Yes "reworked" is used in geology to describe fossils from an earlier
deposit that have become incorporated into a later deposit.
cheers
Chris
Dr Chris Gleed-Owen, Research & Monitoring Officer, The Herpetological
Conservation Trust
655A Christchurch Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 4AP
tel: 01202 391319 fax: 01202 392785 mob: 07810 770560
-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of ERVYNCK, Anton
Sent: 28 September 2006 09:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] intrusive bones
Hallo everybody,
In Belgian zooarchaeology we define 'intrusives' as those animals of
which the remains ended up in an archaeological context without any
active or conscious interference by humans (and thus different from
consumption refuse, production waste (from the processing of animal
products not for food), actively buried corpses and ritual deposits).
The intrusives are subdivided in 'contemporaneous intrusives' (animals
ending up in the context during their life or shortly afterwards), 'late
intrusives' (animals of which the remains are younger than the deposit
in which they ended up, often the burrowing species) and 'reworked
intrusives' (older material that ended up in a younger context).
These taphonomic subdivisions follow the publication by Gautier, from
the proceedings of the ICAZ-Bordeaux Conference:
Gautier, A. 1987. Taphonomic Groups: How and Why? ArchaeoZoologia I (2),
47-52.
Of course, we try to group the remains into taphonomic categories on the
basis of the characteristics of the remains themselves (cut marks,
fragmentation, etc.) and on the basis of the archaeological contextual
data.
In our inventories we list all animal remains found (NISP); the text
discusses in which taphonomic category they should be classified. Then,
all calculations (MNI, frequencies, etc.) are done only per taphonomic
group.
Not listing animal remains actually found is always a mistake, I think.
E.g., black rats have often been omitted from zooarchaeological data
lists because they were regarded to be late (burrowing) intrusives (and
they're not burrowing at all). Moreover, the presence and frequency of
'intrusive contamination' is very meaningful for the interpretation of
the archaeological context, and its animal contents.
yours sincerely,
Anton
--
Anton Ervynck
Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed
Flemish Heritage Institute
Phoenix-building, Koning Albert II-laan 19 box 5, B-1210 Brussel
02/553.18.30
0477/56.01.95
for a swift reply please also send a copy to [log in to unmask]
|