Terry wrote..
My concern is that by using MNI estimates as the basis of
the meat weight calculation, the resulting figures will lie at one
extreme of a range of possibilities, with no means of estimating the
other extreme of that range.
Hear, hear - when asked by breathless archaeologists could I
work out the meat weights I generally reply - Did you
excavate the whole site - no! Did you recover all the bone
- no! Do you know how much was lost through taphonomic
processes - no! Have we grouped (possibly) hundreds of
years together in a phase - yes! so how realistic and
useful do you think the estimates of how many animals and
how much meat they provided in a particular phase is?
At that point they look a bit wounded and walk off
muttering about 'too long in the lab' ;)
I know all methods are useful in there place but I do wish
we could take a slightly more realistic view of such
calculations. They are useful in some situations and for
comparative purposes, but they are only minimums and
extremely dependant on how you recover/treat your data. On
well preserved, recovered excavations I think there is
value in looking at MNIs etc, but possibly for
contexts/features rather than phases! That what I'll be
doing to my material from the Hebrides, when I get around to
it.
Sorry - its one of my rants.
jacqui
PS shall find those refs Mariana
----------------------
Jacqui Mulville,
EH Regional Science Advisor (E. Mids)
Oxford University Museum,
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW
Tel: 01865-272996 Fax: 01865-272970
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|