Hello all,

I have recently been having discussions with another bone 
specialist about recording/quantification.  I would be 
interested in collating the full range of methodologies in 
use.  Not to censure nor criticise but perhaps to produce a 
short review of state of the art (is ICAZ doing something 
along these lines). I know that for example NABO have been 
looking at setting minimums for zooarch data, but I don't 
know how far they have got (any NABO members out there). 

What do we think about minimums, academic freedom and 
counting/identifying tiny bits of dross?

With EH there are a range of methods in use - ranging from 
the brutally brief and efficient (Davis, S.J.M.  (1992)  
Rapid Method for Recording Information about Mammal Bones 
from Archaeological Sites.  AML Research Report 19/92.) to 
the more expansive - well examples are the zone methods I 
guess (Dobney and Reilly, Circea (er can't remember the 
rest - Keith?) and Serjeantson, D. (1991) 'Rid Grasse of 
Bones' : a taphonomic study of the bones from midden 
deposits at the Neolithic and Bronze Age site of 
Runneymede, Surrey.  International Journal of 
Osteoarchaeology 1.  73-89.)

Has anybody got other methodologies they want to point out,
or pet moans about quantification they would like to air. 

I know that the EH regional reviews (for non-english folk 
these are reviews by english region of all the published 
zooarch data divided into different periods) have tried to 
use much of this data, and perhaps as a result of these 
brave attempts some conclusions can be drawn about what we 
need as a minimum. 

Anyhow opinions please, and I know its an old chestnut but 
we may be able to usefully revisit it at least briefly.

jacqui

----------------------
Jacqui Mulville,
EH Regional Science Advisor (E. Mids)
Oxford University Museum,
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW
Tel: 01865-272996 Fax: 01865-272970




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%