My post referred to comparative (modern) collections too following on
from the comment from Ruth about greasy bones (which I too have found
problematic to mark).
Cheers Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tanya M. Peres
Sent: 01 October 2009 14:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] labeling animal bones
I do not have the original post in front of me, but think maybe we are
talking about two different types of bone collections. My post referred
to modern comparative collections. Rhea's post (and others) refers to
archaeological collections.
My stance is to definitely label modern comparative skeletons, I am
undecided about archaeological collections. I understand the importance
of linking the contextual information, but have seen too many labeling
mistakes that could not be reversed.
So, did the original post ask specifically about labeling modern
skeletons or archaeological ones?
Cheers,
Tanya
Dr. Tanya M. Peres
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
Middle Tennessee State University
311 Todd Hall
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
615-904-8590
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:14:05 -0800
>From: Rhea Hood <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: [ZOOARCH] labeling animal bones
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dear colleagues,
> I'm in agreement with Mohammad that we should avoid
> labeling bones as much as possible, especially
> permanantly. Introducing inks and lacquers to
> organic remains is contrary to the value of
> preservation. Being of the new generation of
> archaeologists I've worked with assemblages that
> were excavated in the somewhat distant past, labeled
> permanantly, and placed in storage for a decade or
> four. One in particular had been labeled with Indian
> ink and 20 percent of the labels were illegible
> because the ink had smeared, run, were blotted out
> with more ink to try to correct labeling errors, or
> the texture of the bone was innappropriate for
> writing on. Another was a large assemblage of
> delicate bird bone tools, the labels were an offense
> to the ancient craftsmanship. Additionally, labeling
> is time consuming and that time would be better
> spent working carefully and making sure not to
> associate bones with the wrong catalog number (that
> can happen while labeling, too). But, whether to
> label or not depends on the characteristics of the
> collection and what questions are being asked of it.
> We can't be certain of the technology or interests
> of future archaeologists, but I think in the "deeper
> future" they'll be wondering why we vandalized
> artifacts.
>
> Ciao,
> Rhea
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get a free @hellokitty.com, @mymelody.com, or
> @kuririnmail.com email account
> today at www.sanriotown.com, and enjoy 500MB of
> storage!
> Check out our official blog @
> http://blog.hellokitty.com
************************************************************************
Note: This E-Mail is intended for the addressee only and may include
confidential information.
Unauthorised recipients are requested to please advise the sender immediately
by telephone and then delete the message without copying or storing it or
disclosing its contents to any other person.
We have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that no viruses are
transmitted from the Authority to any third party. Copyright in this
e-mail and attachments created by us unless stated to the contrary belongs to the Council.
Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any party acting,
or refraining from acting on any information contained in this e mail is
hereby excluded.
Should you communicate with anyone at the Council by e-mail,
you consent to us monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
Printing this email? Please think environmentally and only print when essential!
************************************************************************
|
