D.R. Brothwell - Research Problems in Zooarchaeology

RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

edited by D.R. Brothwell

K.D. Thomas

Juliet Clutton-Brock

University College London Institute of Archaeology Publications, Vol. 20 Occasional Publication No. 3

Originally published by University College London Institute of Archaeology

First published 2009 by Left Coast Press, Inc.

Published 2016 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright 1978 The Institute of Archaeology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data available from the publisher

ISBN 13: 978-0-90585-307-9 (pbk)

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

by R. J. BERRY

by K. D. THOMAS

by R. A. D. CAMERON

by .. KENWARD

by . L. ARMITAGE

by D. BROTHWELL AND R. JONES

by I. GRAHAM AND AMANDA SAUNDERS

by A. WHEELER

by SUSAN DENFORD

by MAUREEN GIRLING

by D. BROTHWELL

by J. P. N. WATSON

by ANNIE GRANT

by J. R. BAKER

by HEATHER LOWNIE

by CAROLINE GRIGSON

by A. J. LEGGE

by BARBARA NODDLE

by JENNIE COY

EDITORS PREFACE

This collection of papers is the outcome of a meeting held in London at the Institute of Archaeology in September 1976. Following the meeting, the contributors were given time to modify their manuscripts in the light of discussions and a number of extra papers were subsequently offered as a further sequel to the meeting. To some extent, this collection can be seen as reflecting current interest and work in Britain related to zooarchaeology or which is viewed by us as having potential application in this field. Although we accept that the terms zooarchaeology and archaeozoology are seen as interchangeable by some of our colleagues, while others may feel a distinct preference for one of them, we have simply selected here the one which seems most appropriate to an occasional paper of this Institute. Essentially, they are all concerned with zoological aspects of archaeology.

We should like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to John Evans, Director of this Institute, for making funds available to assist in organising the meeting and in the eventual publication of the contributions. We should also like to thank Susan Seright who gave important help not only at a secretarial level but also in arranging the lunches - a vital factor to the success of any such gathering. Finally, our appreciation to Rosalind Passmore, who has seen this work through its final typing and printing, and Moira Mackenzie for preparing the line drawings.

D. R. B.

K. D. T.

J. C-B.

London, 1978

R. J. Berry

When an archaeologist unearths the remains of an animal, his first problem is to identify it. In the vast majority of cases this will present no difficulty, but in a few the material will not match perfectly with available reference specimens. Such mismatching may arise with one or two individuals from a particular site, or with the entire yield of the site. The simple will classify the material into the nearest available category; the vain will create an entirely new taxon, making themselves the authority for their own perspicience. However, the interesting and difficult, but correct treatment is to treat the unknown as an exercise in variation, and evaluate its relationships to known forms. This essay is concerned with variation and relationships.

Variation and relationship are complementary and pertinent properties of archaeological material: extreme variants of a single population may be classified illegitimately into distinct groups if the range of intermediate forms is not known (e.g. Corbet, 1970); conversely, the recognition of the pattern of variation in a species over a number of populations often makes possible the construction of genealogical relationships, which in turn may give much more information about the history of a site than merely registering the presence or absence of the species in question (Berry, 1975). These twin properties have to be seen in the context of 2 major developments in biology over the past 20 years or so: the recognition of extremely strong selection pressures in nature, and the discovery of much greater amounts of inherited variation than previously seemed possible (reviewed Berry, 1977). Both affect the interpretation of phenotypic variation observed in particular populations, and hence are directly relevant to archaeology.