Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T12:05:12.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Vertebrate Zooarchaeology

from Part IV - Environmental Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Beth Upex  and
Keith Dobney
Edited by
Michael P. Richards  and
Kate Britton
Michael P. Richards
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
Kate Britton
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

Our relationship with animals has a long and complex history, one that is as important today as in the past. However, while most of us interact with domesticated animals (and their by-products) daily, we rarely give this complex relationship (or its history) a second thought. We put milk or yoghurt on our breakfast cereal, eat cheese (and perhaps ham) sandwiches as snacks and consider roast chicken as a treat for Sunday lunch. Most of us wear shoes or other clothes made from animal products and sleep under down duvets. We take our dogs for walks, stroke (or chase away from our gardens) the neighbour’s cat (whilst likely getting bitten by its fleas!), and – if we’re very lucky – ride horses for pleasure. Our interactions with animals are not, however, always positive. Whilst we might encourage songbirds to our gardens by feeding them, we’re less keen on sharing our living spaces with those animals considered pests, who can spread disease and (if given the opportunity) spoil our stored foods.

Type
Chapter
Information
Archaeological Science
An Introduction
 , pp. 215 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albarella, U. 2003. Tawyers, tanners, horn trade and the mystery of the missing goat. In: `Murphy, P. and `Wiltshire, P. E. J. (eds.) The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, pp. 71–86. Oxford: Oxbrow Books.Google Scholar
Albarella, U., Johnstone, C., and Vickers, K. 2008. The development of animal husbandry from the Late Iron Age to the end of the Roman period: A case study from South-East Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(7):1828–1848.Google Scholar
Alen, A. and Ervynck, A. 2005. The large scale and specialised late medieval urban craft of marrow extraction: Archaeological and historical evidence from Malines (Belgium), confronted with experimental work. In: `Mulville, J. and `Outram, A. K. (eds.) The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, pp. 193–200. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Antikas, T. G. 2008. They didn’t shoot horses: Fracture management in a horse of the 5th century BC from Sindos, Central Macedonia, Greece. Veterinarija and Zootechnika 42:24–27.Google Scholar
Ashby, S. 2002. The role of zooarchaeology in the interpretation of socioeconomic status: A discussion with reference to medieval Europe. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 18:37–59.Google Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L. 2006. Taphonomy and palaeopathology in archaeozoology. Geobios 41(2008):69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasse, M. and Ambrose, S. 2005. Distinguishing sheep and goats using dental morphology and stable carbon isotopes in C4 grassland environments. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Griggo, C., Mercier, N., Muhesen, S., Reyss, J. L., Taha, A., and Valladas, H. 1999. A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectile and Mousterian hunting weapons. Antiquity 73(1999):394–402.Google Scholar
Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goats (Capra hircus Linné). In: `Brothwell, D. and `Higgs, E. S. (eds.) Science in Archaeology, pp. 331–358. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Bökönyi, S. 1970. A new method for determining the number of individuals in animal bone material. American Journal of Archaeology 74:291–292.Google Scholar
Bond, J. M. and O’Connor, T. P. 1999. Bones from Medieval Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate and Other Sites in York. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Clason, A. T. and Prummel, W. 1977. Collecting, sieving, and archaeozoological research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:171–175.Google Scholar
Crabtree, P. 1990. Zooarchaeology and complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity. Archaeological Method and Theory 2:155–205.Google Scholar
Daróczi-Szabó, L. 2002. Animal bones as indicators of Kosher food refuse from 14th Century AD Buda, Hungry. In: `Jones O’Day, S., `Van Neer, W., and `Ervynck, A. (eds.) Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, pp. 252–261. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 vols. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davis, S. J. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dobney, K., Anezaki, T., Hongo, H., Matsui, A., Yamazaki, K., Ervynck, A., Albarella, U., and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2005. The transition from wild boar to domestic pig as illustrated by dental enamel defects (LEH): A Japanese case study including the site of Torihama. Torihama Shell Midden Papers 4, 5:51–78.Google Scholar
Dobney, K., Ervynck, A., Albarella, U., and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2004. The chronology and frequency of a stress marker (linear enamel hypoplasia) in recent and archaeological populations of Sus scrofa in north-west Europe, and the effects of early domestication. Journal of Zoology 264:197–208.Google Scholar
Dobney, K., Ervynck, A., Albarella, U., and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2007. The transition from wild boar to domestic pig in Eurasia, illustrated by a tooth developmental defect and biometric data. In: `Albarella, U., `Dobney, K., `Ervynck, A. and `Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction, pp. 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobney, K., Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K., and Milles, A. 1992. A working classification of sample types for environmental archaeology. Circaea 9:24–26.Google Scholar
Dobney, K. and Reilly, K. 1988. A method for recording information about mammal bones: The use of diagnostic zones. Circaea 5(2):79–96.Google Scholar
Enloe, J. G. 1993. Ethnoarchaeology of marrow cracking: Implications for the recognition of prehistoric subsistence organization. In: `Hudson, J. (ed.) From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, pp. 82–100. Occasional Paper No. 21, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois.Google Scholar
Ervynck, A., Dobney, K., Hongo, H., and Meadow, R. 2001. Born free? New evidence of the status of pigs at Neolithic çayönü Tepesi Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey. Palaeorient 27:47–73.Google Scholar
Ervynck, A. Hillewaert, A. Maes, A., and Van Strydonck, M. 2003. Tanning and horn working at late and post-medieval Bruges: The organic evidence. In: `Murphy, P. and `Wiltshire, P. E. J. (eds.) The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, pp. 60–70. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Evin, A., Dobney, K., Schafberg, R., Owen, J., Strand Vidarsdottir, U., Larson, G., and Cucchi, T. 2015. Phenotype and animal domestication: A study of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Sus scrofa. BMC Evolutionary Biology 15:6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, E. A. 1993. Screen size and differential faunal recovery: A Hawaiian example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4):453–460.Google Scholar
Grant, A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In: `Wilson, B., `Grigson, C., and `Payne, S. (eds.) Aging and Sexing Animal Bone from Archaeological Sites, pp. 91–108. BAR International series 109. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Grant, A. 1988a. Animal resources. In: `Astill, G. and `Grant, A. (eds.) The Countryside in Medieval England, pp. 149–187. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grant, A. 1988b. Food, status and religion in England in the Middle Ages: An archaeozoological perspective. In: `Bodson, L. (ed.) L’animal dans l’alimentation humaine: Les criteres de choix, pp. 139–146. Actes du colloque international de Liège. Paris: HASRI.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hill, M. E., Hill, M. G., and Widge, C. G. 2008. Late Quaternary Bison diminution on the Great Plains of North America: Evaluating the role of human hunting versus climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 27(17–18):1752–1771.Google Scholar
Hillson, S. 1986. Teeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, R. G. and Cruz-Uribe, K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Legge, A. J. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 1987. Gazelle killing in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American 257(2):88–95.Google Scholar
Legge, A. J. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2000. The exploitation of animals. In: `Moore, G. C. `Hillman, A. M. T., and `Legge, A. J. (eds.) Village on the Euphrates, pp. 475–525. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lippold, S., Matzke, N. J., Reissmann, M., and Hofreiter, M. 2011. Whole mitochondrial genome sequencing of domestic horses reveals incorporation of extensive wild horse diversity during domestication. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11:328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyman, R. L. 1994a. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1994b. Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59(1):36–71.Google Scholar
MacGregor, A. and Mainman, A. 2001. The bone and antler industry in Anglo-Scandinavian York: The evidence from Coppergate. In: `Choyke, A. M. and `Bartosiewicz, L. (eds.) Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, pp. 343–347. BAR International Series 937. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Martin, L., Edwards, Y., and Garrard, A. 2010. Hunting practices at an Eastern Jordanian Epipalaeolithic aggregation site: The case of Kharaneh IV. Levant 42(2): 107–135.Google Scholar
Mateos, A. 2005. Meat and fat: Intensive exploitation strategies in the Upper Palaeolithic approached from bone fracturing analysis. In: `Mulville, J. and `Outram, A. K. (eds.) The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, pp. 150–159. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Münzel, S. C. 1988. Quantitative analysis and archaeological site interpretation. Archaeozoologia 2(1,2):93–110.Google Scholar
Nichol, R. K. and Wild, C. J. 1984. “Numbers of individuals” in faunal analysis: The decay of fish bone in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11(1):35–51.Google Scholar
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1977. Butchering and marrow fracturing as a taphonomic factor in archaeological deposits. Paleobiology 3:218–237.Google Scholar
O’Connor, T. P. 2000. Bones as evidence of meat production and distribution in York. In: `White, E. (ed.) Feeding a City: York. The Provision of Food from Roman Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, pp. 43–60. Devon, UK: Prospect Books.Google Scholar
`O’Day, S. J., `Van Neer, W., and `Ervynck, A. (eds.) 2004. Behaviour behind bones: The zooarchaeology of ritual, religion, status and identity. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Outram, A. K. 2005. Distinguishing bone fat exploitation from other taphonomic processes: What caused the high level of bone fragmentation at the Middle Neolithic site of Ajvide, Gotland? In: `Mulville, J. and `Outram, A. K. (eds.) The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, pp. 32–43. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1969. A metrical distinction between sheep and goat metacarpals. In: `Ucko, P. J. and `Dimbleby, G. W. (eds.) The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, pp. 295–305. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1972. Partial recovery and sample bias: The results of some sieving experiments. In: `Higgs, E. S. (ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory, pp. 49–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. The mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281–303.Google Scholar
Perdikaris, S., Hambrecht, G., Brewington, S., and McGovern, T. H. 2007. Across the fish event horizon: A comparative approach. In: `Plogmann, H. (ed.) The Role of Fish in Ancient Time. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group, August 2005, Basel, pp. 51–62. Rahden: Leidorf.Google Scholar
Peres, T. M. 2010. Methodological issues in zooarchaeology. In: `VanDerwarker, A. M. and `Peres, T. M. (eds.) Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases, pp. 15–36. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. 1973. A critique on the methods of quantifying faunal remains from archaeological sites. In: `Matolcsi, J. (ed.) Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, pp. 367–369. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadö.Google Scholar
Reitz, E. J. and Wing, E. S. 2008. Zooarchaeology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995. Meat, furs and skins: Mesolithic animal bones from Ringkloster, a seasonal hunting camp in Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12:87–98.Google Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1998. Improved separation of Neolithic metapodials of sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. and Dobney, K. 2007. Wild boar and domestic pigs in Mesolithic and Neolithic southern Scandinavia. In: `Albarella, U., `Dobney, K., `Ervynck, A., and `Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction, pp. 131–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
`Ruscillo, D. (ed.) 2005. Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Saint-Germain, C. 2005. Animal fat in the cultural world of the native peoples of Northeastern America. In: `Mulville, J. and `Outram, A. K. (eds.) The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, pp. 107–113. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animals Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Shaffer, B. S. 1992. Quarter-inch screening: Understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity 57(1):129–136.Google Scholar
Shaffer, B. S. and Sanchez, J. L. 1994. Comparison of 1/8 and 1/4 mesh recovery of controlled samples of small-to-medium-sized mammals. American Antiquity 59(3):525–530.Google Scholar
Silver, I. A. 1970. The aging of domestic animals. In: `Brothwell, D. R. and `Higgs, E. S. (eds.) Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, 2nd ed., pp. 283–302. New York: Praeger PublishingGoogle Scholar
von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
von den Driesch, A., Kessler, D., and Peters, J. 2004. Mummified baboons and other primates from the Saitic-Ptolemaic animal necropolis of Tuna el-Gebel. Middle Egypt. Documenta Archaeobiologicae: Conservation Policy and Current Research 2:231–278.Google Scholar
Weissbrod, L. and Bar-Oz, G. 2002. Caprines and toads: Taphonomic patterning of animal offering practices in a Late Bronze Age burial assemblage. In: `Jones O’Day, S., `Van Neer, W., and `Ervynck, A. 2002. Behaviour behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, pp. 20–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
West, B. 1995. The case of the missing victuals. Historical Archaeology 29:20–42Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1953. A method for calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by Aboriginal people. American Antiquity 18(4):396–398.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. P. N. 1978. The interpretation of epiphysial fusion data. In: `Brothwell, D. R., `Thomas, K. D., and `Clutton-Brock, J. (eds.) Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, pp. 97–101. Institute of Archaeology Occasional Publication 3. London: University of London.Google Scholar
Wing, E. S. and Quitmyer, I. R. 1985. Screen size for optimal data recovery: A case study. In: `Adams, W. H. (ed.) Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol. 2: Zooarchaeology, pp. 49–58. Reports of Investigations No. 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Zeder, M. A. 2006. Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication. In: `Zeder, M. A., `Emshwiller, E., `Smith, B. D., and `Bradley, D. G. (eds.) Documenting Domestication, pp. 171–180. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zeder, M. A. 2008. Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(33):11597–11604.Google Scholar
Zohar, I. and Cooke, R. G. 1997. The impact of salting and drying on fish bones: Preliminary observations on four marine species from Parita Bay, Panamá. Archaeofauna 6:59–66.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×