I don not agree with Alan when he says that people using fragment counts
are being only descriptive; I think most of us want to interpret our
results as well, but we want to make this in a way which is not biased
from the very beginning. There is nothing wrong in using NISPs - for
example - when comparing different areas within a site (in order to make
an behavioural or economical interpretation); possible differences in
fragmentation pattern in the different areas must be of course taken
into account (the use of a particular method is not in contradiction to
the use of common sense!; I think it is basically what Alan meant by
saying "...but if the zooarchaeologist uses them in the correct
situation, in the full knowledge of what
they are doing and why, there is no problem").
Again, I think most of us - MNI (and MNI-related methods) users and
non-user alike - are well aware of the pitfalls involved; but many
people who are not aware use our results as well.
Just a couple of weeks ago I received comments on a manuscript I
submitted for publication; I was writing about sex ratios (as calulated
through osteomterical data) of reindeer hunted in different Upper
Palaeolithic sites, and gave the number of fragments measured for each
of the sites. One of the referees was almost schocked by the fact that
no MNI were given, and therefore one could not know how many individuals
were involved. Apparently he/she seems to ignore that the MNI cannot
give this information.
--
Jaco Weinstock
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde
Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart
Germany
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|