I hate throwing bones away, but unfortunately there are places in the world
where this is done, like it or not! It is also not possible (time/money) to
record as much as one would like.  The best course in an imperfect world
would seem to be - do the best you can for the particular assemblage and
document what you have done, but no hard and fast rules!
Sheila
SH-D ArchaeoZoology
http://www.shd-archzoo.co.uk/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Umberto Albarella" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: a plea for "unfixed rules"


> Dear Brian,
> I agree with you (and Terry) that NISP is the count on which we base
> all other quantifications, I was just making the point that the
> definition of a counted specimen is far from obvious.
> I also agree with you that a greater comparability between
> zooarchaeological works is desirable, but where our views probably
> differ is on the desirability of "fixed rules". Even if, in a distant
> future, they would become feasible I do not think that I would like
> them imposed on anybody. They can become a straightjacket and research
> has never made progress in a constrained environment. You would like
> to see more extensive publication of zooarchaeology reports, so all
> these data can be used by others. But, I wonder, even if the money for
> such publications existed, would it be desirable to have faunal
> reports packed with detailed descriptions of pathological conditions,
> location of butchery marks, endless measurements and photographic
> documentation of all this. Wouldn't they be boring to death? Where do
> we we stop in our attempt to be comprehensive? Isn't it better to
> focus on aspects that are relevant to our archaeological questions? We
> are never going to cover all aspects of a bone assemblage, and why
> should we? This is why it is important to preserve the actual bones.
> THAT is the vital database to which other researchers will/can go back
> to tackle different research questions. Archaeology is not a hard
> science and never will be. Past attempts to claim this have made it a
> mockery of science, which has done no favour to either arcaheology or
> science. But we can be rigorous even without having the same approach
> of a physicist or a mathematician. Rigorous, but creative, I like to
> hope....
> Cheers,
> Umberto
>
>
>
>
> -------------------
> > Umberto,
> >
> > I had no idea that NISP was so controversial in terms of a
> definition!  My
> > training defaulted on Grayson's Quantitative Zooarchaeology where
> NISP is
> > simply the count of any animal part (he says bone or tooth, but
> other parts
> > preserve as well), whole or fragment assigned to some taxonomic
> unit.  I
> > have found that book to be one of the most useful in my collection,
> and
> > probably the most boring, but not because of the writer or writing,
> but of
> > the topic.
> >
> > And of course NISP may not and probably does not reflect a natural
> status of
> > a bone assemblage unless you had total preservation and all parts
> were
> > identifiable as to the actual animals from which they originated.
> > Unfortunately, that does not appear to be a reality anytime soon and
> so we
> > must work with what we have and do the best we can.
> >
> > Matters get even worse when humans interact with the animal kingdom
> and
> > create cultural assemblages that at best can only represent what the
> humans
> > selected from the environment present at the time with no suggestion
> that
> > humans extracted animals from the environment in numbers
> representative of
> > natural populations.  Matters will be further complicated by a whole
> host of
> > taphonomic factors as well.
> >
> > Enter the faunal analyst.  A whole range of factors will affect
> whether or
> > not the analyst will be able to determine from which species, genus,
> family,
> > order, etc. a complete or fragmented animal part originated.
> Factors
> > inclusive of experience, skill, comparative collections, just how
> diagnostic
> > the part might be based on morphology (maybe someday we can DNA type
> > everything and actually know what animal they came from down to
> species),
> > and whether or not the specimens in the assemblage are actually
> known by
> > biologists and paleontologists.  I remember hearing Richard Cooke
> speak at
> > ICAZ in Germany on the problem that they were identifying fish from
> the
> > archaeological record that were not extinct, but had yet to be
> classified by
> > modern biologists.  As I recall, they were assigned some sort of
> designation
> > with the hope that those designations could be later clarified once
> the
> > individual species had been classified.
> >
> > This just touches on the point that NISP is really dependent on a
> whole host
> > of factors.  You are correct in noting that it is an artificial
> construct,
> > no matter how hard we try to extract as much information as
> possible.  My
> > point was simply that NISP seems to be the base line from which
> other units
> > of measure are derived.  They are an artificial construct built on
> an
> > artificial construct.  Often, it is much easier to gain insight into
> another
> > analyst's work if you have some idea of the base line information as
> opposed
> > to just the derived measures from that base line.
> >
> > Umberto, you bring up a very good point about there being no fixed
> rules.  I
> > think there could be, only not until we are light-years ahead of
> where we
> > are in our capabilities of analysis.  The lack of fixed rules is
> > problematic.  This is not limited to zooarchaeology, but to
> archaeology in
> > general, as well as many other fields.  Archaeologists tend to cater
> their
> > methods of excavation and analysis on a site by site or project by
> project
> > basis in order to extract as much information as possible from the
> remains
> > given all the relevant factors of time, money, skill, etc.  The
> unfortunate
> > result often times is that there may be no equitable way to compare
> two
> > different analyses by different people even though they appear to
> have
> > similar methods.
> >
> > All of this really deviates from the hard science of archaeology
> into the
> > oh - so soft science of epistemology, how we know what we know, and
> from
> > there, how we communicate what we know to others so that they may
> know it
> > too.
> >
> > I honestly think that zooarchaeology would be further along if we
> were able
> > to go into extensive detail about our methods, extensive detail
> about
> > identified specimens (similar to what many paleontologists do), if
> we could
> > include photographs of all unique specimens (whole or fragmented)
> such as
> > pathologies, deformation, taphonomy, and unique taxa.  Even without
> fixed
> > rules, at least future analysts would have a better idea about how
> the
> > assemblage data were manipulated during the analysis.
> Unfortunately, such
> > thoroughness in writing rarely gets published in the underfunded
> > archaeological realm.
> >
> > No wonder so many projects (here in Texas anyway) have more money
> budgeted
> > for radiocarbon dating than for faunal analysis.  Even with all the
> > statistical mumbo jumbo and shortcomings that accompany radiocarbon
> dating,
> > radiocarbon dates seem so clear cut, in part because they do have
> > rules...but the rules have changed with time and new information.
> What a
> > sticky wicket!
> >
> > Brian Shaffer
> >
> Umberto Albarella
> Dept of Archaeology
> University of Durham
> Durham DH1 3LE, UK
> tel. +44-191-3741139
>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com