I totally agree with Terry; minimum numbers should be only used in very
special situations (e.g. multiple burials, etc.). I think all of us are
aware of the problems with MNIs, and regard this number as unreliable at
best. According to my experience, however, an important problem resides
in the fact that many of our colleague archaeologists (at least in
Germany) are still very keen on it, and use the number in calculations
which are biased from the beginning. As long as we keep providing this
number it will be misused (e.g. as in comparisons of relative abundance
of species between sites that differ considerably in the size of their
assemblages).
I regard the us of NISP and bone weight complementarily (the second
method reduces the effects of fragmentation) as the best alternative in
most situations. It goes without saying that these methods involve some
problems as well.
cheers, Jaco
--
Jaco Weinstock
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde
Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart
Germany
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|