Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany

A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases

  • Amber M. VanDerwarker
  • Tanya M. Peres

Table of contents

  1. Front Matter
    Pages i-x
  2. Issues and Methods for Integrating Data

  3. Case Studies

  4. Back Matter
    Pages 309-333

About this book


In recent years, scholars have emphasized the need for more holistic subsistence analyses, and collaborative publications towards this endeavor have become more numerous in the literature. However, there are relatively few attempts to qualitatively integrate zooarchaeological (animal) and paleoethnobotanical (plant) data, and even fewer attempts to quantitatively integrate these two types of subsistence evidence. Given the vastly different methods used in recovering and quantifying these data, not to mention their different preservational histories, it is no wonder that so few have undertaken this problem.

Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany takes the lead in tackling this important issue by addressing the methodological limitations of data integration, proposing new methods and innovative ways of using established methods, and highlighting case studies that successfully employ these methods to shed new light on ancient foodways. The volume challenges the perception that plant and animal foodways are distinct and contends that the separation of the analysis of archaeological plant and animal remains sets up a false dichotomy between these portions of the diet. In advocating qualitative and quantitative data integration, the volume establishes a clear set of methods for (1) determining the suitability of data integration in any particular case, and (2) carrying out an integrated qualitative or quantitative approach.


Archaeological Methods Environmental Archaeology Subsistance Analysis animal remains data integration floral and faunal data holocene macrobotanical evidence methodological issues microbotanical evidance paleoethnobotany pleistocene zooarchaeology

Editors and affiliations

  • Amber M. VanDerwarker
    • 1
  • Tanya M. Peres
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Letters & ScienceUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraU.S.A.
  2. 2.Dept. Sociology & AnthropologyMiddle Tennessee State UniversityMurfreesboroU.S.A.

Bibliographic information