Archaeological Methods - Zooarchaeology
Kia ora,
In my last post to this blog, I noted that one of the key differences between archaeological and pseudoarchaeological interpretations of the past is that established archaeological interpretations are the result of inductive reasoning (i.e. conclusions are built from the 'bottom-up', based on (all) the available data), while pseudoarchaeological interpretations rely on data that has been selectively sampled to support the claims that are being made.
That's not to claim that archaeological interpretations are never wrong! But there is an important distinction that needs to be made between blatantly biased data selection and/or manipulation leading to incorrect interpretations (that is, pseudoarchaeology) and an interpretation that proves to be incorrect as a result of additional research and new data. Many areas of Oceania, for instance, are largely archaeological 'terra incognita' (unknown land) and it is expected that as these areas are explored and researched in the future, some of our presently established ideas about Oceanian archaeology will require revision.
I thought that a good approach to take going forward with this blog would be to provide a few examples of the methods used to produce the data that archaeological interpretations of the past are based on. Archaeological methods are not a 'black box'. However, if they continue to be viewed as such by those outside of the discipline the pseudoarchaeology being presented in various forms of popular media will prove to be more difficult to effectively counter.
Recently I have been assisting with the analysis of an assemblage of fish bone excavated at an archaeological site in New Zealand. The study of non-human animal (faunal) remains from archaeological sites is referred to as zooarchaeology or, alternatively, archaeozoology (bioarchaeology is a term used with a very specific reference to the study of human remains from archaeological sites).
 |
| Analysis of an assemblage of fish bone in progress in the University of Otago archaeological laboratories. |
The identification and quantification of species present in faunal assemblages from archaeological sites provides data that can inform our understanding of the food procurement (hunting/ fishing/ gathering) strategies of the site occupants, as well as local biodiversity and the nature of the surrounding environment when the site was occupied (many species are only found in specific types of environments). Controlled archaeological excavation of a site can provide clues about change over time.
So, how do archaeologists identify which species are present in an archaeological faunal assemblage? There are those who specialise in zooarchaeological identifications and as a result of experience can often look at a bone and tell you straight away what species it came from. However, even for specialists the key to comprehensive zooarchaeological identifications is access to a good reference collection of identified bones.
 |
| A part of the zooarchaeological reference collections at the University of Otago. Boxes and drawers contain identified and labelled bones from a range of fish and mammal species that one could come across in zooarchaeological assemblages from New Zealand. |
Identification of fish species are easiest with bones from the skull of the fish. In fact, for many years the 'standard method' for fish bone identification in New Zealand and Pacific zooarchaeology focused on the identification of just five paired (i.e. left and right) mouth bones - the dentary, articular, maxilla, premaxilla and quadrate, alongside a handful of other highly distinctive 'special bones' (e.g. Leach 1997). The dentary (i.e. the lower jaw) in particular was widely recognised as the most easily identifiable bone possessed by all species of fish one might come across in an archaeological assemblage (Leach 1997).
 |
| Left: Left dentary bones in the University of Otago reference collection from three species of fish commonly found in New Zealand archaeological middens. Top: Red Cod (Pseudophycis bachus); middle: Australasian Snapper (Pagrus auratus); bottom: Barracouta (Thyrsites atun). Comparison of the fragment of archaeological dentary bone (right) with each of them indicates that this bone was from a Red Cod. |
It is increasingly being recognised in this part of the world that a number of other fish bones are distinctive enough to be identified to the same low taxonomic levels, and that extending the range of bones identified can pick up the presence of species in an assemblage that the more traditional approach misses (e.g. Campbell 2016).
There still are, however, a number of fish bones that cannot be identified down to sufficiently low taxonomic levels, and even those that can are often far too highly fragmented to identify. Interestingly, a new study just out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) has demonstrated that bone that is so highly fragmented that it cannot be identified based on morphology can still be useful (Seersholm et al 2018). Researchers successfully characterized DNA preserved in fragmented and unidentifiable bone from across New Zealand (from natural deposits predating human arrival and archaeological middens) providing some novel insights into food procurement strategies by early Māori and New Zealand's lost pre-human biodiversity. A New Zealand Herald report on this study can be found here.
Thanks for reading!
References (in-text hyperlinks also provided):
References (in-text hyperlinks also provided):
Campbell, M. 2016. Body part representation and the extended analysis of New Zealand fishbone. Archaeology in Oceania 51: 18-30. https://doi-org.ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/10.1002/arco.5079
Leach, F. 1997. A Guide to the Identification of Fish Remains from New Zealand Archaeological Sites. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. Available online at: https://nzarchaeology.org/download/a-guide-to-the-identification-of-fish-remains-from-new-zealand-archaeological-sites
Comments
Post a Comment