Obviously I don't look at things from a Management position.  I think
the artifacts are important.  The combined collection is what tells us
the Story...of the peope who discarded the trash/items.

In most cases, I write the "Results" portion of reports...presenting the
data...in text and tables.  Then the PI writes the conclusions/whatever
(different terms for diff projects; symantics).

This one project is being run (very) differently tho.  

WHY I was noting the pin marks is for the exact reason you state
Carl....to determine just how MANY guns were being fired/used.  I cant
say they all 'resided' in the ONE household associated with the dump
tho...since the inhabitants could have had friends come over for a
target shoot.

This collection has over 50 rimfire casings present...and 100s of
centerfire handgun casings and shotshells - so it was of Interest to me
since the abundance really stood out (typically a domestic site might
produce 3-10 casings - off the top of my head; please don't 'quote' me).

We don't have the ammo info entered into our database yet, so I cant
give you Exact details...but, I thot it relevant to know that many
different weapons were used at this home site - maybe it isnt. ? 
 
Why the casings were gathered up and discarded in the dump puzzles me
some tho.  But maybe this isnt Unusual behavior (only to me)??  I just
assumed (oops) that shells were left in the grass (let's say)...where
they fell...by most shooters.  

I was wondering if perhaps one of the kids had gathered up a
"collection" (as I know children do - picking up "goodies"*)...since -
of the shotshells specifically - there are just 1 or 2 of each 'make'
(brand model)...of 6 Different ammo making companies.  Not being a
'shooter'...I am ignorant about the sport...but, I just assumed one
bought a box full of 1 type of ammo...so what you shot would all be the
Same (at that episode; till the box was empty).  Then why would there be
some 45 DIFFERENT product names in this household dump collection?

All ideas welcome.  :o)

But no, this probably wont influence the conclusions of the report the
PI writes.

* When I was 6, and I was taken to the race track... I collected all the
'pretty' betting ticket stubs littered all over the ground.  I must have
had a 2" thk stack...that I rubberbanded (technical term; ha ha) and
kept in my drawer.  WHY?  Silly things kids do.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>Behalf Of Carl Steen
>Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 5:10 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Management Interference in Standard Archaeology Procedures
>
>
>If Carol was working for me I'd ask what she is going to do 
>with the  data?  
>Who is writing the report, her or me?  Unfortunately CRM  
>budgets can't always absorb the mostly irrelevant analysis 
>that some people  (like me, I admit) want to gather. So you 
>always have to ask, is the time  required, for instance, to 
>measure each rimfire firing pin mark worth the  effort? Does 
>it really matter? At Little Big Horn, yes. At a domestic site, 
> probably not. 
> 
>At the same time I have figured a sort of "MNG" for households 
>based on the number of unique cartridge types (1 .22, 1 .32 
>rimfire, 1 .32 centerfire, etc). It amounted to about a 
>paragraph in a two volume report. Interesting, and an 
>important piece of the puzzle, but three times the effort 
>would  not result in substantially more information. So I'd 
>say the person writing the  report should direct the lab to 
>gather the information he or she needs to  fulfill their 
>research design, and that lab workers with their own agendas  
>should pursue them on their own time. 
> 
>Carl Steen
>
>
>
>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the 
>all-new AOL at 
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>