Any analysis of vertebrate specimens recovered from archaeological context involves a potentially long list of recorded variables. Zooarchaeologists recognize the need to standardize reporting, but they do not agree on how this should be achieved. Ideally, it would be necessary to include some discussion of criteria used to establish taxonomic identification, as identification is fundamental to all analyses. Most published analyses include a list of taxonomic abundance; however, it is difficult to evaluate the reliability of identifications without recourse to a corresponding list of identified elements and some discussion of the criteria used in their identification. Reports should also include information on how the sample was recovered in the field, in addition to descriptive data that can be crucial to all subsequent interpretation, including: physical dimensions of specimens, skeletal element and portion, side, fusion, evidence for age and sex, different forms of preserved modification, and archaeological provenience.
Although it would be ideal to include sufficient data to allow future researchers to undertake analyses without recourse to the original material, this goal remains somewhat unrealistic. Lamentably, traditional outlets are increasingly reluctant to publish long lists of basic data; however, the practical ability for digital storage looms on the horizon. Nevertheless, we have no idea what possible data future researchers may consider as important. Today, promising research fronts include the use of biomolecular identifications, which would require access to the original bone tissue. Furthermore, we cannot expect our taxonomic identifications to be permanent because they are inherently mutable. Moreover, we must accept that taxonomic categories change through reclassification and/or evolutionary modification. It is inherently difficult to establish universal standards of reporting because the research priorities of archaeologists vary in time and space. What may be irrelevant to one analyst may be crucial to another. The only effective way to deal with these problems is to curate the material for future restudy. Here, storage with labeled identifications from previous analyses could be considered. However, it is of utmost importance to curate specimens along with all relevant archaeological provenience information, for without this, a specimen is only a meaningless bone fragment.
See also: Archaeozoology; Bioarchaeology; Coprolite Analysis; Osteological Methods; Taphonomy.
World History
