My votes are for Maltby's seminal contribution to the study of urban
provisioning:
Maltby, M. 1979 Faunal Studies on Urban Sites: the Animal Bones from
Exeter, 1971-1975. Exeter Archaeological Reports 2. Sheffield:
Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Univ. of Sheffield;
and much more recently, the remarkable - really remarkable - volume:
Shillourokambos: un éstablissement néolithique pré-céramique à Chypre:
les fouilles du secteur 1 - sous la direction de Jean Guilaine, François
Briois, and Jean-Denis Vigne. Paris: Éditions Errance, 2011, 1248 pp (!)
at least 1/3 of which is the results of the faunal analysis that are
fully integrated with the archaeology and other specialist analyses and
with all the data presented as well.
The latter is an excellent example of the kind of contribution
archaeozoology can make to archaeology - where it is actually part of
the archaeology.
Richard Meadow
On 9/12/12 9:16 AM, Naomi Sykes wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm contemplating our profession and I would like to canvass opinion...
>
> What articles, paper etc spring to your mind as examples that show zooarchaeologists to be at the forefront of mainstream archaeological research, rather than acting as supporting 'specialists'?
>
> I suppose I'm asking for examples, from anywhere in the world and relating to any period, of papers/articles that make you feel proud to be a zooarchaeologist.
>
> The only rule to my query is that you can not vote for yourself - it goes without saying that we are, of course, all doing great things!
>
> I'll kick-off by suggesting Legge and Rowley-Conwy's (1988) Star Carr Revisited.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Thanks is advance,
>
> Naomi
>
> ----------------
> Naomi Sykes
> Lecturer in Archaeology
> Department of Archaeology
> University of Nottingham
> NG7 2RD
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|