Print

---

Zooarch literature that focuses on question of taphonomy and reconstructing earliest diets and environments in East Africa are firmly in the processual paradigm.  Authors such as Behrensmeyer, Binford, Brain, Blumenschine, Grayson, Lyman, Marean, Shipman, and Domingo-Rodriguez have published some very valuable work in the experimental and application aspects of zooarch analysis.  Prehistoric North American taphonomic work fits alongside these with authors such as Haynes and Speth. Some of my personal zooarch work in historical archaeology is also heavily influenced by processual theory as Blumenschine was a professor/dissertation committee member of mine.

Other historical period zooarch work range from being processual to post-processual, and sometimes antiquarian with assumptions based on little empirical evidence. I feel most zooarch work falls further on the processual end of the spectrum due to the emphasis on pattern and data analysis in order to make interpretations.  In studies of more recent time periods, the more recent development of the "processual-plus" may be a better assessment since we use scientific methods, taphonomy, patterns of data to address questions of individual agents within the development of the archaeological record such as slaves, women, ethnic minorities, diasporas, various social classes, etc.  Diane Gifford-Gonzalez who has published some great processual work on taphonomy also has important pieces calling for a breaking away from the androcentricity of most faunal analyses, showing how zooarchaeology falls across a spectrum where we often address post-processual questions but with processual methods.

Adam Heinrich