56 5.4 Descriptive statistics for select-coverage analysis (23 of 25 species), experiments 1-25. ............................................................................... 56 5.5 Valve counts for select-coverage analysis (25 of 25 species), experiments