The study of these remains helps archaeologists understand past human subsistence strategies and economic interactions, and completes our picture of the kind of environments humans have inhabited.
The multi-disciplinary nature of this field is reflected in the disagreements over its name. One of the first clear references to this area of study was by Lubbock (1865) who used the term zoologico-archaeologist. The modern derivatives, such as zooarchaeology, zooarcheologie, or zooarchaeologia are probably the most commonly used terms in the Americas and reflect the anthropological perspective prevalent in their research. In Eurasia and Africa the term archaeozoology is more commonly seen, and this emphasises the biological nature of the animal remains. Other terms that are occasionally used are osteoarchaeology, bioarchaeology (in the United States, this is generally used to refer to the analysis of human remains from archaeological sites) and ethnozoology. While these disputes may seem trivial, they reflect differences in the approach and perception of the same material (Reitz and Wing, 1999: 2-6).
As can be seen from the discussion about the name that should be given to this discipline, zooarchaeology overlaps significantly with other areas of study. These include:
A typical report based upon a faunal assemblage will include the following information:
New book chronicle: Madeleine Hummler.(The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying)(Integrating Zooarchaeology)(The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New archaeological approaches)(Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity)(Book review)
Sep 01, 2006; Animal bones, identity and Welsh guidebooks (in English). As fabricating links between these disparate themes would be just too...