Hello Reuven and everyone,
When studying mollusc remains from archaeological sites we often encounter shells that were introduced by humans vs. others that entered the site on their own, the latter being ecofacts or part of the natural ecological setting of the site. We must separate between the latter and the former. And then, whether the introduced shells were food debris or real human made (or used) artifacts is another challenge, not always easy to resolveā¦
I hope this helps.
Daniella
> On 1 Oct 2019, at 15:07, Reuven Yeshurun <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> My take on this - I've always disliked the term "ecofact" and tried to avoid
> using it. The separation of "artefacts" and "ecofacts" is unnecessary and
> even misleading, because the degree of human involvement in the making of an
> assemblage of some material is not always apparent and in any case depends
> on the context.
> Specifically in our field of research, referring to an archaeological bone
> collection as "ecofacts" always seemed to me to relegate them to a lower
> level of interest (relative to human-made things), or merely to mask the
> important information that "unmodified" bone may reveal on ancient humans.
> Of course, these problems are the same when using "biofact", "exofact" and
> the like. I simply do not see the need for such terms, but perhaps one of
> you can point it out.
> Best,
> Reuven
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Haskel Greenfield
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Ecofact & biofact
>
> Hi. Interesting idea. My memory is that exofact was introduced into the
> archaeological literature in the early 1960s (1963?) by Lewis Binford to
> indicate plant and animals remains from archaeological context. It could
> include human and natural information. It was coined to distinguish them
> from artefacts, which could also include biological materials such as bone
> tools.
> Hope this helps.
> Best
> Haskel
>
> Haskel Greenfield
> Distinguished Professor
> University of Manitoba
> Canada
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 30, 2019, at 7:44 PM, Norbert Eeltink <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I have been confronted with a discussion about terminology, specific the
> terms ecofact and biofact. The former is widely used, but the latter is a
> rather uncommon or even unknown term here in the Netherlands. We are used to
> the term ecofact, but growing international contacts have started to
> introduce the term biofact. The reception differs. Some love it, some hate
> it, some feel we should stick to what we know and there is even an opinion
> that the term biofact is inappropiate. Furthermore, many consider them to be
> synonyms which can be used as one prefers, while others see a difference. It
> has been argued for example that biofact is a general term describing any
> organic find that was not altered by humans and that a ecofact is a organic
> find that contains specific information about (relations in) the
> environment.
>>
>> This discussion has caught my interest, since terminolgy is very important
> in any field of research and I think we should have an open mind to new
> developments like this. So I would like to know if members of our wonderful
> list have any ideas or opinions about this which they like to share?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> drs. N.T.D. Eeltink
>>
>> senior KNA-archeoloog & KNA-specialist fysische antropologie
>>
>> Aestimatica
>>
>> Archeologie, Osteologie, Museumadvies en Cultuurhistorie
>>
>> www.aestimatica.nl
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>> De inhoud van deze e-mail is alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde en
>> kan vertrouwelijke of persoonlijke informatie bevatten. Indien u deze
>> e-mail onbedoeld heeft ontvangen verzoeken wij u deze te vernietigen
>> en de afzender hierover te informeren. Het is niet toegestaan om een
>> e-mail die niet voor u bestemd is te vermenigvuldigen dan wel te
>> verspreiden. Aan deze e-mail inclusief eventuele bijlagen kunnen geen
>> rechten worden ontleend, tenzij schriftelijk anders is of wordt
>> overeengekomen. Aestimatica aanvaardt geen enkele aansprakelijkheid
>> voor schade en/of kosten die voortvloeien uit onvolledige en/of foutieve
> informatie in e-mailberichten.
>>
>> ######################################################################
>> ##
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1
|