Why are zooarchaeologists so obsessed with which method of
quantification is best?
These things are never and 'either/or' situation. There are obviously
inherent biases in all methods of quantification and huge assumptions
that have to be made about the datasets. Consequently a range of
different methods (MNI, NISP, total weight, no of fragments per litre
etc.) should be applied to the same datasets and then the patterns
interpreted in the light of their either complimentary or contradictory
nature.
To be honest, the most important question here is not which method of
quantification is best- but how the bones are classified in the first
place (i.e. what is "identified" and "unidentified", are vertebrae and
ribs included as identified fragments, are shaft fragments included,
which elements are used? This is so different between individual workers
(and often never specifically defined in publications) that we can't
even be sure that we are comparing the same things once we get to
quantify the data. Let's get some well-defined protocols circulated as a
start.
Keith
|