I believe that Keith Dobney has hit the nail on the head
here. What is important is that compatible basic data are
produced by different analysts. We need consistency in
what we actually record.
A further point to add is that those who propose only ever
to use some sort of fragment count or NISP are really only
being "descriptive". Other methods, including MNIs (after
Klein), MAUs (after Binford) or MinAUs (as modified by
Halstead)etc. can be essential "interpretative" tools.
These tools involve certain assumptions (as do other
interpretative tools) but if the zooarchaeologist uses them
in the correct situation, in the full knowledge of what
they are doing and why, there is no problem.
We do need to produce compatible "descriptive" data that
others can use. However, some of us actually want interpret
sites as well and other quantification methods can be
essential in asking particular questions.
----------------------
Alan K. Outram BA MSc PhD
Lecturer in Archaeogy
Department of Archaeology
University of Exeter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|