Much as it grieves me to be conciliatory in any way but are we not
all in agreement here really??
There is a need for a descriptive, standardised quantification method
- hence weights and NISP. There is a perceived need to interpret
these figures, which leads to all the min no. methods. However,
there is a real danger with MNI, that other people, less familiar
than we are with the taphonomic pathways, interpret these MNIs as
being reflective of what was actually happening on site - i.e
representing the dead (deposited) assemblage or, worse still, the
living animals on site.
No-one wants anyone else interpreting their data for them. I would
argue that producing figures for minimum numbers of animals actually
encourages re-interpretation, as it provides figures that
(non-specialist) people feel they understand.
For this reason it is dangerous to put forward numbers of animals, in
print, although I find MNIs useful to give (me) a general scale of
what we are looking at 5 or 500 individuals (usually the former!).
Actually disclosing these numbers leads to the sort of problem they
had at Fort LIgonier, (John Speth's email - 18.5.00) where the
calculated meat weight was sufficient to feed the garrison for only
two days.
I would imagine that everyone agrees that there will be occasions
when MNI provides the best interpretation of the situation - pit
deposits for example, where two dogs and one heron is infinitely more
interesting than the appropriate number of surviving bones.
I don't think there is any answer to this, an afternoon was given
over at the ICAZ meeting in Victoria (August 1998) discussing such
matters to no firm conclusion. At the time I was greatly encouraged
by this as I had spent far too many weeks that year reading all
available literature on the subject as part of my PhD research.
I had reached no conclusion (other than the red herring one !!), so
it was cheering to see there was no answer.
The need to consult with the excavators and other specialists is
paramount and SHOULD dictate which methods (sampling,
quantification, analytical etc.) are used. Similarly, the need to
explain the methods used is also important, but often not possible
due to space restrictions in site reports etc. Perhaps alternative
publication options, such as the web, will facilitate this in the
future??
Sorry, bit of a rant, obviously I am not too gripped by the unfused
metapodials on the desk in front of me!!! :-)))
Jennifer
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:15:43 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
> Priority: NORMAL
> Subject: Re: quantification, again
> From: "Alan K. Outram" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: Archaeozoology mail list <[log in to unmask]>,
> Jaco Weinstock <[log in to unmask]>, tpoc1 <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-to: "Alan K. Outram" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 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
>
>
Jennifer Thoms
Dept of Archaeology,
University of Edinburgh,
12 Infirmary Street,
Edinburgh,
EH1 1LT
Tel: 0131 650 2373 / 2384
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|