Dear all,

I agree with the points mentioned above, and I think that we need to work on
two fronts:

(a)To emphasise the importance of subsistence as a part of 'cultural
archaeology';

(b)  To emphasise the fact that we research into areas that are not directly
related to subsistence.

I think that this problem of communication extends beyond the nature of
conference presentations; it seems to pervade everything that we do.  Being
relatively new to archaeology as a whole, I am constantly amazed at the
reactions of people in other spheres of archaeology to faunal analysis.

I am convinced that zooarchaeologists are attempting to make the subject
more accessible, and to promote the view that it should not be seen as
something 'other' to the rest of archaeology.  However, recent events have
brought it to my attention that there are at least a few stubborn
individuals that seem unwilling to embrace the role that faunal analysis may
be able to play in cultural interpretation.  If I may, I'd like to
illustrate this point by means of an anecdote:


Last year, out of curiosity I attended a conference entirely unrelated to
zooarchaeology.  During the evening reception, I was amazed to find myself
challenged by an archaeologist of considerable repute. He/she believed most
environmental archaeology to be inconsequential, and about 'finding the
first plum stone'.  Furthermore, they thought that on the whole, faunal
analysis was yet to tell us anything of interest either on large scales or
for individual towns or sites, and even picked one of our most researched
medieval towns to illustrate the lack of publication.  This clearly showed
an ignorance of the published material, and (call me naive) I was quite
shocked to see someone so freely discredit an entire field of research
without even having been to the library to check the validity of their
claims.

While I don't believe that this attitude is the norm, we are left with a
choice.  We can either accept the impossibility of converting those that
will not listen, or we can redouble our efforts to ensure that the
importance of zooarchaeology is realised by archaeology as a whole, rather
than just those willing to listen.  I think that we begin this process by
reassessing the cultural/environmental dichotomy that seems to exist in the
heads of many archaeologists, 'environmental' or otherwise.

To this end, I think that the suggestion to publish with historians is a
good one, and should be extended further still.  Why shouldn't we publish
with spatial scientists, art historians, buildings archaeologists or
industrial experts if relevant? Articles of this kind seem to be increasing
in numbers, and I think that this trend needs to be sustained, and
accelerated if possible.  Of course, it is important that the more
scientific articles continue to be produced, and we have only so much time
and energy available, but is our responsibility to talk to specialists in
other fields as much as it is their responsibility to listen.

Thanks, I'm off my soapbox now,

Steve.






_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com