Cattle and People: Interdisciplinary Approaches to an Ancient Relationship, 2022
This chapter presents an overview of osteological evidence for the aurochs in the European Pleist... more This chapter presents an overview of osteological evidence for the aurochs in the European Pleistocene and early Holocene. Some of the most important aurochs assemblages from Pleistocene and early Holocene Europe are described, from the time of the earliest evidence of this species on the continent, at around 650,000 years ago, through to the end of the Mesolithic period, setting them within their climatic and cultural context. Information on body size is also presented with a reassessment of previous data using new dates for some sites. Limitations are discussed and possible directions for future research proposed.
Cattle were the most common domestic livestock animal throughout much of the Neolithic period in ... more Cattle were the most common domestic livestock animal throughout much of the Neolithic period in the area now occupied by modern day Switzerland, home to a significant number of sites dating to between approximately 4400 and 2500 cal BC. Many of these sites were located in wetland locations, resulting in very well-preserved large faunal assemblages which can be dated using dendrochronology with rare precision. This region is also particularly important for our knowledge of the spread of culture and innovation through Central Europe during the Neolithic period-its topography results in a natural corridor through which influences travelled from both the east and west. This study is the first to combine cattle data from across the whole of Switzerland, focusing on %NISP and biometrical data, in order to investigate how cattle husbandry changed over time, comparing the east and west of the region. A number of different temporal scales are used in order to look for broad patterns and then focus in for more detail. Results indicate that there is a clear correlation between %NISP and body size of cattle throughout much of the Swiss Neolithic and that cattle husbandry changed broadly in line with perceived cultural changes in both the east and west. Of particular interest is a clear increase in both %NISP and body size around the time of the introduction of the Corded Ware culture, contrary to the general pattern of cattle body size decrease seen across Europe at this time. This change is seen, however, in the west of Switzerland prior to the east and raises questions around alternative origins and areas of influence. Either way, the most likely explanation for the increase in cattle size is the introduction of a new population (or populations) of larger cattle into the region, which are incorporated into herds over a few hundred years, providing perhaps some of the earliest evidence for cattle "improvement" in Europe.
Recent analysis of a large faunal assemblage from a Roman roadside settlement at Ware, Hertfordsh... more Recent analysis of a large faunal assemblage from a Roman roadside settlement at Ware, Hertfordshire has indicated potentially strong links between the nature of animal exploitation on site and its location on Ermine Street. Animal husbandry was focused on the production of cattle and sheep, both of which had experienced stock 'improvement' by the late Roman period. Relatively high proportions of horse, and the presence of young horses, suggest the importance of this animal and the potential for its local breeding; the site could have acted as a station for changing or selling horses. The presence of marine fish and black rat also indicate clear links to the wider trade network. This was not an isolated settlement, outside the sphere of Roman influence, as rural Roman sites are often considered to be, but well-connected to wider economic networks. This paper places these new results in context, by providing a review of faunal assemblages from Roman roadside settlements across Britain. The review indicates that most of the characteristics of animal exploitation at Ware are shared with other roadside settlement sites, though interesting differences also emerge.
This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalc... more This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalcolithic fortified settlement sites of Castro do Zambujal and Leceia (Estremadura, Portugal). The Portuguese Chalcolithic (c. 3000/ 2900-1900 BC) was a pivotal time of social and economic change with evidence of increasing social complexity resulting in the formation of hierarchical settlements. With these changes came the emergence of long-distance exchange networks and more complex population movements and interactions. Domesticated animals would have played an important role in these emerging economies, and it is assumed that animals migrated with, and were exchanged by, humans as part of these new networks. While direct evidence of these networks is still limited in this region, new methodologies have the potential to expand our knowledge of animal mobility and exchange. This study uses 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in tooth enamel to identify potential non-local animals at these two settlements. Results indicate that Leceia may have had a higher proportion of non-local animals than Zambujal and had a wider catchment area for its stock, suggesting variations in settlement economies across relatively short distances in this region. These results have important implications for our understanding of animal management at Portuguese Chalcolithic sites, and the involvement of animals in the emerging economies of the time.
This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalc... more This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalcolithic fortified settlement sites of Castro do Zambujal and Leceia (Estremadura, Portugal). The Portuguese Chalcolithic (c. 3000/ 2900-1900 BC) was a pivotal time of social and economic change with evidence of increasing social complexity resulting in the formation of hierarchical settlements. With these changes came the emergence of long-distance exchange networks and more complex population movements and interactions. Domesticated animals would have played an important role in these emerging economies, and it is assumed that animals migrated with, and were exchanged by, humans as part of these new networks. While direct evidence of these networks is still limited in this region, new methodologies have the potential to expand our knowledge of animal mobility and exchange. This study uses 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in tooth enamel to identify potential non-local animals at these two settlements. Results indicate that Leceia may have had a higher proportion of non-local animals than Zambujal and had a wider catchment area for its stock, suggesting variations in settlement economies across relatively short distances in this region. These results have important implications for our understanding of animal management at Portuguese Chalcolithic sites, and the involvement of animals in the emerging economies of the time.
Humans have an ancient connection with cattle, and cattle husbandry has been one of the most impo... more Humans have an ancient connection with cattle, and cattle husbandry has been one of the most important economic activities across the world formany thousands of years, from prehistory until modern times.Thewild form, the aurochs (Bos primigenius) was regularly hunted in prehistoric societies, before being domesticated in two separate events: one in the Near East (which produced Bos taurus), and another in India (which produced Bos indicus). Domestic populations have been exploited for a variety of different products in addition to meat, including the “secondary products” milk and labor. Several scientific techniques have been used to investigate the nature and evolution of human–cattle interactions. Zooarchaeological methodologies enable us to determine how important cattle were in the diet of different populations, what kind of products cattle were being exploited for, how and where cattle populations were domesticated and improved, and how cattlemeatwas prepared and distributed. Scientific innovations have also led to the adoption of new techniques that can be used in combination with zooarchaeology; stable isotopes have enabled us to investigate diet and geographical origin, and studies of ancient DNA have allowed us to trace domestication events.
The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos... more The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and an in-depth knowledge of this animal is therefore key to research exploring human-cattle interactions, and the origins and spread of cattle domestication. Domestic cattle are smaller than their wild ancestors, but there is also a degree of overlap between the two species, which means that distinguishing them can be problematic. However, previous analyses of aurochs morphology have generally been patchy, and do not provide a picture of aurochs variation across Europe according to environment, climate and geography. As a consequence, zooarchaeologists often refer to comparative biometrical data from geographical areas and time periods which may not be suitable for identifying remains from their study area. This paper presents results from a wide-ranging study of aurochs biometrical data, in order to provide an overview of its morphological variation across Europe, and highlight the importance of using geographically and climatically appropriate comparative data when attempting to identify and interpret the significance of aurochs remains. We also propose a set of ‘standard’ measurements from an aurochs population excavated at the site of Ilford (Essex, UK) dated to Marine Isotope Stage 7 with the hope that they will be of use to others seeking a suitable standard for the biometrical analysis of cattle populations, especially when looking for the presence of wild specimens.
The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main constru... more The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase of Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main constru... more The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase of Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
The recording of tooth wear is essential for the investigation of age in zooarchaeological assemb... more The recording of tooth wear is essential for the investigation of age in zooarchaeological assemblages, but most tooth wear methodologies apply only to mandibular teeth, thereby neglecting potentially valuable maxillary data. The large sample of pig maxillary jaws and teeth recovered at Durrington Walls has provided the opportunity to design a new recording method for maxillary as well as mandibular jaws. Work on previously excavated animal bone material from Durrington Walls (Albarella and Payne, 2005) suggested the possibility of seasonal pig killing at the site, but the issue has not, until now, been explored in detail. This paper therefore has a dual purpose: to describe the new method for recording tooth wear on pig teeth; and to use the new information from both the mandibular and maxillary teeth to explore pig age at death and seasonality at Durrington Walls. The results provide evidence of differential deposition of pigs of different ages at Durrington Walls, with one midden context containing younger pigs brought to the site to provide meat for predominately winter-based feasting events, and other contexts containing remains of older pigs (mainly in their second year) deposited in both domestic and more public locales also predominantly in winter. The study highlights the usefulness of maxillary teeth for our understanding of past systems of pig exploitation as well as the desirability of recording their wear in animal bone assemblages.
Switzerland is home to a large number of well-preserved sites dated to the late Neolithic and Bro... more Switzerland is home to a large number of well-preserved sites dated to the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Many of these sites are located in wetland locations, where waterlogged conditions provide perfect conditions for the preservation of organic remains, including animal bones, which are often present in large numbers. Wood has also often been recovered from these sites, allowing very precise dating using dendrochronology, and providing a great opportunity for studying human-animal interactions through time, using very fine time slices. This database collates zooarchaeological data from these sites, focusing on Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and biometrical data, with a particular focus on cattle remains. Many of these datasets had previously been published individually as part of older site monographs, not easily accessible to people based outside of Switzerland, and this is the first time they have been brought together in an Open Access database. The data were collated as part of a project investigating Swiss prehistoric cattle husbandry, hosted by the University of Basel between 2018 and 2020.
These data were collected during the course of a PhD exploring the morphological variation of the... more These data were collected during the course of a PhD exploring the morphological variation of the European aurochs (Bos primigenius). This project provided the widest ranging review of European aurochs material to date, bringing together aurochs bone and tooth biometrical and ageing information from a number of geographical areas and time periods, in order to gain a better understanding of the morphological variation of this animal, and provide a data resource which can be used in future for more geographically and temporally relevant identifications.
A number of patterns of body size and shape variation were identified including a south-north cline in body size during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene, and hints of a west-east cline during later periods. An increase in the body size of the aurochs during the Chalcolithic period in Iberia is particularly intriguing as it fits with similar patterns previously identified for other animals. A general slendering of certain postcranial bones over time has also been identified; this begins during the Pleistocene and therefore cannot be solely linked with domestication. Discussions of the results of this work can be found in Wright (In Press) and Wright and Viner- Daniels (2015).
The database includes both biometrical and ageing information. Biometrical information were recorded according to Von den Driesch (1976), Albarella and Payne (2005), Payne and Bull (1988) and Davis (1992) and toothwear was recorded according to Grant (1982).
The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos... more The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and therefore an in-depth knowledge of this animal is key to research exploring human–cattle interactions, and the origins and spread of cattle domestication. Domestic cattle are smaller than their wild ancestors, but there is also a degree of overlap between the two species, which means that distinguishing them can be problematic. However, previous analyses of aurochs morphology have generally been patchy, and do not provide a picture of aurochs variation across Europe according to environment, climate and geography. As a consequence, zooarchaeologists have had limited resources to assist in identifying remains from their study area. This book provides the widest ranging review of aurochs archaeological material in Europe to date, bringing together bone and tooth biometrical information from a number of European geographical areas and time periods. A number of patterns of body size and shape variation have been identified and discussed.
The recording of tooth wear is vital to the exploration of age in zooarchaeological assemblages; ... more The recording of tooth wear is vital to the exploration of age in zooarchaeological assemblages; however, most tooth wear systems currently only apply to mandibular teeth, meaning that information from maxillary teeth and jaws is not being used. For pig, the most commonly used system for mandibular teeth is that of Grant (1982). Bull and Payne (1982), however, laid out a different system which applied to both the upper and lower teeth, although the tooth wear stages distinguished only between initial enamel wear and dentine exposure. A modified version of this system was used to record teeth from the Durrington Walls 1966-67 excavations (as mentioned briefly by Albarella and Payne, 2005), but was not ever fully published. In 2004 the establishment of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, meant that new material was available to record, and the relatively high number of maxillary teeth being uncovered clarified the need to use this data. In this dissertation a modified and expanded version of the recording system used to record wear from the 1966-67 excavations has been described and used to explore the topics of age at death and seasonality at Durrington Walls. The results provide an insight into seasonal killing at the site, as well as aspects of differential deposition of cranial elements which would not have been exposed through conventional studies of mandibular tooth wear. The author therefore encourages the use of the new system for recording the remainder of the Durrington assemblage and for the recording of other assemblages either to boost the information given by mandibles, or to gain information based on maxillae where mandibles are sparse or badly damaged.
The papers included in this special issue were originally
presented at the 2011 conference of the... more The papers included in this special issue were originally presented at the 2011 conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) which was held at the University of Birmingham, in a session entitled The How and Why of Archaeology Outreach: case studies and reflexive approaches to public engagement. We had an overwhelming response to our call for papers, reflecting the massive surge in public engagement programmes in recent years. Subsequent TAGs have hosted numerous other sessions on similar themes, including two sessions in 2012, which have been published in a previous special issue of AP Journal. Papers and posters included in the conference session were a great reflection of the variety of public engagement activities that were taking place internationally at the time (participants came from the UK, Norway, the US, Canada and South Africa). A number of different themes were touched upon, from debates surrounding ‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ approaches, to the ways in which our public engagement programmes can work in parallel to school curriculums. The papers published here offer a taster of the kind of debates that were touched upon. Firstly, Tom Dawson describes work being done in Scotland, involving collaborative work between community groups and heritage managers with the aim of saving archaeological sites that are threatened by coastal erosion. This paper includes two specific case studies where the community has been directly involved in rescuing coastal sites and provides a wonderful example of the importance of local knowledge for the preservation of coastal archaeology. Law et al’s paper reflects upon a public engagement project that was run at the Green Man music festival in Wales in 2011 Back to the Future? Animals and archaeology in Einstein’s Garden. It reflects upon the use of a number of specific activities aimed at giving festival attendees an opportunity to learn more about archaeology and the relationship between people, animals and their environment in the past. Traaholt and Føntelien describe an innovative use of the sediment removed from a development site after the initial professional archaeological involvement. A certain amount of this sediment will have fallen outside of the professionally excavated sample, and working with schoolchildren offsite allows further information to be recovered in a process they term Slow Archaeology. The project, in Akershus County, Norway; has so far involved over 3000 schoolchildren. Finally Hughes presents a commentary on four years of community excavation and oral history in the city of Worcester, UK, demonstrating how the work was designed to be relevant to the broader educational framework of visiting school children, how it enriched the city’s archive of recorded oral history, and presenting a selection of feedback comments from people involved in various aspects of the project. Much has been written to situate a theory of public archaeology (see review in Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015), with models ranging from a deficit approach which simply communicates results of archaeological research (this has been specifically excluded from the category ‘public archaeology’ by Richardson and Almansa- Sanchez (2015, 9); we agree and feel that the term archaeological communication might be more appropriate in these instances), to more democratic models, that allow broader public agency in archaeological encounters. These papers reflect the variety of approaches adopted when setting up public engagement projects, and a variety of scenarios requiring different approaches. It is our explicit view that all public engagement, whether communicating results obtained by an ‘insider group’ of professional archaeologists to one or more ‘outsider groups’; top-down projects that mobilise volunteer involvement to an end determined by an ‘insider group’ or genuine co-creation of archaeological research projects, is good and to be encouraged. We believe that deeper involvement in the creation and execution of the archaeological project will lead to deeper engagement with the historic environment in general, and needs to be more widely adopted. Part of the point, however, must also explicitly remain to ensure that archaeology exists in the wider ‘public’ imagination, to make archaeology as a practice and discipline appear attractive, interesting and relevant, and to ensure that anybody can access archaeological knowledge. Ultimately, there will always be an ‘elite’ (in the context described by Henson (2009)) carrying out archaeological research in the academic or commercial spheres, with or, more often, without, the involvement of a wider public. The results of this type of work - all of it - must be made publicly accessible, and for that to happen archaeological communication must be seen by professional archaeologists as valuable and not denigrated by those of us who write about public archaeology as the lesser cousin of democratic models of public archaeology. The papers presented here demonstrate a spectrum of ‘public’ involvement, from the pure archaeological communication of Law et al. to the widespread community involvement of the Shorewatch project described by Dawson. Aside from Dawson’s, where the Bressay and Baile Sear projects in particular had significant community input, none of the presented case studies presents genuine co-creation from the stage of project initiation, and there were very few examples of this in our full conference session. We suspect that this has much to do with the situation of the session in a conference more likely to be attended by professionals. Bringing more community projects that are not professional-led to TAG – and not just in sessions that are specifically about community or public archaeology – must surely be on our agenda moving forward.
"Undertaking a Masters or PhD can be an isolating experience. Most young zooarchaeologists are no... more "Undertaking a Masters or PhD can be an isolating experience. Most young zooarchaeologists are not based in large research teams where discussion of zooarchaeologicalissues is regularly facilitated. For many, mentorship opportunities, now recognized as crucial to long-term success, are also not easily formed. Young zooarchaeologists are fortunate to work in a field that is generally very collaborative, and the Association for Environmental Archaeology (AEA) and the International Council for Zooarchaeology (ICAZ) and its Working Groups should be commended for their recognition and encouragement of early career participation. However, many young researchers struggle to receive on-going feedback, particularly on methodological issues, and the first steps into public participation in the field remain intimidating. ICAZ’s International Conference, zooarchaeolgy’s most important meeting held every four years, is expected to draw roughly one thousand scholars to Mendoza later this year. PZAF provides an opportunity for young researchers to present and discusses their research and to network with those in a similar position. It acts as a springboard to larger conference participation, a forum to critique and exchange methods and results, and an opportunity to connect with people in a similar position. Although not the focus of this volume, we believe this last point – the ability to form a support network with other early career researchers – is an important one. As budget cuts have made to path from university to full-time permanent employment in archaeology more circuitous, the importance of relationships with individuals who have recently succeeded in the field with children or a period of non-academic work is clear on both a professional and personal level.
Despite these challenges, young zooarchaeologists produce important research often driven by new questions or methodological approaches. Since it’s inception five years ago, PZAF has expanded and it now attracts a range of European reseachers. The first PZAF conference took place at Cardiff University in November 2009 (organised by Richard Madgwick), and was a great success, with seventeen papers, seven posters and around forty attendees. The following August at ICAZ 2010 in Paris, Roz Gillis organised a PZAF speed-networking event which gave attendees the opportunity to meet young ICAZ members from around the world. Again, the event was a success; so many people attended that we struggled to fit in the auditorium! The popularity of these events persuaded us that another conference style event would be well received, and so we organised the second of these at the University of Sheffield. The conference had a great response drew around forty attendees to Sheffield’s Humanities Research Institute. Participants travelled to Sheffield from across Europe, and papers and posters presented research projects from across the world, as far as Argentina and Kazakhstan, and we are pleased to be able to present a number of the contributions in these conference proceedings. The papers in this special issue of Assemblage span from the Palaeolithic to the Medieval period and research on methodological issues and analysis into isolated contexts. They demonstrate the massive variety in the types of projects that Masters and PhD students are undertaking, and the important contributions that postgraduate students are making to our field. We are delighted that a fourth meeting of PZAF has already been set by the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, and the health of the forum in the future looks to remain strong.
We had no funding for this conference, but charged our participants just £10, in the knowledge that many postgraduates are limited by financial constraints. The Sheffield Zooarchaeology team hosted (sometimes multiple) participants in their homes. It is worth mentioning the real lack of opportunities for funding an event such as this – postgraduate conference funding was cut by the Arts and Humanties Research Council in recent years, and The University of Sheffield had no appropriate money that we could apply for. This is a real problem when postgraduates often have little funding themselves. Nevertheless, with our small participation fee we still were able to provide food for lunch on two days, tea and coffee, and a wine reception, demonstrating that in order to put on a successful conference it is not necessary to charge extortionate fees, as many conferences do. At this point we should mention the extraordinary help that we received from other members of our research team who assisted with the promotion, set-up and food preparation for the conference, as well as providing a great deal of moral support. Thanks should also go out to all of the reviewers for this publication, and to the assemblage team for being so enthusiastic and agreeing to host us. It seemed absolutely fitting that the proceedings of a postgraduate conference should be published by a postgraduate journal.
All of the PZAF events to date have been intellectually stimulating, engaging and fun, and we hope that others continue forward with it in future. At a time when archaeology is facing difficulties in funding and university applications are down, with some departments even being closed, it is encouraging to know that our field is still producing fantastic postgraduates who are undertaking some really important and high quality work. We hope that participants of the conference went away with new friends and colleagues and that discussions have continued beyond the confines of the conference itself. Crucially, these are people who are likely to be our colleagues for the rest of our careers, and the contacts we make, and projects that we set up together, will determine the future prospects of Zooarchaeology as a field.
Cattle and People: Interdisciplinary Approaches to an Ancient Relationship, 2022
This chapter presents an overview of osteological evidence for the aurochs in the European Pleist... more This chapter presents an overview of osteological evidence for the aurochs in the European Pleistocene and early Holocene. Some of the most important aurochs assemblages from Pleistocene and early Holocene Europe are described, from the time of the earliest evidence of this species on the continent, at around 650,000 years ago, through to the end of the Mesolithic period, setting them within their climatic and cultural context. Information on body size is also presented with a reassessment of previous data using new dates for some sites. Limitations are discussed and possible directions for future research proposed.
Cattle were the most common domestic livestock animal throughout much of the Neolithic period in ... more Cattle were the most common domestic livestock animal throughout much of the Neolithic period in the area now occupied by modern day Switzerland, home to a significant number of sites dating to between approximately 4400 and 2500 cal BC. Many of these sites were located in wetland locations, resulting in very well-preserved large faunal assemblages which can be dated using dendrochronology with rare precision. This region is also particularly important for our knowledge of the spread of culture and innovation through Central Europe during the Neolithic period-its topography results in a natural corridor through which influences travelled from both the east and west. This study is the first to combine cattle data from across the whole of Switzerland, focusing on %NISP and biometrical data, in order to investigate how cattle husbandry changed over time, comparing the east and west of the region. A number of different temporal scales are used in order to look for broad patterns and then focus in for more detail. Results indicate that there is a clear correlation between %NISP and body size of cattle throughout much of the Swiss Neolithic and that cattle husbandry changed broadly in line with perceived cultural changes in both the east and west. Of particular interest is a clear increase in both %NISP and body size around the time of the introduction of the Corded Ware culture, contrary to the general pattern of cattle body size decrease seen across Europe at this time. This change is seen, however, in the west of Switzerland prior to the east and raises questions around alternative origins and areas of influence. Either way, the most likely explanation for the increase in cattle size is the introduction of a new population (or populations) of larger cattle into the region, which are incorporated into herds over a few hundred years, providing perhaps some of the earliest evidence for cattle "improvement" in Europe.
Recent analysis of a large faunal assemblage from a Roman roadside settlement at Ware, Hertfordsh... more Recent analysis of a large faunal assemblage from a Roman roadside settlement at Ware, Hertfordshire has indicated potentially strong links between the nature of animal exploitation on site and its location on Ermine Street. Animal husbandry was focused on the production of cattle and sheep, both of which had experienced stock 'improvement' by the late Roman period. Relatively high proportions of horse, and the presence of young horses, suggest the importance of this animal and the potential for its local breeding; the site could have acted as a station for changing or selling horses. The presence of marine fish and black rat also indicate clear links to the wider trade network. This was not an isolated settlement, outside the sphere of Roman influence, as rural Roman sites are often considered to be, but well-connected to wider economic networks. This paper places these new results in context, by providing a review of faunal assemblages from Roman roadside settlements across Britain. The review indicates that most of the characteristics of animal exploitation at Ware are shared with other roadside settlement sites, though interesting differences also emerge.
This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalc... more This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalcolithic fortified settlement sites of Castro do Zambujal and Leceia (Estremadura, Portugal). The Portuguese Chalcolithic (c. 3000/ 2900-1900 BC) was a pivotal time of social and economic change with evidence of increasing social complexity resulting in the formation of hierarchical settlements. With these changes came the emergence of long-distance exchange networks and more complex population movements and interactions. Domesticated animals would have played an important role in these emerging economies, and it is assumed that animals migrated with, and were exchanged by, humans as part of these new networks. While direct evidence of these networks is still limited in this region, new methodologies have the potential to expand our knowledge of animal mobility and exchange. This study uses 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in tooth enamel to identify potential non-local animals at these two settlements. Results indicate that Leceia may have had a higher proportion of non-local animals than Zambujal and had a wider catchment area for its stock, suggesting variations in settlement economies across relatively short distances in this region. These results have important implications for our understanding of animal management at Portuguese Chalcolithic sites, and the involvement of animals in the emerging economies of the time.
This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalc... more This paper outlines the results of strontium isotopic analyses from cattle recovered at the Chalcolithic fortified settlement sites of Castro do Zambujal and Leceia (Estremadura, Portugal). The Portuguese Chalcolithic (c. 3000/ 2900-1900 BC) was a pivotal time of social and economic change with evidence of increasing social complexity resulting in the formation of hierarchical settlements. With these changes came the emergence of long-distance exchange networks and more complex population movements and interactions. Domesticated animals would have played an important role in these emerging economies, and it is assumed that animals migrated with, and were exchanged by, humans as part of these new networks. While direct evidence of these networks is still limited in this region, new methodologies have the potential to expand our knowledge of animal mobility and exchange. This study uses 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios in tooth enamel to identify potential non-local animals at these two settlements. Results indicate that Leceia may have had a higher proportion of non-local animals than Zambujal and had a wider catchment area for its stock, suggesting variations in settlement economies across relatively short distances in this region. These results have important implications for our understanding of animal management at Portuguese Chalcolithic sites, and the involvement of animals in the emerging economies of the time.
Humans have an ancient connection with cattle, and cattle husbandry has been one of the most impo... more Humans have an ancient connection with cattle, and cattle husbandry has been one of the most important economic activities across the world formany thousands of years, from prehistory until modern times.Thewild form, the aurochs (Bos primigenius) was regularly hunted in prehistoric societies, before being domesticated in two separate events: one in the Near East (which produced Bos taurus), and another in India (which produced Bos indicus). Domestic populations have been exploited for a variety of different products in addition to meat, including the “secondary products” milk and labor. Several scientific techniques have been used to investigate the nature and evolution of human–cattle interactions. Zooarchaeological methodologies enable us to determine how important cattle were in the diet of different populations, what kind of products cattle were being exploited for, how and where cattle populations were domesticated and improved, and how cattlemeatwas prepared and distributed. Scientific innovations have also led to the adoption of new techniques that can be used in combination with zooarchaeology; stable isotopes have enabled us to investigate diet and geographical origin, and studies of ancient DNA have allowed us to trace domestication events.
The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos... more The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and an in-depth knowledge of this animal is therefore key to research exploring human-cattle interactions, and the origins and spread of cattle domestication. Domestic cattle are smaller than their wild ancestors, but there is also a degree of overlap between the two species, which means that distinguishing them can be problematic. However, previous analyses of aurochs morphology have generally been patchy, and do not provide a picture of aurochs variation across Europe according to environment, climate and geography. As a consequence, zooarchaeologists often refer to comparative biometrical data from geographical areas and time periods which may not be suitable for identifying remains from their study area. This paper presents results from a wide-ranging study of aurochs biometrical data, in order to provide an overview of its morphological variation across Europe, and highlight the importance of using geographically and climatically appropriate comparative data when attempting to identify and interpret the significance of aurochs remains. We also propose a set of ‘standard’ measurements from an aurochs population excavated at the site of Ilford (Essex, UK) dated to Marine Isotope Stage 7 with the hope that they will be of use to others seeking a suitable standard for the biometrical analysis of cattle populations, especially when looking for the presence of wild specimens.
The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main constru... more The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase of Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main constru... more The discovery of Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase of Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
The recording of tooth wear is essential for the investigation of age in zooarchaeological assemb... more The recording of tooth wear is essential for the investigation of age in zooarchaeological assemblages, but most tooth wear methodologies apply only to mandibular teeth, thereby neglecting potentially valuable maxillary data. The large sample of pig maxillary jaws and teeth recovered at Durrington Walls has provided the opportunity to design a new recording method for maxillary as well as mandibular jaws. Work on previously excavated animal bone material from Durrington Walls (Albarella and Payne, 2005) suggested the possibility of seasonal pig killing at the site, but the issue has not, until now, been explored in detail. This paper therefore has a dual purpose: to describe the new method for recording tooth wear on pig teeth; and to use the new information from both the mandibular and maxillary teeth to explore pig age at death and seasonality at Durrington Walls. The results provide evidence of differential deposition of pigs of different ages at Durrington Walls, with one midden context containing younger pigs brought to the site to provide meat for predominately winter-based feasting events, and other contexts containing remains of older pigs (mainly in their second year) deposited in both domestic and more public locales also predominantly in winter. The study highlights the usefulness of maxillary teeth for our understanding of past systems of pig exploitation as well as the desirability of recording their wear in animal bone assemblages.
Switzerland is home to a large number of well-preserved sites dated to the late Neolithic and Bro... more Switzerland is home to a large number of well-preserved sites dated to the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Many of these sites are located in wetland locations, where waterlogged conditions provide perfect conditions for the preservation of organic remains, including animal bones, which are often present in large numbers. Wood has also often been recovered from these sites, allowing very precise dating using dendrochronology, and providing a great opportunity for studying human-animal interactions through time, using very fine time slices. This database collates zooarchaeological data from these sites, focusing on Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and biometrical data, with a particular focus on cattle remains. Many of these datasets had previously been published individually as part of older site monographs, not easily accessible to people based outside of Switzerland, and this is the first time they have been brought together in an Open Access database. The data were collated as part of a project investigating Swiss prehistoric cattle husbandry, hosted by the University of Basel between 2018 and 2020.
These data were collected during the course of a PhD exploring the morphological variation of the... more These data were collected during the course of a PhD exploring the morphological variation of the European aurochs (Bos primigenius). This project provided the widest ranging review of European aurochs material to date, bringing together aurochs bone and tooth biometrical and ageing information from a number of geographical areas and time periods, in order to gain a better understanding of the morphological variation of this animal, and provide a data resource which can be used in future for more geographically and temporally relevant identifications.
A number of patterns of body size and shape variation were identified including a south-north cline in body size during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene, and hints of a west-east cline during later periods. An increase in the body size of the aurochs during the Chalcolithic period in Iberia is particularly intriguing as it fits with similar patterns previously identified for other animals. A general slendering of certain postcranial bones over time has also been identified; this begins during the Pleistocene and therefore cannot be solely linked with domestication. Discussions of the results of this work can be found in Wright (In Press) and Wright and Viner- Daniels (2015).
The database includes both biometrical and ageing information. Biometrical information were recorded according to Von den Driesch (1976), Albarella and Payne (2005), Payne and Bull (1988) and Davis (1992) and toothwear was recorded according to Grant (1982).
The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos... more The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is generally agreed to be the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and therefore an in-depth knowledge of this animal is key to research exploring human–cattle interactions, and the origins and spread of cattle domestication. Domestic cattle are smaller than their wild ancestors, but there is also a degree of overlap between the two species, which means that distinguishing them can be problematic. However, previous analyses of aurochs morphology have generally been patchy, and do not provide a picture of aurochs variation across Europe according to environment, climate and geography. As a consequence, zooarchaeologists have had limited resources to assist in identifying remains from their study area. This book provides the widest ranging review of aurochs archaeological material in Europe to date, bringing together bone and tooth biometrical information from a number of European geographical areas and time periods. A number of patterns of body size and shape variation have been identified and discussed.
The recording of tooth wear is vital to the exploration of age in zooarchaeological assemblages; ... more The recording of tooth wear is vital to the exploration of age in zooarchaeological assemblages; however, most tooth wear systems currently only apply to mandibular teeth, meaning that information from maxillary teeth and jaws is not being used. For pig, the most commonly used system for mandibular teeth is that of Grant (1982). Bull and Payne (1982), however, laid out a different system which applied to both the upper and lower teeth, although the tooth wear stages distinguished only between initial enamel wear and dentine exposure. A modified version of this system was used to record teeth from the Durrington Walls 1966-67 excavations (as mentioned briefly by Albarella and Payne, 2005), but was not ever fully published. In 2004 the establishment of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, meant that new material was available to record, and the relatively high number of maxillary teeth being uncovered clarified the need to use this data. In this dissertation a modified and expanded version of the recording system used to record wear from the 1966-67 excavations has been described and used to explore the topics of age at death and seasonality at Durrington Walls. The results provide an insight into seasonal killing at the site, as well as aspects of differential deposition of cranial elements which would not have been exposed through conventional studies of mandibular tooth wear. The author therefore encourages the use of the new system for recording the remainder of the Durrington assemblage and for the recording of other assemblages either to boost the information given by mandibles, or to gain information based on maxillae where mandibles are sparse or badly damaged.
The papers included in this special issue were originally
presented at the 2011 conference of the... more The papers included in this special issue were originally presented at the 2011 conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) which was held at the University of Birmingham, in a session entitled The How and Why of Archaeology Outreach: case studies and reflexive approaches to public engagement. We had an overwhelming response to our call for papers, reflecting the massive surge in public engagement programmes in recent years. Subsequent TAGs have hosted numerous other sessions on similar themes, including two sessions in 2012, which have been published in a previous special issue of AP Journal. Papers and posters included in the conference session were a great reflection of the variety of public engagement activities that were taking place internationally at the time (participants came from the UK, Norway, the US, Canada and South Africa). A number of different themes were touched upon, from debates surrounding ‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ approaches, to the ways in which our public engagement programmes can work in parallel to school curriculums. The papers published here offer a taster of the kind of debates that were touched upon. Firstly, Tom Dawson describes work being done in Scotland, involving collaborative work between community groups and heritage managers with the aim of saving archaeological sites that are threatened by coastal erosion. This paper includes two specific case studies where the community has been directly involved in rescuing coastal sites and provides a wonderful example of the importance of local knowledge for the preservation of coastal archaeology. Law et al’s paper reflects upon a public engagement project that was run at the Green Man music festival in Wales in 2011 Back to the Future? Animals and archaeology in Einstein’s Garden. It reflects upon the use of a number of specific activities aimed at giving festival attendees an opportunity to learn more about archaeology and the relationship between people, animals and their environment in the past. Traaholt and Føntelien describe an innovative use of the sediment removed from a development site after the initial professional archaeological involvement. A certain amount of this sediment will have fallen outside of the professionally excavated sample, and working with schoolchildren offsite allows further information to be recovered in a process they term Slow Archaeology. The project, in Akershus County, Norway; has so far involved over 3000 schoolchildren. Finally Hughes presents a commentary on four years of community excavation and oral history in the city of Worcester, UK, demonstrating how the work was designed to be relevant to the broader educational framework of visiting school children, how it enriched the city’s archive of recorded oral history, and presenting a selection of feedback comments from people involved in various aspects of the project. Much has been written to situate a theory of public archaeology (see review in Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015), with models ranging from a deficit approach which simply communicates results of archaeological research (this has been specifically excluded from the category ‘public archaeology’ by Richardson and Almansa- Sanchez (2015, 9); we agree and feel that the term archaeological communication might be more appropriate in these instances), to more democratic models, that allow broader public agency in archaeological encounters. These papers reflect the variety of approaches adopted when setting up public engagement projects, and a variety of scenarios requiring different approaches. It is our explicit view that all public engagement, whether communicating results obtained by an ‘insider group’ of professional archaeologists to one or more ‘outsider groups’; top-down projects that mobilise volunteer involvement to an end determined by an ‘insider group’ or genuine co-creation of archaeological research projects, is good and to be encouraged. We believe that deeper involvement in the creation and execution of the archaeological project will lead to deeper engagement with the historic environment in general, and needs to be more widely adopted. Part of the point, however, must also explicitly remain to ensure that archaeology exists in the wider ‘public’ imagination, to make archaeology as a practice and discipline appear attractive, interesting and relevant, and to ensure that anybody can access archaeological knowledge. Ultimately, there will always be an ‘elite’ (in the context described by Henson (2009)) carrying out archaeological research in the academic or commercial spheres, with or, more often, without, the involvement of a wider public. The results of this type of work - all of it - must be made publicly accessible, and for that to happen archaeological communication must be seen by professional archaeologists as valuable and not denigrated by those of us who write about public archaeology as the lesser cousin of democratic models of public archaeology. The papers presented here demonstrate a spectrum of ‘public’ involvement, from the pure archaeological communication of Law et al. to the widespread community involvement of the Shorewatch project described by Dawson. Aside from Dawson’s, where the Bressay and Baile Sear projects in particular had significant community input, none of the presented case studies presents genuine co-creation from the stage of project initiation, and there were very few examples of this in our full conference session. We suspect that this has much to do with the situation of the session in a conference more likely to be attended by professionals. Bringing more community projects that are not professional-led to TAG – and not just in sessions that are specifically about community or public archaeology – must surely be on our agenda moving forward.
"Undertaking a Masters or PhD can be an isolating experience. Most young zooarchaeologists are no... more "Undertaking a Masters or PhD can be an isolating experience. Most young zooarchaeologists are not based in large research teams where discussion of zooarchaeologicalissues is regularly facilitated. For many, mentorship opportunities, now recognized as crucial to long-term success, are also not easily formed. Young zooarchaeologists are fortunate to work in a field that is generally very collaborative, and the Association for Environmental Archaeology (AEA) and the International Council for Zooarchaeology (ICAZ) and its Working Groups should be commended for their recognition and encouragement of early career participation. However, many young researchers struggle to receive on-going feedback, particularly on methodological issues, and the first steps into public participation in the field remain intimidating. ICAZ’s International Conference, zooarchaeolgy’s most important meeting held every four years, is expected to draw roughly one thousand scholars to Mendoza later this year. PZAF provides an opportunity for young researchers to present and discusses their research and to network with those in a similar position. It acts as a springboard to larger conference participation, a forum to critique and exchange methods and results, and an opportunity to connect with people in a similar position. Although not the focus of this volume, we believe this last point – the ability to form a support network with other early career researchers – is an important one. As budget cuts have made to path from university to full-time permanent employment in archaeology more circuitous, the importance of relationships with individuals who have recently succeeded in the field with children or a period of non-academic work is clear on both a professional and personal level.
Despite these challenges, young zooarchaeologists produce important research often driven by new questions or methodological approaches. Since it’s inception five years ago, PZAF has expanded and it now attracts a range of European reseachers. The first PZAF conference took place at Cardiff University in November 2009 (organised by Richard Madgwick), and was a great success, with seventeen papers, seven posters and around forty attendees. The following August at ICAZ 2010 in Paris, Roz Gillis organised a PZAF speed-networking event which gave attendees the opportunity to meet young ICAZ members from around the world. Again, the event was a success; so many people attended that we struggled to fit in the auditorium! The popularity of these events persuaded us that another conference style event would be well received, and so we organised the second of these at the University of Sheffield. The conference had a great response drew around forty attendees to Sheffield’s Humanities Research Institute. Participants travelled to Sheffield from across Europe, and papers and posters presented research projects from across the world, as far as Argentina and Kazakhstan, and we are pleased to be able to present a number of the contributions in these conference proceedings. The papers in this special issue of Assemblage span from the Palaeolithic to the Medieval period and research on methodological issues and analysis into isolated contexts. They demonstrate the massive variety in the types of projects that Masters and PhD students are undertaking, and the important contributions that postgraduate students are making to our field. We are delighted that a fourth meeting of PZAF has already been set by the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, and the health of the forum in the future looks to remain strong.
We had no funding for this conference, but charged our participants just £10, in the knowledge that many postgraduates are limited by financial constraints. The Sheffield Zooarchaeology team hosted (sometimes multiple) participants in their homes. It is worth mentioning the real lack of opportunities for funding an event such as this – postgraduate conference funding was cut by the Arts and Humanties Research Council in recent years, and The University of Sheffield had no appropriate money that we could apply for. This is a real problem when postgraduates often have little funding themselves. Nevertheless, with our small participation fee we still were able to provide food for lunch on two days, tea and coffee, and a wine reception, demonstrating that in order to put on a successful conference it is not necessary to charge extortionate fees, as many conferences do. At this point we should mention the extraordinary help that we received from other members of our research team who assisted with the promotion, set-up and food preparation for the conference, as well as providing a great deal of moral support. Thanks should also go out to all of the reviewers for this publication, and to the assemblage team for being so enthusiastic and agreeing to host us. It seemed absolutely fitting that the proceedings of a postgraduate conference should be published by a postgraduate journal.
All of the PZAF events to date have been intellectually stimulating, engaging and fun, and we hope that others continue forward with it in future. At a time when archaeology is facing difficulties in funding and university applications are down, with some departments even being closed, it is encouraging to know that our field is still producing fantastic postgraduates who are undertaking some really important and high quality work. We hope that participants of the conference went away with new friends and colleagues and that discussions have continued beyond the confines of the conference itself. Crucially, these are people who are likely to be our colleagues for the rest of our careers, and the contacts we make, and projects that we set up together, will determine the future prospects of Zooarchaeology as a field.
Uploads
raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
A number of patterns of body size and shape variation were identified including a south-north cline in body size during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene, and hints of a west-east cline during later periods. An increase in the body size of the aurochs during the Chalcolithic period in Iberia is particularly intriguing as it fits with similar patterns previously identified for other animals. A general slendering of certain postcranial bones over time has also been identified; this begins during the Pleistocene and therefore cannot be solely linked with domestication. Discussions of the results of this work can be found in Wright (In Press) and Wright and Viner- Daniels (2015).
The database includes both biometrical and ageing information. Biometrical information were recorded according to Von den Driesch (1976), Albarella and Payne (2005), Payne and Bull (1988) and Davis (1992) and toothwear was recorded according to Grant (1982).
This book provides the widest ranging review of aurochs archaeological material in Europe to date, bringing together bone and tooth biometrical information from a number of European geographical areas and time periods. A number of patterns of body size and shape variation have been identified and discussed.
presented at the 2011 conference of the Theoretical Archaeology
Group (TAG) which was held at the University of Birmingham, in a
session entitled The How and Why of Archaeology Outreach: case
studies and reflexive approaches to public engagement. We had
an overwhelming response to our call for papers, reflecting the
massive surge in public engagement programmes in recent years.
Subsequent TAGs have hosted numerous other sessions on similar
themes, including two sessions in 2012, which have been published
in a previous special issue of AP Journal.
Papers and posters included in the conference session were a
great reflection of the variety of public engagement activities that
were taking place internationally at the time (participants came
from the UK, Norway, the US, Canada and South Africa). A number
of different themes were touched upon, from debates surrounding
‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ approaches, to the ways in which
our public engagement programmes can work in parallel to school
curriculums. The papers published here offer a taster of the kind of
debates that were touched upon.
Firstly, Tom Dawson describes work being done in Scotland,
involving collaborative work between community groups and
heritage managers with the aim of saving archaeological sites that
are threatened by coastal erosion. This paper includes two specific
case studies where the community has been directly involved in
rescuing coastal sites and provides a wonderful example of the
importance of local knowledge for the preservation of coastal
archaeology. Law et al’s paper reflects upon a public engagement
project that was run at the Green Man music festival in Wales in
2011 Back to the Future? Animals and archaeology in Einstein’s
Garden. It reflects upon the use of a number of specific activities
aimed at giving festival attendees an opportunity to learn more
about archaeology and the relationship between people, animals
and their environment in the past. Traaholt and Føntelien describe
an innovative use of the sediment removed from a development
site after the initial professional archaeological involvement. A
certain amount of this sediment will have fallen outside of the
professionally excavated sample, and working with schoolchildren
offsite allows further information to be recovered in a process they
term Slow Archaeology. The project, in Akershus County, Norway;
has so far involved over 3000 schoolchildren. Finally Hughes
presents a commentary on four years of community excavation
and oral history in the city of Worcester, UK, demonstrating how
the work was designed to be relevant to the broader educational
framework of visiting school children, how it enriched the city’s
archive of recorded oral history, and presenting a selection of
feedback comments from people involved in various aspects of the
project.
Much has been written to situate a theory of public archaeology
(see review in Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015), with models
ranging from a deficit approach which simply communicates results
of archaeological research (this has been specifically excluded from
the category ‘public archaeology’ by Richardson and Almansa-
Sanchez (2015, 9); we agree and feel that the term archaeological
communication might be more appropriate in these instances),
to more democratic models, that allow broader public agency in
archaeological encounters. These papers reflect the variety of
approaches adopted when setting up public engagement projects,
and a variety of scenarios requiring different approaches. It is our
explicit view that all public engagement, whether communicating
results obtained by an ‘insider group’ of professional archaeologists
to one or more ‘outsider groups’; top-down projects that mobilise
volunteer involvement to an end determined by an ‘insider group’
or genuine co-creation of archaeological research projects, is good
and to be encouraged. We believe that deeper involvement in the
creation and execution of the archaeological project will lead to
deeper engagement with the historic environment in general, and
needs to be more widely adopted. Part of the point, however, must
also explicitly remain to ensure that archaeology exists in the
wider ‘public’ imagination, to make archaeology as a practice and
discipline appear attractive, interesting and relevant, and to ensure
that anybody can access archaeological knowledge. Ultimately,
there will always be an ‘elite’ (in the context described by Henson
(2009)) carrying out archaeological research in the academic or
commercial spheres, with or, more often, without, the involvement
of a wider public. The results of this type of work - all of it - must
be made publicly accessible, and for that to happen archaeological
communication must be seen by professional archaeologists as
valuable and not denigrated by those of us who write about public
archaeology as the lesser cousin of democratic models of public
archaeology.
The papers presented here demonstrate a spectrum of ‘public’
involvement, from the pure archaeological communication of Law
et al. to the widespread community involvement of the Shorewatch
project described by Dawson. Aside from Dawson’s, where the
Bressay and Baile Sear projects in particular had significant
community input, none of the presented case studies presents
genuine co-creation from the stage of project initiation, and there
were very few examples of this in our full conference session. We
suspect that this has much to do with the situation of the session in
a conference more likely to be attended by professionals. Bringing
more community projects that are not professional-led to TAG –
and not just in sessions that are specifically about community or
public archaeology – must surely be on our agenda moving forward.
Despite these challenges, young zooarchaeologists produce important research often driven by new questions or methodological approaches. Since it’s inception five years ago, PZAF has expanded and it now attracts a range of European reseachers. The first PZAF conference took place at Cardiff University in November 2009 (organised by Richard Madgwick), and was a great success, with seventeen papers, seven posters and around forty attendees. The following August at ICAZ 2010 in Paris, Roz Gillis organised a PZAF speed-networking event which gave attendees the opportunity to meet young ICAZ members from around the world. Again, the event was a success; so many people attended that we struggled to fit in the auditorium! The popularity of these events persuaded us that another conference style event would be well received, and so we organised the second of these at the University of Sheffield. The conference had a great response drew around forty attendees to Sheffield’s Humanities Research Institute. Participants travelled to Sheffield from across Europe, and papers and posters presented research projects from across the world, as far as Argentina and Kazakhstan, and we are pleased to be able to present a number of the contributions in these conference proceedings. The papers in this special issue of Assemblage span from the Palaeolithic to the Medieval period and research on methodological issues and analysis into isolated contexts. They demonstrate the massive variety in the types of projects that Masters and PhD students are undertaking, and the important contributions that postgraduate students are making to our field. We are delighted that a fourth meeting of PZAF has already been set by the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, and the health of the forum in the future looks to remain strong.
We had no funding for this conference, but charged our participants just £10, in the knowledge that many postgraduates are limited by financial constraints. The Sheffield Zooarchaeology team hosted (sometimes multiple) participants in their homes. It is worth mentioning the real lack of opportunities for funding an event such as this – postgraduate conference funding was cut by the Arts and Humanties Research Council in recent years, and The University of Sheffield had no appropriate money that we could apply for. This is a real problem when postgraduates often have little funding themselves. Nevertheless, with our small participation fee we still were able to provide food for lunch on two days, tea and coffee, and a wine reception, demonstrating that in order to put on a successful conference it is not necessary to charge extortionate fees, as many conferences do. At this point we should mention the extraordinary help that we received from other members of our research team who assisted with the promotion, set-up and food preparation for the conference, as well as providing a great deal of moral support. Thanks should also go out to all of the reviewers for this publication, and to the assemblage team for being so enthusiastic and agreeing to host us. It seemed absolutely fitting that the proceedings of a postgraduate conference should be published by a postgraduate journal.
All of the PZAF events to date have been intellectually stimulating, engaging and fun, and we hope that others continue forward with it in future. At a time when archaeology is facing difficulties in funding and university applications are down, with some departments even being closed, it is encouraging to know that our field is still producing fantastic postgraduates who are undertaking some really important and high quality work. We hope that participants of the conference went away with new friends and colleagues and that discussions have continued beyond the confines of the conference itself. Crucially, these are people who are likely to be our colleagues for the rest of our careers, and the contacts we make, and projects that we set up together, will determine the future prospects of Zooarchaeology as a field.
raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence of the builders of Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation of particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas of the site. Supported by the analysis of faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification of a diverse community.
A number of patterns of body size and shape variation were identified including a south-north cline in body size during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene, and hints of a west-east cline during later periods. An increase in the body size of the aurochs during the Chalcolithic period in Iberia is particularly intriguing as it fits with similar patterns previously identified for other animals. A general slendering of certain postcranial bones over time has also been identified; this begins during the Pleistocene and therefore cannot be solely linked with domestication. Discussions of the results of this work can be found in Wright (In Press) and Wright and Viner- Daniels (2015).
The database includes both biometrical and ageing information. Biometrical information were recorded according to Von den Driesch (1976), Albarella and Payne (2005), Payne and Bull (1988) and Davis (1992) and toothwear was recorded according to Grant (1982).
This book provides the widest ranging review of aurochs archaeological material in Europe to date, bringing together bone and tooth biometrical information from a number of European geographical areas and time periods. A number of patterns of body size and shape variation have been identified and discussed.
presented at the 2011 conference of the Theoretical Archaeology
Group (TAG) which was held at the University of Birmingham, in a
session entitled The How and Why of Archaeology Outreach: case
studies and reflexive approaches to public engagement. We had
an overwhelming response to our call for papers, reflecting the
massive surge in public engagement programmes in recent years.
Subsequent TAGs have hosted numerous other sessions on similar
themes, including two sessions in 2012, which have been published
in a previous special issue of AP Journal.
Papers and posters included in the conference session were a
great reflection of the variety of public engagement activities that
were taking place internationally at the time (participants came
from the UK, Norway, the US, Canada and South Africa). A number
of different themes were touched upon, from debates surrounding
‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ approaches, to the ways in which
our public engagement programmes can work in parallel to school
curriculums. The papers published here offer a taster of the kind of
debates that were touched upon.
Firstly, Tom Dawson describes work being done in Scotland,
involving collaborative work between community groups and
heritage managers with the aim of saving archaeological sites that
are threatened by coastal erosion. This paper includes two specific
case studies where the community has been directly involved in
rescuing coastal sites and provides a wonderful example of the
importance of local knowledge for the preservation of coastal
archaeology. Law et al’s paper reflects upon a public engagement
project that was run at the Green Man music festival in Wales in
2011 Back to the Future? Animals and archaeology in Einstein’s
Garden. It reflects upon the use of a number of specific activities
aimed at giving festival attendees an opportunity to learn more
about archaeology and the relationship between people, animals
and their environment in the past. Traaholt and Føntelien describe
an innovative use of the sediment removed from a development
site after the initial professional archaeological involvement. A
certain amount of this sediment will have fallen outside of the
professionally excavated sample, and working with schoolchildren
offsite allows further information to be recovered in a process they
term Slow Archaeology. The project, in Akershus County, Norway;
has so far involved over 3000 schoolchildren. Finally Hughes
presents a commentary on four years of community excavation
and oral history in the city of Worcester, UK, demonstrating how
the work was designed to be relevant to the broader educational
framework of visiting school children, how it enriched the city’s
archive of recorded oral history, and presenting a selection of
feedback comments from people involved in various aspects of the
project.
Much has been written to situate a theory of public archaeology
(see review in Richardson and Almansa-Sanchez 2015), with models
ranging from a deficit approach which simply communicates results
of archaeological research (this has been specifically excluded from
the category ‘public archaeology’ by Richardson and Almansa-
Sanchez (2015, 9); we agree and feel that the term archaeological
communication might be more appropriate in these instances),
to more democratic models, that allow broader public agency in
archaeological encounters. These papers reflect the variety of
approaches adopted when setting up public engagement projects,
and a variety of scenarios requiring different approaches. It is our
explicit view that all public engagement, whether communicating
results obtained by an ‘insider group’ of professional archaeologists
to one or more ‘outsider groups’; top-down projects that mobilise
volunteer involvement to an end determined by an ‘insider group’
or genuine co-creation of archaeological research projects, is good
and to be encouraged. We believe that deeper involvement in the
creation and execution of the archaeological project will lead to
deeper engagement with the historic environment in general, and
needs to be more widely adopted. Part of the point, however, must
also explicitly remain to ensure that archaeology exists in the
wider ‘public’ imagination, to make archaeology as a practice and
discipline appear attractive, interesting and relevant, and to ensure
that anybody can access archaeological knowledge. Ultimately,
there will always be an ‘elite’ (in the context described by Henson
(2009)) carrying out archaeological research in the academic or
commercial spheres, with or, more often, without, the involvement
of a wider public. The results of this type of work - all of it - must
be made publicly accessible, and for that to happen archaeological
communication must be seen by professional archaeologists as
valuable and not denigrated by those of us who write about public
archaeology as the lesser cousin of democratic models of public
archaeology.
The papers presented here demonstrate a spectrum of ‘public’
involvement, from the pure archaeological communication of Law
et al. to the widespread community involvement of the Shorewatch
project described by Dawson. Aside from Dawson’s, where the
Bressay and Baile Sear projects in particular had significant
community input, none of the presented case studies presents
genuine co-creation from the stage of project initiation, and there
were very few examples of this in our full conference session. We
suspect that this has much to do with the situation of the session in
a conference more likely to be attended by professionals. Bringing
more community projects that are not professional-led to TAG –
and not just in sessions that are specifically about community or
public archaeology – must surely be on our agenda moving forward.
Despite these challenges, young zooarchaeologists produce important research often driven by new questions or methodological approaches. Since it’s inception five years ago, PZAF has expanded and it now attracts a range of European reseachers. The first PZAF conference took place at Cardiff University in November 2009 (organised by Richard Madgwick), and was a great success, with seventeen papers, seven posters and around forty attendees. The following August at ICAZ 2010 in Paris, Roz Gillis organised a PZAF speed-networking event which gave attendees the opportunity to meet young ICAZ members from around the world. Again, the event was a success; so many people attended that we struggled to fit in the auditorium! The popularity of these events persuaded us that another conference style event would be well received, and so we organised the second of these at the University of Sheffield. The conference had a great response drew around forty attendees to Sheffield’s Humanities Research Institute. Participants travelled to Sheffield from across Europe, and papers and posters presented research projects from across the world, as far as Argentina and Kazakhstan, and we are pleased to be able to present a number of the contributions in these conference proceedings. The papers in this special issue of Assemblage span from the Palaeolithic to the Medieval period and research on methodological issues and analysis into isolated contexts. They demonstrate the massive variety in the types of projects that Masters and PhD students are undertaking, and the important contributions that postgraduate students are making to our field. We are delighted that a fourth meeting of PZAF has already been set by the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, and the health of the forum in the future looks to remain strong.
We had no funding for this conference, but charged our participants just £10, in the knowledge that many postgraduates are limited by financial constraints. The Sheffield Zooarchaeology team hosted (sometimes multiple) participants in their homes. It is worth mentioning the real lack of opportunities for funding an event such as this – postgraduate conference funding was cut by the Arts and Humanties Research Council in recent years, and The University of Sheffield had no appropriate money that we could apply for. This is a real problem when postgraduates often have little funding themselves. Nevertheless, with our small participation fee we still were able to provide food for lunch on two days, tea and coffee, and a wine reception, demonstrating that in order to put on a successful conference it is not necessary to charge extortionate fees, as many conferences do. At this point we should mention the extraordinary help that we received from other members of our research team who assisted with the promotion, set-up and food preparation for the conference, as well as providing a great deal of moral support. Thanks should also go out to all of the reviewers for this publication, and to the assemblage team for being so enthusiastic and agreeing to host us. It seemed absolutely fitting that the proceedings of a postgraduate conference should be published by a postgraduate journal.
All of the PZAF events to date have been intellectually stimulating, engaging and fun, and we hope that others continue forward with it in future. At a time when archaeology is facing difficulties in funding and university applications are down, with some departments even being closed, it is encouraging to know that our field is still producing fantastic postgraduates who are undertaking some really important and high quality work. We hope that participants of the conference went away with new friends and colleagues and that discussions have continued beyond the confines of the conference itself. Crucially, these are people who are likely to be our colleagues for the rest of our careers, and the contacts we make, and projects that we set up together, will determine the future prospects of Zooarchaeology as a field.