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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|