In disciplines including archaeology, forensic anthropology, bioarchaeology, osteoarchaeology and zooarchaeology, the number of identified specimens (also number of individual specimens or number of individual species), or NISP, is defined as the number of identified specimens for a specific site or skeleton. It is used to estimate how many people or animals are present in a cluster of bones.
When evaluating the potential benefits of new sites or specimens, the three most commonly used quantification units by archaeology are NISP, minimum number of elements (MNE), and minimum number of individuals (MNI).
The NISP is the most basic quantity recorded about an assemblage of bones. It counts the number of skeletal elements identified by bone type and taxon, and was first used in zooarchaeology. To calculate the NISP, bones are sorted into taxa (when dealing with a mixed species assemblage) and then into skeletal element types.
An alternative estimate to the NISP, often done in concert, is the MNI. Both are influenced by fragmentation and degree of preservation, but in different ways. In practice, the NISP will normally be higher than the MNI; for example, if the NISP is 100 human femurs and 60 horse hooves, the MNI will be at least 50 humans and 15 horses. The NISP tends to overestimate the number of individuals under moderate fragmentation (for example, two partial ulnas could belong to the same individual or two different ones). However, the overestimate lessens as fragmentation increases due to the inability to classify the bones. MNI tends to underestimate the actual number under medium fragmentation, and even more severely when bones are highly fragmented. Under hypothetically perfect preservation and no fragmentation, these estimates should be the same. MNI also suffers from the aggregation problem, in which different aggregations will generate at least two values, an MNI minimum and maximum, which are generally empirically indistinguishable. Both NISP and MNI are likely only ordinal scale measurements, which means at best they can only give an ordered series of taxonomic abundance, i.e. "Taxon A is more numerous than Taxon B."
NISP is a basic technique that is widely used for estimating the relative abundance of specimens in a collection. Some see it as a basic classification of a site or skeleton and there are many ways to calculate it. NISP will inflate the statistical significance if used to calculate a sample size for inferential statistics; instead MNI is used.
In addition, the frequencies of the ordinal scale of the anatomical parts of the crest (proximal, marginal, distal) are not constant and fluctuate in simulators. The paleontological analytical results show the significant differences between the two quantitative methods.
Modern uses
Cut-mark analyses
Archaeological sites give vital information concerning the massacre, and the examination of the traces provides that knowledge. Colored bands have been used to study anything from the evolutionary impacts of meat-eating in Africa(Bunn, 1981, 1983) to culturally mediated slaughter patterns in the United States. to the north (e.g. Frison, 1970; Guilday et al., 1962). Abe et al. (2002), Dominguez Rodrigo and Iravedra (2009), Fischer (1995: 12-18), Lyman (1987; 1994b: 297-314), Nielssen (2000), and White (1992: 143-146) are examples of researchers from other nations.
The cut-mark pattern is usually determined by observing the frequency and relative location of cuts on skeletal parts. These patterns are then related to butcher behavior, frequently utilizing ethnographic, factual, and empirical data as a frame of reference.(e.g. Dewberry and Russell, 2007) Although analysts' approaches for quantifying, assessing, and reporting landmarks vary depending on their study aims (see Abe et al., 2002:645-646; Bartram, 1993), differences in samples and conclusions owing to methodologies and units of quantification have not been experimentally investigated.
Cut-mark studies and two types of quantitative analysis
In general, most tracing studies use two types of quantification: one used to identify and explain the anatomical part of the group, and one used to determine the frequency of cutting the anatomical part described above. The anatomical segment is usually determined by the specified NISP or the MNE. Similar to MNE, some researchers use cMNE. When using MNE or cMNE as a quantitative unit, archaeologists usually refer to the complete skeletal component (e.g., femur). Archaeologists need to be clear about what they wish to discover and how this will be done, unless some bone element is otherwise specified (e.g., proximal femur, distal femur).