What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Most archaeological sites contain remains of animals. The identity and condition of these animals, represented by fragments of their skeletons or shells can provide invaluable information about past economies and the impact of humans on the environment in which they lived. This reference book for archaeology students and professionals, both in the field and the laboratory, is designed to help in the identification and analysis of animal bones, teeth, and other hard tissues, such as mollusk shells. Global in scope, the examples range from the Pleistocene to the nineteenth century.
475 pages, Hardcover
First published February 28, 1999
3 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 15, 2012
I've long referred to this book using the index to look up specific points but had never previously read it in its entirety. As more and more students come to me proudly (figuratively) waving their acquisition of it though, I thought the time had come where I really should: for their sake and for mine - if I'm to discuss it properly with them.
My overwhelming impression is that the writing is not simply uninspired but confusing: points are repeated ad infinitum to the detriment of intelligibility. As such, it's clear that Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing belong to that generation of scholars who believe that 'repetition, repetition, repetition' is the key to lecturing students successfully. It's not. That just results in students doodling and staring out through windows (which is more or less exactly what I found myself doing throughout my long struggle to finish this text).
Other obstacles also presented themselves to my comprehension; notably in language, for example: "crossmend" and "crossmendable" are not words that occur in any dictionary I own but are presumably U.S.A.isms for articulate, or perhaps, "refit" and "refittable". I'm still unclear on the point and it's a shame that a scientific text should suffer from this lack of clarity. Later, "mend" is used to describe an unfused diaphysis and epiphysis which belong to eachother so this may be the explanation I was so desperately seeking at the time. Other uses of language are less explained as being cultural, however, for example "distal communities" (p.260): although technically correct it smacks of unnecessary verboseness; 'distant communities' would convey the same message with greater clarity - particularly in an introductory text for a subject which has its own, not unrelated but quite distinct, definition of 'distal'.
Of more concern than the abstruseness, however, are specific glaring inaccuracies - contrary to p.167, for example, "fragment count" and "bone count" are very definitely not the same thing as NISP but can be called NSP. Similarly: contrary to p.226 MNI, MNE and MAU are not the same thing. Zooarchaeology probably has more than its fair share of acronyms, to confuse them in an introductory textbook is unforgivable. On p. 294, "Southwest Asia" in stead of "South-East" is probably a typo but that these smaller errors are still apparent furthers the impression of a lack of rigorous editing.
Sweeping generalisations also add to a sense of frustration: e.g. on p.296 we are told that chicken eggs are "tabboo in southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa." Really? All of it?
Throughout the book, a fictional case-study is used relating to a Native American site. Fictional case-studies are very useful for illustrating points because they can be tailored to the point in question; when using a real-life example, of course, models and hypotheses rarely fit perfectly. Here though, a single case-study is referred to throughout. Not only does that mean that the case-study is never fully explored in a way that enables the reader to get to understand it but it requires a lot of flicking backwards and forwards through the book and negates the advantages of having a fictional case-study in the first place.
Basing the case-study on a N. American site is fine: that is the particular area of expertise of the authors and, in any case, a case-study has to be based somewhere in the world. Less understandable though, is the implicit assumption that all readers are familiar with U.S.American culture and, moreover, unfamiliar with other cultures. On a single page (p.215), for example, the authors refer to American New Year celebrations and to Atlantic colonies in N. America but never to any European examples, of which there are many (the point discussed is the use of pig's heads and feet for food). In itself, this isn't necessarily a problem but it's a little incongruous that a Cambridge University book should have such a US bias and leaves me wondering how much effort was expended by the authors in expanding their teaching notes to account for a wider audience.
To try and examine the positive points of this work, there are some very detailed reviews buried beneath the incomprehensibility of the work and the publication is well referenced throughout, with a lengthy bibliography included. This last point is not to be underestimated and sees the book serve a role in indicating specific research and review papers on a subject as well as classic studies which use an idea to good effect. Palaeoecology, too, is one area in particular which is afforded greater space here than in other zooarchaeology texts.
Use is made of the appendices to reprint a series of illustrations from other publications which are useful for teaching and a cursory review is also provided of the steps which form the day to day work of the zooarchaeologist: excavation, curation and publication.
Notwithstanding these last points, however, reading the book has only confirmed my belief that The Archaeology of Animals and The Archaeology of Animal Bones (itself somewhat incongruously referenced for several specific points in this second edition; one wonders if these points were simply omitted in the first) are both better introductory textbooks to recommend to new students. Where I do think the book might have a role is as a reference work - a useful publication to have to hand for the more experienced practitioner whenever they want a quick view on a topic before deciding whether or not they need to carry out deeper research. Much as I always used it before.
My overwhelming impression is that the writing is not simply uninspired but confusing: points are repeated ad infinitum to the detriment of intelligibility. As such, it's clear that Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing belong to that generation of scholars who believe that 'repetition, repetition, repetition' is the key to lecturing students successfully. It's not. That just results in students doodling and staring out through windows (which is more or less exactly what I found myself doing throughout my long struggle to finish this text).
Other obstacles also presented themselves to my comprehension; notably in language, for example: "crossmend" and "crossmendable" are not words that occur in any dictionary I own but are presumably U.S.A.isms for articulate, or perhaps, "refit" and "refittable". I'm still unclear on the point and it's a shame that a scientific text should suffer from this lack of clarity. Later, "mend" is used to describe an unfused diaphysis and epiphysis which belong to eachother so this may be the explanation I was so desperately seeking at the time. Other uses of language are less explained as being cultural, however, for example "distal communities" (p.260): although technically correct it smacks of unnecessary verboseness; 'distant communities' would convey the same message with greater clarity - particularly in an introductory text for a subject which has its own, not unrelated but quite distinct, definition of 'distal'.
Of more concern than the abstruseness, however, are specific glaring inaccuracies - contrary to p.167, for example, "fragment count" and "bone count" are very definitely not the same thing as NISP but can be called NSP. Similarly: contrary to p.226 MNI, MNE and MAU are not the same thing. Zooarchaeology probably has more than its fair share of acronyms, to confuse them in an introductory textbook is unforgivable. On p. 294, "Southwest Asia" in stead of "South-East" is probably a typo but that these smaller errors are still apparent furthers the impression of a lack of rigorous editing.
Sweeping generalisations also add to a sense of frustration: e.g. on p.296 we are told that chicken eggs are "tabboo in southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa." Really? All of it?
Throughout the book, a fictional case-study is used relating to a Native American site. Fictional case-studies are very useful for illustrating points because they can be tailored to the point in question; when using a real-life example, of course, models and hypotheses rarely fit perfectly. Here though, a single case-study is referred to throughout. Not only does that mean that the case-study is never fully explored in a way that enables the reader to get to understand it but it requires a lot of flicking backwards and forwards through the book and negates the advantages of having a fictional case-study in the first place.
Basing the case-study on a N. American site is fine: that is the particular area of expertise of the authors and, in any case, a case-study has to be based somewhere in the world. Less understandable though, is the implicit assumption that all readers are familiar with U.S.American culture and, moreover, unfamiliar with other cultures. On a single page (p.215), for example, the authors refer to American New Year celebrations and to Atlantic colonies in N. America but never to any European examples, of which there are many (the point discussed is the use of pig's heads and feet for food). In itself, this isn't necessarily a problem but it's a little incongruous that a Cambridge University book should have such a US bias and leaves me wondering how much effort was expended by the authors in expanding their teaching notes to account for a wider audience.
To try and examine the positive points of this work, there are some very detailed reviews buried beneath the incomprehensibility of the work and the publication is well referenced throughout, with a lengthy bibliography included. This last point is not to be underestimated and sees the book serve a role in indicating specific research and review papers on a subject as well as classic studies which use an idea to good effect. Palaeoecology, too, is one area in particular which is afforded greater space here than in other zooarchaeology texts.
Use is made of the appendices to reprint a series of illustrations from other publications which are useful for teaching and a cursory review is also provided of the steps which form the day to day work of the zooarchaeologist: excavation, curation and publication.
Notwithstanding these last points, however, reading the book has only confirmed my belief that The Archaeology of Animals and The Archaeology of Animal Bones (itself somewhat incongruously referenced for several specific points in this second edition; one wonders if these points were simply omitted in the first) are both better introductory textbooks to recommend to new students. Where I do think the book might have a role is as a reference work - a useful publication to have to hand for the more experienced practitioner whenever they want a quick view on a topic before deciding whether or not they need to carry out deeper research. Much as I always used it before.
January 4, 2011
Good source of knowledge a little dry but then again its that kind of books ;-)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews