Critical review of the MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooarchaeological unit of quantification

Abstract

The use of minimum number of individuals (MNI) in the analysis of mammal archaeofaunal assemblages has received intense criticism for its derived nature and its dependence of biasing variables. Some authors have argued that similar taxonomic variability as documented by MNI can be achieved with other less biased measuring units, such as number of identified specimens (NISP) and derivates thereof. The present study is the first experimentally controlled test that shows the degree of bias of estimates of MNI and NISP by different analysts. It shows that the margins of error of both measuring units are independent and that MNI can be more accurately estimated than NISP, despite its “derived” inferential nature.