[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])  writes:

<<But...did want to clarify a tiny bit...that the collections I  was
referring to (in my email "to Gaye")...as having 1,000 items...are  from
construction monitoring projects of a 1/4 of a city block, or  so.  So
these are not from unit excavations & definitely not Phase  II work.  The
amt is also the MNI of items, primarily diagnostic...not  a count of ALL
the fragments collected.  :o)>>
I guess that I am unfamiliar with the way modern archaeologists conduct  
monitoring and sampling of construction projects. When a trenching machine hits  
an architectural feature, I have always stopped the trencher, opened a test 
unit  over the feature, and recovered a sample by screening and bringing-in all 
the  artifacts for a Section 106 analysis. The phrase "MNI," as I understand 
it,  refers to the minimum number of items based on diagnostic artifacts (eg. 
bottle  necks), but I am not familiar with the concept of "not counting all the  
fragments" as a part of the Section 106 process. Who would create a research  
design for Section 106 testing that ignores the broken parts, since nearly  
everything in historical archaeology is broken?
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.






**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489