Agree with several of you here. Many of our methods were developed during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, at a time when the “processual” paradigm was dominant. There is no question that processualism focused on paleoeconomic and technological issues, at the expense of questions of agency, ideology, and identity. However, interest in these so-called post-processual issues does not mean that questions of economy, environment, and technology are no longer important. I have always seen myself as processual-plus rather than post-processual or anti-processual. Pam Crabtree

 

From: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Stallibrass, Susan

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:45 AM

To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Zooarchaeological Theory

 

Quite so- I love flying kites, but I like to keep my feet on the ground whilst I’m doing it….

 

 

Dr Sue Stallibrass                                                      direct phone: 0151 794 5046

 

English Heritage Science Adviser for North West England

Department of Archaeology, ACE,

Hartley Building, Brownlow street,

University of Liverpool

LIVERPOOL

L69 3GS

 

[log in to unmask]   

 

Please note that on Mondays I am in the English Heritage office in Manchester on 0161 242 1409

[log in to unmask]

 

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terry O'Connor
Sent: 01 February 2013 15:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Zooarchaeological Theory

 

And that's why I object to the term 'post-processual', as it implies (probably deliberately) that processualism is over and done with. Not so, merely keeping quiet and getting on with the job!

Terry

Terry O'Connor

Professor of Archaeological Science

Department of Archaeology, University of York

Biology S Block, Heslington,

York YO10 5DD

+44-1904-328619

http://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/academic-staff/terry-oconnor/

 

And see the blog at http://zooarchatyork.wordpress.com/author/zooarchatyork/

 

On 31 January 2013 14:18, Allison Grunwald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Adam Heinrich: "we often address post-processual questions but with processual methods."

 

well put.

 

Allison

University of Wyoming

 

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:45 AM, adam heinrich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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

> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:01:42 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ZOOARCH] Zooarchaeological Theory
> To: [log in to unmask]

>
> Dear Zooarchers,
>
> I wonder wether there exist any established theoretical streams in
> Zooarchaeology (maybe comparable to archaeological schools of thought
> like processual, post-processual and such)? I would be very grateful for
> literature suggestions that could help to fit zooarchaeological
> methodology and interpretation into theoretical frameworks (gladly, but
> not necessarily, with regard to burial goods).
>
> My best wishes,
> Henriette
>
>
>
>
>
> Henriette Kroll
> Diplom-Prähistorikerin
>
> Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
> Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie
> Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2
> D-55116 Mainz