A Discussion on Major Zooarchaeological Frameworks Used to Quantify Animal Remains: Evaluating Quantification's Impact on the Interpretation of Faunal Datasets.

Since the 1960’s, zooarchaeologists have formulated a variety of methodologies in an attempt to objectively and accurately quantify faunal assemblages into datasets. These constructed frameworks have been used to gain an overview of differing trends within faunal data, most commonly; counts of species, bone elements and fragments. The application and development of quantification methodologies have been undoubtedly integral to the ever-advancing field of zooarchaeology; revealing patterns and biases which would previously unseen in datasets. However, where the use of quantification falls short is the appeared lack of standardisation. From the 1980’s, zooarchaeologist began to create alternatives to previously constructed techniques in attempt to formulate the most accurate methodology. Resultingly, many alternate methods have been created to answer the same question, and differing units and institutions will often employ the one which they view as the most accurate. This lack of standardisation has meant that cross-analysis between site-based datasets is often inaccurate and thus unemployable. This paper compares the most common quantification methodologies revealing that, although the use of many frameworks has significantly impacted our understanding of individual faunal dataset, the lack of standardisation has arguably impeded the analysis and creation of intra-site datasets.