Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 19:16:05 EST |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[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
|
|
|