 |
 |
Dear Fiona, As other people have mentioned, it is generally not possible to include all the measurements in a published report. However, there is another way, and I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been mentioned so far in this current debate - The Animal Bone Metrical Archive (ABMAP), which is a compilation of measurements from bone assemblages from excavations in England recorded over the past 20 years. The site can be accessed at http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/abmap All the best Kevin From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of fiona beglane Sent: 20 May 2010 16:10 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [ZOOARCH] metrical data in 'grey' literature reports Hello Zooarchers, I am trying to put together a research project at the moment looking at metrical data from grey literature and am coming up with a problem. When I submit a report I include a tabulated form of the metrics which for each individual bone lists out the results for that individual bone e.g. GL, Bp etc. so that all the data from the one bone is together. Looking through grey literature I am finding a lot of reports that only include summary data e.g. for GL they would give the max, min, mean and std. dev. This is understandable in final publication where space is often at a premium, but I was surprised that the 'full' grey literature reports were being submitted in this way. From the point of view of looking at changes over time and space this makes the data much less useful to work with - and getting hold of the original data might be difficult where the zooarchaeologist may have left the country/profession. Does anyone have any thoughts? eg. do you or do you not include the full data in the report? Any good reasons why this data should not be included? Any thoughts on how this summary data might be used in a valid way? Thank you all Fiona