Re: Old rats -
From: NancyB (n.beavan_at_gns.cri-dot-nz.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 08/01/04
- Next message: NancyB: "Rat dates"
- Previous message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Question re. Copper artifact CanadianArcticformerRe:CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)"
- Maybe in reply to: Seppo Renfors: "Re: Old rats -"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Aug 2004 18:28:20 -0500
> Georgewrote:
n.beavan@gns.cri-dot-nz.no-spam.invalid (NancyB) wrote in message
news:<410c4738$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
>
>
> snip
> Secondly, re the moas eggshell / bird bone paired sample, the very
> reason for doing this is to
> 1) see if two samples of diofferent material at the same level
return
> the same 14C age , and
> 2) just to check if indeed we had an unexpected worry with the
> eggshell ( never say never in science!)
>
> IN fact, to be really crafty, that bird bone we paired it with was
> from an herbavore bird - so, no marine eating birdfs of prey who
> might have picked up a dietary anomoly.
>
Yup. Given. NOT
These birds have no gizzards of course and do not require stones or
other material to grind up their food.
Come on you accuse me of being selective with my POV
Umm, what do stones have to do with this? Carbon must
be taken into the food chain from the inorganic form via
phytosynthesis, and so into the base of the food chain.
[/b:b820edfbd1]
> Of the remaining ages greater than c. 950 yr BP produced in that
> period, none of the results produced for those samples were thought
> to be at odds with the stratigraphic situation in a given
> excavation
> at a natural site (Holdaway et al 2002).
>
>
> "Provenance. Lovely word that.It would appear that it has not had
> much
> usage in this. A labelled matchbox containing 40 year old samples
> and
> a site that yields no more of this bone......."
>
> I wonder did George expect the match box be accidentally tested
> instead of the bone it contained? What other thought process could
he
> reasonably have had when writing that lot?
>
I'll go through it slowly until you can comprehend the problem I
have.
A sample of cultural and historical significance is taken from a
layer
that was laid down prior to the Maori settlement of New Zealand.
On that alone it should have been obvious that here was sommething
that would change the history of the discovery and exploration of New
Zealand
This sample was put into a matchbox and labelled.
40 years later this sample in the labelled matchbox comes to light
and
testing.
There are no sketches, site plans, photos (taken at the time) of the
site.
> George, I get samples submitted wrapped in rolling papers that have
> been stuck into film caps. At least John Y had a clean matchbox,
> labelled it clearly, and got it archived.
>
> It is obvious then that you find nothing strange about some-one
> 'finding' something that could change the New Zealand habitation
> record and he puts it away for 40 years ?
>
> [b:b820edfbd1]Yeah. Considering the time I've spent in old museum
archives, I've seen stranger things. The point is, what could have
been done with a sample the size of a R. ex jaw, of about 30 mg, in
the 1950's? And was it forgotton? Yeah, pretty much. That's why we
troll dusty archives. Go read old issues of the Transactions of the
Royal Society of NZ - there's gold in there that has been forgotton.
[/b:b820edfbd1]
>
>
> My experience is that most archaeologists are very careful with
their
> samples and especially careful with the documenting of sites
>
> [b:b820edfbd1]Archaeologists are indeed careful. John was careful.
Whoever picked up the bags-worth of other rat bone weren't. Makes me
appreciate John all the more. I can think of other areas in NZ that
were significantly compromised in places by people just haphazardly
collecting - ask your archaeo friend [/b:b820edfbd1]
>
>
>
> As the quotes are from a different thread I'm not able to look back
> readily to check, but certainly in the first quoted text of
"George"
> and subsequent reply by Nancy, it is clear that there were many
more
> bones. It is quite reasonable to have the best find submitted for
> examination and preservation. I have little sympathy for bitching
> about the container used to deliver it in. Even less for claims,
> implied or otherwise, that this is somehow "evidence" against the
> find being worthy of anything..... come to think of it Does George
even
> understand the term "provenance", considering his (ab)use of it?
>
Yes. You of course have site plans and the grid/layer documentation
??
[b:b820edfbd1]Read... the ... papers[/b:b820edfbd1]
You made the claim that fossickers took away great amounts of rat
bone. Evidence? People look for artefacts for old bottles for
minerals, gem stones but Rat bone ???
[b:b820edfbd1]The evidence is what is still sitting in provincial
museums. And because it is unprovinanced, it is useless. As for odd
things collected and stuffed away... shoot, you have no idea
[/b:b820edfbd1]
You didn't answer to how a site should be recorded. Was that done in
this case
[b:b820edfbd1]READ THE PAPERS. Maybe you shouldn't post us until then;
you are simply cluttering up reasonable conversation on the subject.
If you cannot access any of the papers, I can send you reprints - you
know how to get in touch with me, and you seem to be close by in
Hamilton...[/b:b820edfbd1]
> What George did not note about John Y. is that he WAS a professional
curator, and as a matter of fact, was curator at the Auckland Museum
for many many years.
>
yes and he claims that at all times he had control over the
sample.[/quote:b820edfbd1]
[b:b820edfbd1]Then that should please your oh so discriminating
ways.[/b:b820edfbd1]
- Next message: NancyB: "Rat dates"
- Previous message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Question re. Copper artifact CanadianArcticformerRe:CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)"
- Maybe in reply to: Seppo Renfors: "Re: Old rats -"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
