y
ay Norway. Discrete samples of otolith material were milled from the edge of the otolith towards the centre, 18 methods, i.e. based on artifacts and settlement extension. The analysis of vertebrate remains, i.e. teeth, bones and fish otoliths has been the principle tool for the interpretation of sea...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.503.1954 http://www.uib.no/filearchive/journal-of-archeaological-science.pdf |
| Summary: | ay Norway. Discrete samples of otolith material were milled from the edge of the otolith towards the centre, 18 methods, i.e. based on artifacts and settlement extension. The analysis of vertebrate remains, i.e. teeth, bones and fish otoliths has been the principle tool for the interpretation of sea-sonality in archaeology. Most methods, such as interpretation of tooth replacement and wear and reading of incremental zones in type and size of the outermost zone will indicate the time of fish capture. However, the seasonal timing of opaque and translucent zone formation varies between individuals, populations and species (Beckman and Wilson, 1995; Pilling et al., 2007). For example, cod in northern Norway deposit translucent zones from December to April, while cod in southern Norway deposit trans-lucent zones from July to October (Dannevig, 1933; Høie et al., 2009). This variation leads to uncertainty in determining the time of capture for individual fish. |
|---|