 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%