Umberto
I do not disagree with you for a second, and certainly did not mean to
imply that these important topics were non-cultural. I simply want to
emphasize that as a discipline, ZA needs to demonstrate to other
archaeologists that we can do MORE than just these topics.
My experience in western North America suggests that many archaeologists
have become conditioned to expect that a faunal paper (whether at a
conference or in a report) will tell them the types of animal remains found
and the quantities of each, and very little else.
In Arizona, I've had project directors tell me they weren't even going
to study the fauna because they already knew what the diet and environment
were in the study region.
My point is simply that everyone knows we can study subsistence and the
environment. Why not try to surprise the audience with something different?
Dave Maxwell
Statistical Research, Inc.
Burnaby, British Columbia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Umberto Albarella" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: Zooarch Presentations at General Conferences
> Dear David,
> I agree with the spirit of your message, but I would like to add that
> subsistence and human environment are as 'cultural' as religion and
> social structure. However, I take your point that they are sometimes
> presented as they were divorced from the main questions on past human
> behaviour.
> Cheers,
> Umberto
>
> -------------------
> > Low or declining attendence for zooarchaeology-oriented sessions at
> larger
> > conferences (I'm only familiar with those in North America) seems to
> be a
> > pretty common trend over the past few years, and I think in many
> ways we
> > have only ourselves to blame. We need to integrate zooarchaeology
> into more
> > general research issues in order to attract a larger audience.
> > When I was a grad student (U of Arizona), I had to take a course
> in
> > archaeological theory from an epigrapher. He started off under the
> > impression that all I would care about were numbers and graphs and
> was
> > astounded to eventually realize that zooarchaeology is just
> archaeology with
> > a different data set and the same ultimate goals about understanding
> the
> > past. We need to try to educate our colleges so that they can have
> the same
> > sort of breakthrough in understanding.
> > I think the key is to always try to make conference
> presentations (or
> > contract reports, for that matter) deal with research issues that
> other
> > archaeologists (and not just zooarchaeologists) can appreciate. I
> know I
> > find it quite tedious to sit through a presentation that concludes
> "the
> > primary focus was hunting rabbits" or "fish was the dominant
> resource." In
> > most cases, we DO already know that. Let's try to be more creative
> and have
> > more presentations that conclude "we have evidence here for
> feasting" or
> > "bone burning in these houses suggests rapid abandonment."
> > There is no reason why zooarchaeologists cannot focus on the
> same broad
> > range of rearch issues that other archaeologists are interested in.
> My last
> > few conference papers have focussed primarily on recognizing ritual
> > behaviour in archaeological contexts using faunal remains or on the
> > importance of fauna in ritual contexts. Let's try to see a few more
> > presentations on non-subsistence/environmental issues. It may open
> the eyes
> > of a few non-bone specialists.
> >
> > Dave Maxwell
> > Statistical Research, Inc.
> > Burnaby, British Columbia
> >
> Umberto Albarella
> Dept of Archaeology
> University of Durham
> Durham DH1 3LE, UK
> tel. +44-191-3741139
>
|