Advertisement

A Perspective on Zooarchaeology

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses how inherently consistent properties of organic materials enable zooarchaeological research. These stem from uniformities through time in the development and construction of bone, teeth, shell, and other organic materials in living animals, as they react to the species-specific demands of life. Traits of hard tissues such as bone and teeth also govern generally uniform responses to stresses inflicted after death, which zooarchaeologists can understand by making contemporary observations. The first part of this chapter sketches the history of the concept of uniformity of cause and effect over time, as it arose in historical geology and was applied in paleontology and later in archaeology. It outlines points of agreement and debate among researchers theorizing how to use such inherent qualities of biological materials to study the past. Using uniform traits of organic materials to shed light on the unobservable past involves reasoning by analogy, and part of this chapter discusses the history of controversies over the role of analogy in archaeology. The final section outlines the major types of archaeofaunal data zooarchaeologists use to explore humans’ interactions animals in the past.

Keywords

Theory Actualism Uniformitarian Configurational Forensic approach 

References

  1. Albritton, C. C. (Ed.). (1963). The fabric of geology. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Ascher, R. (1961). Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Research, 17(4), 317–325.Google Scholar
  3. Behrensmeyer, A. K., Gordon, K. D., & Yanagi, G. T. (1986). Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature, 319, 768–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binford, L. R. (1967). Smudge pits and hide smoking: Use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity, 32, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Binford, L. R. (1983). In pursuit of the past: Decoding the archaeological record. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Binford, L. R. (1987). Researching ambiguity: Frames of reference and site structure. In S. Kent (Ed.), Method and theory for area research: An ethnoarchaeological approach (pp. 449–512). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Binford, L. R. (2001). Constructing frames of reference: An analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bonnichsen, R., & Will, R. T. (1980). Cultural modification of bone: The experimental approach in faunal analysis. In B. M. Gilbert (Ed.), Mammalian osteology (pp. 7–30). Laramie: B.M. Gilbert.Google Scholar
  10. Broughton, J. M. (1997). Widening diet breadth, declining foraging efficiency, and prehistoric harvest pressure: Ichthyofaunal evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound, California. Antiquity, 71(274), 845–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, J., & Kietzke, K. K. (1967). Paleoecology of the Lower Nodular Zone, Brule Formation, in the Big Badlands of South Dakota. In J. Clark, J. R. Beerbower, & K. K. Kietzke (Eds.), Oligocene sedimentation, stratigraphy and paleoclimatology in the Big Badlands of South Dakota (Vol. 5, pp. 111–137). Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs.Google Scholar
  12. Clason, A. T. (1972). Some remarks on the use and presentation of archaeozoological data. Helinium, 12(2), 139–153.Google Scholar
  13. Copi, I. (1982). Introduction to logic (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Cordell, L. S., & Plog, F. (1979). Escaping the confines of normative thought: A revaluation of Puebloan prehistory. American Antiquity, 44(3), 405–429.Google Scholar
  15. Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence.” A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6):18-30Google Scholar
  16. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by natural selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  17. Fernández-Jalvo, Y., & Andrews, P. (2016). Atlas of taphonomic identifications: 1001+ images of fossil and recent mammal bone modification (Vertebrate paleobiology and paleoanthropology). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiorillo, A. R. (1989). An experimental study of trampling implications for the fossil record. In R. Bonnichsen & M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Bone modification (pp. 61–72). Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, J. W. (1995). Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2(1), 7–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flannery, K. V. (1986). Guilá Naquitz: Archaic foraging and early agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, L. G. (1968). A theoretical framework for interpreting archaeological materials. In R. B. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 262–267). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Gale, A. S., Kennedy, W. J., & Martill, D. (2017). Mosasauroid predation on an ammonite – Pseudaspidoceras – From the early Turonian of south-eastern Morocco. Acta Geologica Polonica, 67(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gifford, D. P. (1981). Taphonomy and paleoecology: A critical review of archaeology’s sister disciplines. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 4, 365–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1991). Bones are not enough: Analogues, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 10(3), 215–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould, R. A. (1978). Beyond analogy in ethnoarchaeology. In R. A. Gould (Ed.), Explorations in ethnoarchaeology (pp. 249–293). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gould, R. A., & Watson, P. J. (1982). A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1(4), 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herm, D. (1972). Pitfalls in paleoecological interpretations: an integrated approach to avoid the major pits. In B. E. Mamet, & G. E. Westermann (Eds.), International Geographic Congress, 24th Session, Section 7: Paleontology(pp. 82-88). Montreal: International Geographic Union.Google Scholar
  28. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, A. P. (1984). Hyaenas and hominids: Taphonomy and hypothesis testing. In R. A. Foley (Ed.), Hominid evolution and community ecology (pp. 111–128). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Hodder, I. (1982). The present past: An introduction to anthropology for archaeologists. London: B. T. Batsford.Google Scholar
  31. Hooykaas, R. (1970). Catastrophism in geology, its scientific character in relation to actualism. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Hutton, J., & Playfair, J. (1785). System of the earth, 1785: Theory of the earth, 1788. Observations on granite, 1794. Together with Playfair’s biography of Hutton (Vol. 5). Darien: Hafner Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Isaac, G. (1971). The diet of early man: Aspects of archaeological evidence from Lower and Middle Pleistocene sites in Africa. World Archaeology, 2(3), 278–299.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, R. G. (1986). Carnivore size and Quaternary climatic change in southern Africa. Quaternary Research, 26(1), 153–170.Google Scholar
  35. Lawrence, D. R. (1968). Taphonomy and information losses in fossil communities. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 79(10), 1315–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawrence, D. R. (1971). The nature and structure of paleoecology. Journal of Paleontology, 45(4), 593–607.Google Scholar
  37. Lyell, C. (1830). Principles of geology, being an attempt to explain former changes of the earth’s surface with reference to causes now in operation (Vol. 1). London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyman, R. L. (1987). Zooarchaeology and taphonomy: A general consideration. Journal of Ethnobiology, 7, 93–117.Google Scholar
  39. Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Meadow, R. H. (1980). Animal bones: Problems for the archaeologist together with some possible solutions. Paléorient, 6, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ogutu, J., & Dublin, H. T. (2002). Demography of lions in relation to prey and habitat in the Maasai Mara National Reserve Kenya. African Journal of Ecology, 40, 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter, R. (1976). Charles Lyell and the principles of the history of geology. The British Journal for the History of Science, 9(2), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, A. R. (2000). On equifinality in faunal analysis. American Antiquity, 65(4), 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shipman, P. (1981). Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 376(1), 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shipman, P., & Rose, J. J. (1983). Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass processing behavior: Approaches to the fossil record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2(1), 57–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sillen, A. (1989). Diagenesis of the inorganic phase of cortical bone. In T. D. Price (Ed.), The chemistry of prehistoric human bone (pp. 211–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Simpson, G. G. (1963). Historical science. In C. C. Albritton (Ed.), The fabric of geology (pp. 24–48). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  50. Simpson, G. G. (1970). Uniformitarianism. An inquiry into principle, theory, and method in geohistory and biohistory. In M. K. Hecht & W. C. Steere (Eds.), Essays in evolution and genetics in honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky: A supplement to evolutionary biology (pp. 43–96). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Bertalanffy, L. (1949). Problems of organic growth. Nature, 163, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  53. Wallace, A. R. (1859). Letter from Mr. Wallace concerning the geographical distribution of birds. Ibis, 1(4), 449–454.Google Scholar
  54. Whewell, W. (1832). Review of Volume 2 of Charles Lyell’s Principles of geology. Quarterly Review, 47, 103–132.Google Scholar
  55. Wolverton, S., & Lyman, R. L. (2000). Immanence and configuration in analogical reasoning. North American Archaeologist, 21(3), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wylie, A. (1982). An analogy by any other name is just as analogical: A commentary on the Gould-Watson dialogue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1(4), 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 63–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wylie, A. (1989). Archaeological cables and tacking: The implications for practice for Bernstein’s “Options beyond objectivism and relativism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 19, 1–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations