Internet Archaeol. 17. Popkin. Why Standardise Bone Modification Recording?

2 Why Standardise Bone Modification Recording?

The study of cut marks and other bone modifications has the potential to provide zooarchaeologists with information about taphonomy (Lyman, 1987, 1994; Marciniak, 2001), site formation processes (Binford, 1981; Marciniak, 2001), burial/ritual practices (Grant, 2002, 21-22) ethnicity (Crabtree, 1996; Gumerman, 1997, 116; Lyman, 1987, 288-298), human behaviour (Blumenschine et al., 1996 and references therein; Dominguez-Rodrigo, 1997; Lupo and O'Connell, 2002; O'Connell and Lupo, 2003), and ancient technologies (Greenfield, 1999, 2004). Much important work has gone into standardising the recognition and classification of various types of bone modification (Blumenschine et al., 1996; Blumenschine & Selvaggio, 1991; Greenfield, 1999; Morlan, 1984), but the exact way these modifications are recorded varies amongst researchers. These small variations in recording techniques lead to confusion and division between researchers attempting to compare data collected in different fashions.

Inconsistencies in recording and quantification techniques are endemic throughout the field of zooarchaeology (Gilbert and Singer, 1982; Grayson, 1979, 1984; Ringrose, 1993; Rogers, 2000). Reasons for this include differences in: project goals, project budget, regional practices and procedures, and individual training and preference. Because of these (perfectly valid) reasons it is impossible to design an 'absolute standard' recording procedure for all zooarchaeological data which can successfully be used by all practitioners. However, it is reasonable and important for data comparability to devise, whenever possible, 'standard tools' which may be employed for specific purposes. The templates within this volume are intended to be such a tool and, hopefully, they will help to alleviate the problem of quantification and comparability with regards to butchery and bone modification data.