I agree with Laszlo's comments on this subject. There is a further
issue to tackle: is 'rich' the same as 'high status'? Not necessarily,
yet archaeological discussions of bone and other assemblages often use
the terms almost as synonyms, or use 'status' without a definition. And
Steve Ashby is right. Bone assemblages are about much more than the
acquisition of calories and nutrients. What people choose to eat or
avoid, and where and how that food is prepared and consumed is a BIG
cultural signal. So too is the disposal of waste, so our assemblages are
culturally modified at input and at output. But we're not in this
research for easy answers, are we?
Terry O'Connor
-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 23 April 2003 01:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] social stratification according to animal bones
Dear Aharon,
In my opinion, archaeological information should be considered the
primary "hypothesis" to be tested using animal bones (among other
finds). Instead of asking, whether X people were rich because they ate
meaty bits, I would prefer asking, what did rich people eat? "Objective"
meat values are prone to all sorts of cultural prejudices and personal
tastes. Naturally, this is also a two way street of reasoning (since
there seems to be a stochastic relationship between values and
preferences), but this is the side I would start on.
My caution stems from the experience that sometimes I was asked to date
(!) strata using animal bones. Then it is even more critical: I want to
know what people ate in X period and would not try to base chronologies
on food remains.
Best wishes, Laszlo
|