I'm definitely feeling the need to be provocative now!
I absolutely agree that there is a need for good
standardized descriptive quantification methods. Some
basic issues can be resolved with those methods alone.
Other questions can be answered from qualitative data.
However, if one wishes to seriously attempt to reconstruct
past economies and animal husbandry etc. (i.e. answer
interesting questions) then some form of Minimum Numbers
method and some indices are essential.
I get the feeling that there are two major camps in
zooarchaeology, and I would suggest that those who refuse
to accept the need for interpretative methods as well as
descriptive methods should really call themselves "faunal
analysts" or something like that. Somebody has to
interpret the data at some point. It is no use just
describing the assemblage hoping that a general
archaeologist is going to be able to do the interpretation.
It is much better if the specialists, who know the problems
better, apply the intreprative level of quantification.
I would argue that zooarchaeologists (archaeologists that
study faunal remains) have a duty to provide raw data (in a
usable form) so that re-interpretations can be made, then
use the best interpretative quantification methods for the
job in hand and then form an interepretation having
integrated other archaeological evidence (and discussed the
key research questions with the excavator).
Be just descriptive, by all means, but what's the point?
Its the equivalent to the excavator just recording the site
and walking off. Some body has to interpret.
----------------------
Alan K. Outram
University of Exeter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|