Dear Aharon,
In my opinion, archaeological information should be considered the
primary "hypothesis" to be tested using animal bones (among other
finds). Instead of asking, whether X people were rich because they
ate meaty bits, I would prefer asking, what did rich people eat?
"Objective" meat values are prone to all sorts of cultural prejudices
and personal tastes. Naturally, this is also a two way street of
reasoning (since there seems to be a stochastic relationship
between values and preferences), but this is the side I would start on.
My caution stems from the experience that sometimes I was asked
to date (!) strata using animal bones. Then it is even more critical: I
want to know what people ate in X period and would not try to base
chronologies on food remains.
Best wishes, Laszlo
|