If, as Jennifer asks, anyone out there has a particularly exciting
minimum numbers method to share, I suggest they lie down in a darkened
room for a while. Without wishing to skew the quantification debate
with my own cynical views, I remain convinced that MNI estimation is the
reddest of herrings, useful only in rather particular circumstances, and
never, ever, exciting.
Terry O'Connor
Jennifer Thoms wrote:
>
> Since I am sitting here with it in front of me - the ref for Keith's
> bone zone article, mentioned in Jacqui's email is:
>
> Keith Dobney and Kevin Reilly, 1988 "A method for recording
> archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones" Circaea vol
> 5, no 2, pp 79 - 96.
>
> I use it all the time, and also Dale's adaptation of it in her bird
> bone book.
>
> After months of agonising over the whole issue I tend to believe that
> most methods of quantification are mainly telling you how many red
> herrings are present on the site - but then I am sitting here
> grumpily in rainy Edinburgh trying to allocate scrubby bits of drossy
> long bone shaft to tibia or femur.......
>
> (apologies to non-English speakers for "red herring" - it means an
> irrelevant distraction !!)
>
> I am willing to be converted if anyone has a particularly exciting
> min. no. method they want to share.....
>
> Similarly I am interested in other people's approach to
> "counting/identifying tiny bits of dross?" :-(
>
> Jennifer
>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:36:04 +0100
> > Priority: NORMAL
> > Subject: Quantification
> > From: Jacqui Mulville <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Reply-to: Jacqui Mulville <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have recently been having discussions with another bone
> > specialist about recording/quantification. I would be
> > interested in collating the full range of methodologies in
> > use. Not to censure nor criticise but perhaps to produce a
> > short review of state of the art (is ICAZ doing something
> > along these lines). I know that for example NABO have been
> > looking at setting minimums for zooarch data, but I don't
> > know how far they have got (any NABO members out there).
> >
> > What do we think about minimums, academic freedom and
> > counting/identifying tiny bits of dross?
> >
> > With EH there are a range of methods in use - ranging from
> > the brutally brief and efficient (Davis, S.J.M. (1992)
> > Rapid Method for Recording Information about Mammal Bones
> > from Archaeological Sites. AML Research Report 19/92.) to
> > the more expansive - well examples are the zone methods I
> > guess (Dobney and Reilly, Circea (er can't remember the
> > rest - Keith?) and Serjeantson, D. (1991) 'Rid Grasse of
> > Bones' : a taphonomic study of the bones from midden
> > deposits at the Neolithic and Bronze Age site of
> > Runneymede, Surrey. International Journal of
> > Osteoarchaeology 1. 73-89.)
> >
> > Has anybody got other methodologies they want to point out,
> > or pet moans about quantification they would like to air.
> >
> > I know that the EH regional reviews (for non-english folk
> > these are reviews by english region of all the published
> > zooarch data divided into different periods) have tried to
> > use much of this data, and perhaps as a result of these
> > brave attempts some conclusions can be drawn about what we
> > need as a minimum.
> >
> > Anyhow opinions please, and I know its an old chestnut but
> > we may be able to usefully revisit it at least briefly.
> >
> > jacqui
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Jacqui Mulville,
> > EH Regional Science Advisor (E. Mids)
> > Oxford University Museum,
> > Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW
> > Tel: 01865-272996 Fax: 01865-272970
> >
> >
>
>
> Jennifer Thoms
> Dept of Archaeology,
> University of Edinburgh,
> 12 Infirmary Street,
> Edinburgh,
> EH1 1LT
> Tel: 0131 650 2373 / 2384
|