 |
 |
thanks for all the mail i can read on the list. read your papers make me feel clever, bright ;-) More than throught publications, I feel the possibility to belong to a real community, who each bring a part of the all. To answer to terry, who seems a beat provocative :-))) ! the archaeobotanists have problems different of us, about the use of quantitative methodes. But we have the same problem on the subject of interprétation. For me, information come from comparison, not from single site. Yes we can says a lot of things on this site, but it is not sufficient. we must extract informations from corpus of sites. In clear, we need results (number of bones, weight... ) which are not biased, the more basics, and we must compare them, to give a relative information. I do not think that absolut data (on a single site) is very important, but relative data (born from comparison, evolution) is the key of our dungeon (happily, there are a lot of bone inside)! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%