 |
 |
MNI's are generally calculated by counting the most common bone from a species, taking into account size, left vs. right, epiphyseal fusion, and so forth, to estimate the minimum number of animals that would account for those bones recovered. The important point about MNI's is that the unit of analysis is the entire animal. Binford first used the term Minimal Animal Unit in its modern form in 1984, I think, in Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Binford recognized that often entire animals are not brought to or discarded at single sites, and thus he sought a statistic which would be more applicable to the unit of analysis that he was concerned with: individual body parts and their frequencies. MAU's are simply calculated by taking the minimum number of elements (say, of tibiae) of a species recovered from a site and dividing it by the number of times that element occurs in the body. Thus, if there were a minimum of 50 red deer tibiae recovered from a site, the MAU would be 25. In this way, the MAU values can be scaled in relation to the most common body part recovered, and presented as relative frequencies. In my opinion, these statistics are the most appropriate to use if one is concerned with why we recover different frequencies of bones at sites. Not to labor the point too much, but two quick examples can clarify things. Since the unit of analysis in studies utilizing MNI's is the entire animal, then when faunal analysts wish to track changes in the frequencies of animals recovered from sites through time, and then calculate the associated amount of meat and other nutritional resources represented by the number of animals recovered, then a comparison of MNI's would be in order [there is much debate over the utility of such studies]. However, if one seeks to understand whether different taphonomic agents lead to the deposition and preservation of different body parts of certain animals, then calculating MNE's, MAU's, and relative frequencies would be more appropriate (and, I would argue, fundamentally more sound than using raw NISP counts, although some on the list may have a different opinion). Grayson's "Quantitative Zooarchaeology" and Lyman's "Vertebrate Taphonomy" give summaries that are probably more clearly worded than above. Alexey K. Kasparov wrote: >Hi to all ! >Can somebody tell me what designates MAU - minimum animal units? I have >seen it in the paper of M.Patou-Mathis Arkhaeozoological analysis of the >middle paleolithic fauna from selected levels of Kabazi 2. // The middle >Paleolithic of Western Crimea. v2., Liege, 1999, pp. 41-74. > I understand that it is not minimum number of individuals. But I have not >understood what it is from the text of this article. The author uses this >parameter nowhere more in text. Can somebody help me? >Thank. Sincerely, Anton. >