 |
 |
Hi Jane, I have not had an explanation to account for the phenomenon, but then this part of site was excavated over 15 years before I studied the faunal remains. My interpretation was based on the fact that there was a higher proportion of the following ratios, compared with other areas of the site: - loose to mandibular teeth - incisors to all teeth - sheep astragli to sheep hind limb elements. These results do not reflect differences in the nature of the archaeology in different areas, since other areas of the site with similar context types that were excavated later, did not exhibit the same pattern. I do not think it reflects sampling strategy either, because all bones were collected by hand. I therefore reasoned that this was this probably due to the fact that collection was more thorough at the beginning of the excavation, than it was in later seasons. I hope this is of interest, Richard -----Original Message----- From: jane sidell [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 20 April 2005 16:50 To: Thomas, Dr R.M.; [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] bone retrieval Dear Richard I'd be interested to know if this was satisfactorily explained. Was this to do with people actually writing and closely following a sampling strategy or for more random reasons? many thanks Jane Sidell At 15:34 20/04/2005 +0100, Thomas, Dr R.M. wrote: >If it is of interest, when I was studying the animal bones from Dudley >Castle it was apparent that the bones from the first area of the site that >was excavated were more effectively collected than they were in subsequent >areas/seasons. If I remember correctly, I believe that Emily Murray and >Umberto Albarella also found that bones from the oldest deposits at Dragon >Hall, Norwich, were collected more effectively than bones from more recent >contexts... > >Richard Thomas > >-----Original Message----- >From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites >[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Terry O'Connor >Sent: 20 April 2005 15:29 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] bone retrieval > >Just a guess - that sounds like Bruce Levitan's work at Uley West Hill >circa 1985: Western Archaeological Trust Publications. He systematically >sieved the excavated 'spoil' from which bones etc had supposedly been >recovered during excavation. You can guess the results! > >Terry O'Connor >-----Original Message----- >From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rielly, Kevin >Sent: 20 April 2005 14:42 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: [ZOOARCH] bone retrieval > >Dear all, > >Some years ago someone wrote an article concerning the varying >efficiencies of hand retrieval dependent on the health, interest, mood etc >of the individual excavators. I'm pretty sure it was a British site. Can >anyone please help me track down this reference? > >Thanks > >Kevin Rielly > > >Kevin Rielly >Animal Bone Specialist >Museum of London Specialist Services >Mortimer Wheeler House >46 Eagle Wharf Road >London. N1 7ED >Tel: 020 7566 9330 >Fax: 020 7490 3995 >Email: [log in to unmask] ><http://www.molss.org.uk>www.molss.org.uk > >2 more MoLAS publications! ><http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicationDetails.asp?pid=44>The >Cistercian Abbey of St Mary Stratford Langthorne, Essex (excavations for >the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project) and ><http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicationDetails.asp?pid=60>Pre-Boudican >activity on the site of the London forum (for Marks and Spencer) Jane Sidell Senior Research Fellow/English Heritage Regional Archaeological Science Advisor Institute of Archaeology 31-34 Gordon Square London WCIH OPY 0207 679 4928 mob 07811 513025