Dear Brian,
I agree with you (and Terry) that NISP is the count on which we base
all other quantifications, I was just making the point that the
definition of a counted specimen is far from obvious.
I also agree with you that a greater comparability between
zooarchaeological works is desirable, but where our views probably
differ is on the desirability of "fixed rules". Even if, in a distant
future, they would become feasible I do not think that I would like
them imposed on anybody. They can become a straightjacket and research
has never made progress in a constrained environment. You would like
to see more extensive publication of zooarchaeology reports, so all
these data can be used by others. But, I wonder, even if the money for
such publications existed, would it be desirable to have faunal
reports packed with detailed descriptions of pathological conditions,
location of butchery marks, endless measurements and photographic
documentation of all this. Wouldn't they be boring to death? Where do
we we stop in our attempt to be comprehensive? Isn't it better to
focus on aspects that are relevant to our archaeological questions? We
are never going to cover all aspects of a bone assemblage, and why
should we? This is why it is important to preserve the actual bones.
THAT is the vital database to which other researchers will/can go back
to tackle different research questions. Archaeology is not a hard
science and never will be. Past attempts to claim this have made it a
mockery of science, which has done no favour to either arcaheology or
science. But we can be rigorous even without having the same approach
of a physicist or a mathematician. Rigorous, but creative, I like to
hope....
Cheers,
Umberto
-------------------
> Umberto,
>
> I had no idea that NISP was so controversial in terms of a
definition! My
> training defaulted on Grayson's Quantitative Zooarchaeology where
NISP is
> simply the count of any animal part (he says bone or tooth, but
other parts
> preserve as well), whole or fragment assigned to some taxonomic
unit. I
> have found that book to be one of the most useful in my collection,
and
> probably the most boring, but not because of the writer or writing,
but of
> the topic.
>
> And of course NISP may not and probably does not reflect a natural
status of
> a bone assemblage unless you had total preservation and all parts
were
> identifiable as to the actual animals from which they originated.
> Unfortunately, that does not appear to be a reality anytime soon and
so we
> must work with what we have and do the best we can.
>
> Matters get even worse when humans interact with the animal kingdom
and
> create cultural assemblages that at best can only represent what the
humans
> selected from the environment present at the time with no suggestion
that
> humans extracted animals from the environment in numbers
representative of
> natural populations. Matters will be further complicated by a whole
host of
> taphonomic factors as well.
>
> Enter the faunal analyst. A whole range of factors will affect
whether or
> not the analyst will be able to determine from which species, genus,
family,
> order, etc. a complete or fragmented animal part originated.
Factors
> inclusive of experience, skill, comparative collections, just how
diagnostic
> the part might be based on morphology (maybe someday we can DNA type
> everything and actually know what animal they came from down to
species),
> and whether or not the specimens in the assemblage are actually
known by
> biologists and paleontologists. I remember hearing Richard Cooke
speak at
> ICAZ in Germany on the problem that they were identifying fish from
the
> archaeological record that were not extinct, but had yet to be
classified by
> modern biologists. As I recall, they were assigned some sort of
designation
> with the hope that those designations could be later clarified once
the
> individual species had been classified.
>
> This just touches on the point that NISP is really dependent on a
whole host
> of factors. You are correct in noting that it is an artificial
construct,
> no matter how hard we try to extract as much information as
possible. My
> point was simply that NISP seems to be the base line from which
other units
> of measure are derived. They are an artificial construct built on
an
> artificial construct. Often, it is much easier to gain insight into
another
> analyst's work if you have some idea of the base line information as
opposed
> to just the derived measures from that base line.
>
> Umberto, you bring up a very good point about there being no fixed
rules. I
> think there could be, only not until we are light-years ahead of
where we
> are in our capabilities of analysis. The lack of fixed rules is
> problematic. This is not limited to zooarchaeology, but to
archaeology in
> general, as well as many other fields. Archaeologists tend to cater
their
> methods of excavation and analysis on a site by site or project by
project
> basis in order to extract as much information as possible from the
remains
> given all the relevant factors of time, money, skill, etc. The
unfortunate
> result often times is that there may be no equitable way to compare
two
> different analyses by different people even though they appear to
have
> similar methods.
>
> All of this really deviates from the hard science of archaeology
into the
> oh - so soft science of epistemology, how we know what we know, and
from
> there, how we communicate what we know to others so that they may
know it
> too.
>
> I honestly think that zooarchaeology would be further along if we
were able
> to go into extensive detail about our methods, extensive detail
about
> identified specimens (similar to what many paleontologists do), if
we could
> include photographs of all unique specimens (whole or fragmented)
such as
> pathologies, deformation, taphonomy, and unique taxa. Even without
fixed
> rules, at least future analysts would have a better idea about how
the
> assemblage data were manipulated during the analysis.
Unfortunately, such
> thoroughness in writing rarely gets published in the underfunded
> archaeological realm.
>
> No wonder so many projects (here in Texas anyway) have more money
budgeted
> for radiocarbon dating than for faunal analysis. Even with all the
> statistical mumbo jumbo and shortcomings that accompany radiocarbon
dating,
> radiocarbon dates seem so clear cut, in part because they do have
> rules...but the rules have changed with time and new information.
What a
> sticky wicket!
>
> Brian Shaffer
>
Umberto Albarella
Dept of Archaeology
University of Durham
Durham DH1 3LE, UK
tel. +44-191-3741139
|