Dear Emily,
I strongly believe that intrusive bones should be excluded from the main table, though, if there is any possibility that they have a cultural origin, they can be shown separately. And, of course, they should be omitted from calculations. I have said so in print!
Good to eat and good to think with: classifying animals from complex sites. In Animal Bones, Human Societies. ed. P. Rowley-Conwy (2000).Oxford, Oxbow: 179-189.
Best wishes,
Dale
Dale Serjeantson
Visiting Research Fellow
Archaeology
School of Humanities
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites on behalf of Emily Murray
Sent: Wed 27/09/2006 10:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] Calcaneum/calcaneus and intrusive bones
Dear All
I have two queries:
The first is, is there any rule or preference for the use of calcaneum V calcaneus? Both versions appear in published zooarch reports.
The second question is what to do with bones of intrusive species in NISP tables? In Britain and Ireland these are typically rabbit bones and again there seems to be different approaches in the literature to including/excluding counts in tables.
Thanks in advance.
Emily
******************************************************************
Dr Emily Murray
School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology (GAP), Queen's University Belfast
Belfast BT7 1NN
Tel +44 028 9097 5282 [office] or 9097 3488 [bonelab]
Fax +44 028 9097 3897
|