Several points about this MNI discussion
1) There is more than one type of MNI. The most commonly
used one (I think) is that defined by Klein. I beleive it
has relatively few uses in comparison to other methods, but
still has specific uses. There are many more minimum
numbers methods including MAU, MNE, MinAU and others. They
have different uses and make different assumptions, but all
oare of interpretative value.
2) I would be interested to know which archaeological
questions those who favour raw data are actually going to
be able to answer. How do you make economic
interpretations without extra layers of data relating the
bones to the animals in the field or the food on the plate.
What can you tell me about about the importance of species
without elimating duplicate bones, taking into account
differing skeletal make-ups, using indices of food value,
trying to eliminate taphonomic factors etc. There may have
been many flawed uses of complex quantification and
indices, just because some people do it badly does not
invalidate the exercise.
3) NISPs are not really raw data anyway as they are
effected by the analyst's abilities and recording decisions.
4) All the forms of quantification have different meanings.
What do bone weights MEAN exactly? What do NISPs MEAN? Is
what they mean particularly useful or interesting? At some
point meaning has to be extracted. This is interpretation,
which requires models, hypotheses and assumptions. The
more complex quantification methods are interpretative
tools. They must be applied appropriately in full
knowledge of their uderlying assumptions.
----------------------
Alan K. Outram
Lecturer in Archaeology
University of Exeter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|