Dear April Beisaw,
You have highlighted an important problem! It may, in part, reflect a degree
of narrow-mindedness amongst academics today, I am not sure. We must also
ask the question to what extent do we read history journals and to what
extent do we attend the historians' conferences? But do not be too
despondent, I have certainly encountered several well-known historians who
are very interested in what we do and quote our reports.
I once tried and failed to publish some zoo-arch findings in an historical
journal. (Zoo-arch evidence for an early and gradual timing of the
Agricultural "revolution" in England.) Critics complained of too much
science and too many graphs etc etc.
It is important that we transmit what we find to people in other
disciplines. Here are several tips:
1. Make the style of writing as accessible as possible to the
non-zoo-archaeologist.
2. Consign the "hard science" and many of the data tables to another
report/paper in a zoo-archaeological journal, or the dig report.
3. Make ample use of simple illustrations to explain any changes we would
normally explain via stats or general statistical-style diagrams. Remember,
for example, that Mr Average Historian will never have heard of a Gaussian
distribution!
4. Team up with a tame historian and publish a joint paper (this is what I
did with success).
Another important task we zoo-archaeologists need to do is write our stuff
up in general interest magazines. I am thinking of New Scientist (this is
not really relevant here) and History Today.
But good luck and keep at it at those historical meetings!
Simon Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: April M. Beisaw <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Zooarch Presentations at General Conferences
> Dear List;
>
> I have just returned from the Society for Historical
> Archaeology conference in Alabama and would like to
> bring up the issue of the place of zooarch
> presentations at these general archaeology
> conferences.
>
> There was (and usually is) only one session devoted to
> faunal analysis at the SHAs and, as usual, it was
> poorly attended. Even the few zooarch papers in larger
> sessions saw their attendance drop significantly from
> the presentation before it.
>
> I brought up this attendance issue with several
> archaeologists at the conference and the consensus was
> that they (non-zooarchaeologists) are not interested
> in faunal analyses because it does not tell them
> anything they don't already "know" (their words). They
> are especially not interested in faunal presentations
> as they contain too many graphs/formulas and other
> elements that are difficult to follow and often even
> difficult to see.
>
> What I am interested in is what is the general
> consensus among zooarchaeologists...Do you think we
> should change the way we present zooarch research at
> non-zooarch conferences or should we continue to
> preach to the few who do attend our presentations?
>
> -April
> _______________________
> April M. Beisaw, RPA
> Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy Consulting
> http://www.taphonomy.com
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
|