Buikstra and Ubelaker has certainly become something of a standard for
human palaeopath. The challenge would be to adapt such a scheme to fit
the diverse anatomies of a very wide range of species, and to be
applicable to disarticulated material, rather than whole or partial
skeletons. These human osteoarchs have it easy!
Terry O'Connor
Julie Hamilton wrote:
>
> The animal palaeopathology working group of the AEA have discussed this,
> with no very definite result - there is a set of "Standards for data
> collection from human skeletal remains", eds JE Buikstra & DH Ubelaker,
> arkansas archeological survey research series 44, 1994 (obtainable from
> Amazon) which includes pathology & addresses just this question, but for
> humans, obviously. It does help though! There is also a French book I came
> across with lots of photos & X-rays which attempts to develop a standard
> recording format - Lesions osteo-archeologiques, PL Thillaud & P Charon,
> Kronos, 1994 - human again. Perhaps something like this could be adapted for
> use with non-human animal bone?
> Julie Hamilton
> Institute of Archaeology
> Oxford
|