Hi all -
The debates
that spark on this forum are always interesting!
As a zooarch
from a human osteo/evolutionary background, I'm all for Terry's wish for
consistency. My experience with bioarchaeology / phys. anthro / medical (human
and vet.) / dentistry and zooarchaeology / zoology -- seems to suggest that
getting a consistent terminology will be, shall we say, complex?
Along those lines, what about changing phalanges terminology to be
consistent with human osteo? Ph1 vs. Prox Ph. 3 (or 2...). PP3, IP3, DP3
certainly seems more universal and accurate than PH1, PH2, PH3.
Or the use of os coxae rather than pelve? This one I'm not so sure of
the argument as to which is 'more accurate' or more useful. But innominate,
which is still used in both human and faunal studies should certainly be
dropped --- calling it the 'unnamed' bone to protect Victorian sensibilities
seems rather silly...
But then, the Human osteo/medical terminology is not always consistent
between the UK, Europe and the US (let alone other areas).
So, an excellent cause, if a difficult achievement. But perhaps, ICAZ could
start by holding some discussions to agree a consistent vocabularly for zooarchs
and other bioarchs, including human osteos? Then move on the get the physical
anthro / zoologocial community involved?
Perhaps I'm behind the times and such a thing has already been worked on
for the zooarch community? If so, these comments are just based on my personal
experience. A reference guide with the varying/comparable terminologies would
certainly be useful! Especially when using different existing texts of various
origins and dates. The variety of anatomical vocabularly can be
overwhelming to new practicioners...
Pam
Pamela J
Cross
MSc, Human Osteology & Palaeopathology
PhD researcher:
Bioarchaeology/archaeozoology
Archaeological Sciences, University of
Bradford, BD7 1DP UK
p.j.cross (at) student.bradford.ac.uk / pajx (at)
aol.com
