 |
 |
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