 |
 |
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