 |
 |
I believe that Keith Dobney has hit the nail on the head here. What is important is that compatible basic data are produced by different analysts. We need consistency in what we actually record. A further point to add is that those who propose only ever to use some sort of fragment count or NISP are really only being "descriptive". Other methods, including MNIs (after Klein), MAUs (after Binford) or MinAUs (as modified by Halstead)etc. can be essential "interpretative" tools. These tools involve certain assumptions (as do other interpretative tools) but if the zooarchaeologist uses them in the correct situation, in the full knowledge of what they are doing and why, there is no problem. We do need to produce compatible "descriptive" data that others can use. However, some of us actually want interpret sites as well and other quantification methods can be essential in asking particular questions. ---------------------- Alan K. Outram BA MSc PhD Lecturer in Archaeogy Department of Archaeology University of Exeter %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%