 |
 |
And even in northerly parts, the minor invertebrates are often neglected. Here, Jamie Andrews has just finished a MSc project integrating all the minor things - bits of urchin, barnacle, crabs etc - with the familiar things (fish, big shells) in order to understand midden stratigraphy and interpretation more clearly. He is not suggesting that people actually ate barnacles, you understand, but variation in their abundance, and the co-variation with other components of the sediment, tells us something about formation processes. As for pots, they are just convenient containers for bits of animals. Terry *********************************** Prof Terry O'Connor Department of Archaeology University of York Kings Manor York YO1 7EP http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/OConnor.htm Editor, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5488 -----Original Message----- From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of S H-D Sent: 02 November 2005 00:17 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] British archaeological urchins Hi Greg, I'm not surprised either - tho' I always look if offered the 'its only a bag of shells can you do them as well' samples. You may well be correct in some aspects, but I also wonder if, where sieving and collection of everything (even fossils!) is routine (eg here in Southampton) and they still aren't there, it must be either lack of exploitation or lack of survival. If I had access to all the lovely fish, oysters, meat, poultry, cereals fruit etc found locally I wouldnt bother with watery bits of urchins (which are not actually that easily available here anyway!). PS yes isn't it amazing how excited people get about grotty bits of broken pot when there are so many beautiful bones etc.... and who was it said a ditch had straight sides - you use a spade to do this.....? ;) Sheila SH-D ArchaeoZoology http://www.shd-archzoo.co.uk/ All mail virus and spam checked ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Campbell" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: [ZOOARCH] British archaeological urchins Dear Dr Highbee: having spent some time looking at archaeological urchins since I provoked the most recent discussion about them on ZOOARCH, it does not surprise me that there have been so few contributions of English E. esculentus. I have yet to find any reference to, or memory of, any urchins from any English excavation of any period. I have not read a large number of marine shell reports, but it seems clear that they are not actively researched in England. I would be very pleased to be proved wrong by others in this forum. The only reference that I have to E esculentus is that by Ceron-Cerasco in the previous ZOOARCH exchange. In fact, recent British urchin finds seem restricted to the Scottish Isles, where they are recorded from several periods but generally in low densities. Field archaeologists (bless 'em) might might be tempted to see contrasting cultures (an 'echinophagous' and 'echinophobic' tribe), and insist that our associates in ancient biomolecules search for the relevant gene (double-recessive 'e-e' forms being echinophagous). I fear that there is a cultural explanation, but it is one of contrasting archaeological cultures rather than indigenous cultures. The Isles have a long tradition of early prehistoric excavation which includes as a matter of course (and necessity) subsistence evidence recovery, with this tradition being extended into excavations of later periods. Elsewhere in the British Isles, the archaeological tradition is I fear more concerned with what past peoples built or made or dug (it seems no field report can be published without at least one ditch section and a page of drawings of what appear to be identical potsherds), with serious consideration of how they managed the fundamental human act of feeding themselves again confined to early prehistory. We zooarchers must begin the task of gently weaning mainland field archaeologists of most periods away from their Howard Carter obsession with 'beautiful (and frankly not very beautiful) things'.