FROM BONES TO FARMERS: THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGY TO LANDSCAPE

ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction
We can define landscape archaeology as the investigation of the longterm relationship between people and their
environmentataregionalscale(BARKER1986).Suchanapproachmustinevitablybemultidisciplinary,usinga
combination of both the human and natural sciences. This paper describes the types of information which
archaeozoology,thestudyofanimalbonesfromarchaeologicalexcavations,cancontributetothiskindofarchaeology.
Theprincipal argument isthat theinformationprovidedbyanimal bonesaboutancient landscapes isindirect but
critical:itconcernsnotsimplythesubsistenceactivitiesofthepeopleinhabitingalandscape(howtheyexploitedtheir
environmentforfood)butalsotheireconomicandsocialrelations,expressedinthewaysinwhichanimalsandanimal
productsweremanagedforpurposesbeyondtheneedsofeverydaysubsistence.
Mostanimalbonesrecoveredfromarchaeologicalexcavationsconsistofdisarticulatedfragments,partoftherubbish
discardedbythehumanpopulationlivingonthesite.Theseremainsarenormallyassumedtobefoodrefuse,discarded
duringtheprocessofslaughterandbutchetyoraftercooking,togetherwithwastefromindustrialactivities.Inaddition,
completeskeletonsmaybefound,identifiedeitherascarcassesofanimalswhichhaddiedofnaturalcausesandwere
noteaten,orkilledandburiedforritualpurposesalthoughthereisincreasingevidencefromprehistoricsitesthatan
assumptionofasimpledivisionbetween'domestic'and'ritual'depositsisunwarranted(GRANT,inpress).
FortherestofthispaperIsballoutlinesomeoftheprincipalmethodsusedinarchacolozoologyandtheinformation
whichwecanobtainfromthemaboutsubsistenceandsocialrelations.Thesemethodsinclude:thecalculationofthe
frequencyofspecies;theassessmentofthepartsoftheskeletonrepresentedforeachspecies;theageoftheanimalsat
death;thesizeofthebones;seasonalityofoccupation;andintersitecomparisonstheregionalapproach.However,it
shouldfirstbeemphasisedtUatarchaeozoologistsareincreasinglycautiousaboutdrawingsimpleinferencesfromtheir
material.Thecomplexcompositionofanarchaeological'faunalsample'hastobeunderstoodbeforemovingontothe
potentialofthismaterialforinformingontheactivitiesofpeopleintheirlandscape.
Thenatureofthefannalsample
Archacozoologistsareincreasinglyawareofthemany'taphonomic'biasesthataffecttheTrmaterialinitslongjourney
frombeingpartofalivingherdofanimalstobecomingapileoffragmentsonthelaboratorytableand,ultimately,a
collectionoftablesandhistogramsinanexcavationreport(BARKER1985,p.22;CRTBB1985,p.80).Cribbdivides
this progression into a sequence of three types of context: systemic, archacological, and analytical. The systemic
contextconsistsoftheoriginalactivitiesonthesite,thearchacologicalcontextistheprocessofburialandexcavation.
Thebiaseswhichtakeplaceinthesystemiccontextcannotbecontrolledforbythearchaeozoologist,whereasmostof
thebiasestakingplaceinthearchacologicalcontextandallofthoseintheanalyticalcontextcanbecontrolledfor
(DAVIS1987,pp.2246).
Beginningwiththesystemiccontext,thefirstsetofbiasesconsistsoftheseloctionactivitiesofthehumanpopulation
onthelivingherd.Huntersmayseloctaparticularterritory,aparticular huntingtechnique,andaparticular prey.
Farmerswillhavetomakechoicesaboutwhichanimalsarekilledintermsoftheirhusbandrypoliciesarethey
breedinganimalsformeatorconcentratingonkeepingthemfortheir'secondaryproducts'suchasmilkortractionor
wool?Oncetheanimalhasbeenkilled,isitbutcheredandconsumed,andthebonesdiscarded,atthesameplace,orare
theseactivitiesseparatedinspace?Hunting,whetherbyapalaeolithicbandoramedievalnobleman,maywellinvolve
takingallorpartofthecarcassbacktoasettlementatadistancefromthesceneofthekill.Inatown,animalsmaybe
butcheredinoneplaceandconsumedsomewhereelse,withthebonessetasideforindustrialpurposessuchastool
manufacturebeingusedanddiscardedinyetanotherpartofthetown.Systemsofbutcheryandcookingwillalsoaffect
howbonesarebrokenupandwhichpartsoftheskeletonarediscardedintactorinfragments.
Thelastmalorsystemicbiasconsistsofhowtherefuseisdiscarded.Ifitisburiedstraightawayinrubbishpits,itwill
obviouslysurvivebetterthanmaterialthatissimplydumpedonthesurfacearoundasettlementtobeattackedbydogs
andvermin,tramplinghumanfeot,andtheweather.Differentialdisposalpracticesarethereasonwhyurbanfaunal
samplestendtobefarbetterpreservedthanruralfaunalsamples:intowns,rubbishtendedtobeburiedinpitsfor
reasonsofhygiene,whereasinthecountrysidefoodrefusewasmorelikelyeithertobedumpedaroundthesettlement
orputonthemanureheap,whichinturnwouldbespreadonthesurroundingfields.
Thefirstmajorbiasinthearchaeologicalcontext,theonewhichcannotbecontrolledfor,isthenatureofthesoil.As
thelevelofacidityincreases,bonepreservationsuffers,withthesoftestpartsofthebonebeingdestroyedfirst(and
mostjuvenilebonesaresoftcomparedwiththoseofadults),thenthemorerobustparts,untilonlytheteethremainor,
inextremeconditions,nothingatall.Thecompositionofthearchaeologicalfaunalsamplemayalsobealteredbyinsitu

deathsofburrowinganimals.Majorbiaseswhichcanbecontrolledforinthearchaeologicalcontextarethoseresulting
fromthesamplingstrategyoftheexcavator:thechoiceofexcavationareaorareasatasite(returningtothepointabout
thepotentialvariationinthekindsofrubbishdiscardedacrossasite)andthechoiceofrecovetymethods(whetheror
notthesoilissieved)(PAYNE1972).
In the analyticalcontext, factors of bias include the skill of the archaeologist in identification, and the choice of
techniques used (DAVTS 1987, PP.2346). Thus there are different systems proposed for calculating the relative
frequency of different species, the representation of different sPeletal parts and the degree of fragmentation. As
describedinthefourthsection,someofthemostimportantinformationisdrawnfromtheageoftheanimalsatdeath,
forwhichavarietyofmethodsisusedbutforwhichanumberofmajorproblemsisrecognised(WTESONetal.1982).
Thefifthsectiondiscussestheinformationobtainedfrommeasurementsofbones;again,therearemajordebatesonthe
significanceofchangesinanimalsizeandmorphology,andonhowbesttomeasurethese.
Given this depressing array of biases throngh the systemic, archaeological and analytical contexts, it is easy to
sympathisewithDavis(1987,P.24)inhiscommentthatonesometimeswondersifthereisanysimilaritybetweena
publishedbonereport andtheanimalsexploitedbyancient humans.However,itisalsoworthemphasisingthe
positiveaspect ofrecent research ontaphonomicbias: themorewecanlearntorecognisethelikelyeffects ofa
particular bias (and there is currently a great deal of experimental work by archaeozoologists to improve their
methodologies),themorewecanhopetobeablerecognisethatbiasinafaunalsample,andallowforit.Thejourney
from the living herd to the laboratory sample is certainly a long and difficult one, but at least we increasingly
understandthelikelyobstaclesandcanlookoutfortheireffects.
Thefrequencyofspec~es
Thesimplestinformationfromthefannalsample,afterthelistofspeciesthatcanbeidentified,wouldseomtobetheir
relativefrequencywhichanimalswerecommon,whichlesscommon?Infact,thiscanbeoneofthemostdifficult
questionstoanswer,firstintermsofmakingthecalculationandsecondintermsofinterpretingitsmeaning.Forthe
calculation, wecanusethesum ofidentifiable fragments, ortheminumum numberofindividuals(whichcan be
calculatedinvariousways),ortherelativemeatweights(which,again,canbecalculatedindifferentways).However,
inviewofthesystemicprocessesofselectiondescribedintheprevioussection,itwillbeclearthatwecannotassumea
directrelationbetwecntherelativefrequencyoftheanimalsinthefaunalsampleandtheTrrelativefrequencyinthe
livingpopulationsinthelandscapesurroundingthesite,farlesstheirrelativeimportanceinthesubsistence,economic
orsocialsystemofthehumanpopulation.
Nevertheless, the calculation of relative frequency provides the starting point for the process ofreconstruction of
subsistenceandeconomy.IntheclassicexampleofthemesolithicsiteofStarCarrinnorthernEngland,datedtoabout
7500bc,thecalculationoffrequencyaccordingtotheminimumnumberofindividualsandmeatweightsshoweda
huntingsystemconcentratingonreddeerbutalsoexploitingtheothermajorspeciesoftheforestatthattime(CLARK
1954;Fig.1).AnotherexampleconsistsoftheLinearbandkeramikearlyneolithicsitesofcentralEuropec.4500bc,
wherethecalculationofspeciesfrequencyaccordingtoidentifiablefragmentsfromovertwentysitesshowedthatgame
madeuplessthan20~ofthefaunalsamplesatallsitesand,atmost,lessthan10~odomesticcattleandpigswereby
farthemostimportantspeciesforthesefirstfarmers(BOGUCKI1988).
InthecaseofRomanBritain,whereinformationonspeciesfrequencyisavailablefrommanycontemporarysites
thronghouttheregion,quitesophisticatedinferenceshavebecndrawnnotsimplyaboutsussistencebutalsoaboutsocial
relations(KING1978,1984;Fig.2).Militarysiteshavehighpercentagesofcattle,mediumpercentagesofpig,andlow
percentages ofsheep/goat bones.Speciesfrequencies aremuchthesameinsamplesfrom Romanizedtowns.The
percentage of sheep/goat increases at the expense of cattle at vici and villas, and is generally highest at native
farmsteadswherethereislittleevidenceofRomanization.
KingconcludesthattheinvadingRomanarmyintroducedthebeefdominateddiettoBritain,andthatthesamediet
becamejustasmuchanindicatorofRomanizationforthenativepopulationinthetownsandvillasaswearingthetoga
and speaking Latin. In fact the frequency of cattle mayalso reflect profound economic aswell as social change
(GRANT 1989): increasing population levels in Roman Britain stimulated agricultural intensification, and on the
lowlandsheaviersoilshadtobetakenintocultivation,aprocesswhichrequiredmorecattleforploughingandfor
manure.Mortalitydatashowthatmanyofthecattlecomingintothetownswereoldanimals,ploughcattlekilledatthe
endoftheirworkinglives(M9TBY1979).InthecaseofmedievalEngland,too,speciesfrequencieshavebeenusedto
showdifferencesindietandstatusbetweencastles,townsandvillages,withthehighstatussites(thecastles)havingthe
highestpercentagesofcattle,pig,venisonandexoticgame,andthelowstatussites(thevillages)havingthehighest
percentagesofsheep/goatbonesintheirfoodrefuse(GRANT,1988).
Skeletalparts
Increasingattentionisbeingpaldtotheinformationwhichcanbeobtainedfromthepartsoftheskeletonrepresented
foreachspeciesinafaunal sample.Atmostarchaeological sitesthisinformationisprimarilyabouttheselection
activitiesofthehumanpopulation,butparticularlyintheearlierperiodsofprehistoryaprincipalfocushasbeenonthe

problemofdifferentiatingbetweenhumanandnaturalfactorsinthecreationofafaunalsample.Someofthemost
importantworkinthisaspectoftaphonomyhasbecnbyBrain(BRAIN1981),onfaunalsamplesfromearlyhominid
sitesinsouthernAfrica,whodemonstratedthatmanybonecolloctionsincaveshadbecnaccumulatedbyhyaenasusing
thecavesastheirdensandthehominidsweretherebecausetheyhadbeeneatenbythehyaenas!Inanotherexample
(BRAIN1967),hespowedthatthefrequenciesofbovidskeletalpartsfromtheLowerPleistocenesiteofMapakansgat
werealmostidenticaltothefrequenciesofdifferentpartsofgoatskeletonsfoundintherefuselyingaroundamodern
Hottentotvillage.Bothsamplesweredominatedbytheharderbonesortheharderpartsofparticularbones,suggesting
thatnaturalagencies(weatheringandscavenging)hadremovedthesofterparts,whereasonepreviousinterpretationof
theMapakansgatmaterialwasthathominidshadbecnseloctingparticularbonesfortoolsandweapons.
Inrecentyearsethnoarchaeologicalresearchhaspaldgreatattentiontotherelationshipbetweenhumanactivitiesand
thekindoffannalmaterialproducedasaresult.Someofthebestworkhasbeenamongstmodernhuntersorhunter
gatherers, and is proving of great importance for the study of faunal material from huntergatherer sites in the
archaeologicalrecord.AnexcellentexampleofthisisthereconsiderationoftheStarCarrfaunalmaterial(LEGGEand
Row~EYConwY1989)inthelightofBinford'sworkamongsttheNunamiuteskimoofAlaska(BINFORD1978).
TheNunamiutare'logistical'hunters,usingavarietyofspecialpurposecamps,andconcentrateonhuntingcaribou.
Theyliveinbasecamps,buttohuntthecariboupartiesmoveawayfromthebasecampsforperiodsofseveralweeks,
tohuntingcamps.Operatingfromthesecamps,smallgroupsofhuntersmoveoutoverthetundra,tokillthecaribou.
Hencetherearethreeprincipaltypesofbonerefuse,atthekillsites,huntingcamps,andbasecamps,fordifferentkinds
ofbutcherytakeplaceatthethreesites,differentmeatisconsumed,anddifferentrubbishdiscarded.Thecomparison
betweentheskeletalpartsofreddeeratStarCarrwiththeskeletalpartsofcaribouattheNunamiutsitesstrongly
suggeststhatStarCarrwasahuntingcampwithinarathersimilarsystemoflogisticalhunting,ratherthan,asClarkhad
assumed(CLARK1972),abasecamp(Fig.3).
ArathersimilarexampleconsistsofGrigson'sanalysisofskeletalpartrepresentationinthefaunalsamplefroma
mesolithiccamponthesmallislandofOronsaywestofthemainlandofScotland(GRIGSONandMEL~ARs1988;
Fig.4).Theskeletalpartsofthegreysealsuggestthattheseanimalswerekilledandbutcheredontheisland,whereas
thedominanceofantlerandheadandfeotbonesofreddeercomparedwiththeotherpartsoftheskeletonsuggeststEat
thereddeerwereinfactkilledonthemainland,withcertainbonesbeingbroughttotheislandforthemanufactureof
tools,particularlyfishingequipment.
Skeletal part analysis isalso proving increasingly important inthe analysis offaunal samples from later periods,
particularlyasanindicatorofsocialstatus.AtSettefinestre,forexample,theRomanvillaestateinEtruria,therewasa
cleardistinctionbetweenthequalityofthemeatconsumedbytheowningfamilyandthatbytheslaves(KING1985).
Rathersimilardifferenceshavebeenfoundinthefaunalmaterialfromthezimbal7wesofcentralandsouthernAfrica:
the middens associated with the elites' dwellings have faunal samples dominated by highquality joints of cattle,
whereaspoorercutsofmeatofcattleandotheranimalsarefoundinthefannalsamplesassociatedwiththedwellingsof
thecommoners(BARKER1988).InmedievalEngland,too,ahighstatussitelikeOkehamptoncastlehadamoch
higherfrequencyofprimejointsofmeatthanwasthecaseattownsandvillages(MALTBY,1979,153).
Mortalitydata
Forthefannalsamplesofearlyprehistory,mortalitydataareaninvaluableguidetothenatureofhuntingstrategies,to
theextenttowhichtheywerespecialisedorunspecialised.Forfannalsamplesfromlaterprehistoryandthehistoric
periods,mortalitydataprovidethemostimportantinformationonsystemsofanimalhusbandry(PAYNE1973).Thusa
strategyforintensivemeatproductionwouldconcentrateonkillingoffasmanysurplusanimalsaspossible,assoonas
theyreached asatisfactoryweightandthemainsurplusanimalswouldbeyoungmales.Ifmilkandotherdairy
productswereapriority,itwouldbeimportanttoretainadultbreedingfemales.Bothadultmalesandfemaleswouldbe
importantinaspecialisedwooleconomy,becausetheadoltmalehasaheavierfleecethanthefemale.Fortraction,
cattlemaybekeptontoquiteagreatagebeforeslaughter.Suchspecializedbreedingstrategiesareafeatureofmodern
farming,butatleastwecanusethemasidealizedmodelsagainstwhichtocomparethearchacologicalmaterial.
Theageofananimalatdeathcanbecalculatedfromthelimbbonesandteeth.Theendsorepiphysesofthelimbbones
fusetotheshaftsastheanimalmatures.Differentepiphysesfuseatdifferenttimes,andtheseratesareknownfor
modern domestic animals. In the same way there is a well studied sequence of eruption for the deciduous and
permanentteethofthedomesticanimals,andtheratesofwearofthepermanentteethofmatureanimalshavealsobeen
studied.Similardataareavailableforsomewildanimals,thonghnotinthesamedetail.Althoughthereareproblems
with applying data from modern improved breeds to ancient stock, archaeozoologists have been able to develop
methodologiesforageingtheirmaterial(DAVIS1987).
StarCarragainprovidesanexcellentexampleoftheimportanceofmortalitydataininformingonahuntingstrategy.
Thereisclearevidencethatthehunterspractisedselectivekilling,formostoftheroedeerwerekilledintheirfirstyear
andmostofthereddecrwerekilledintheirthirdyear(LEGGEandROWEEYCONVY1989;Fig.5).Agoodexample
oftheuseofmortalitydatainstudyinghusbandrysystemscomesfromaseriesofprehistoricsitesinKermanshah,Iran,

studiedbyDavis(DAVIS1984;Fig.6).Thekilloffpatternsofsheep/goatsuggestaprimarilymeateconomyinthe
NeolitLicandasubsequentshiftinemphasistosecondaryproductssuchasmilkandwool.Thecontrastinthekilling
agesoftheironagepigs,keptsimplyfortheirmeat,isvetyclear.
Aswiththestudyofskeletalparts,mortalitydatafromsitesfromthehistoricperiodsfrequentlycastlightoneconomic
andsocialbehaviaur.InRomanandmedievalBritain,manyfarmerssenttheTrsurplusyounganimalstotheurban
markets,andmadedofortheirownmeatwiththeolderanimalsoftheirbreedingstock(GRANT1988,1989).At
Settefinestreandthezim{7abwes,theelitesdidnotsimplygetthebestcutsofbeefintermsofthepartsofthebody,
theyalsohadmeatfromyounganimalsintheirprime.
Metricdata
Asdescribedintheprevioussection,differenthusbandrystrategieswillresultintheslaughterofparticulargroupsof
animalsinaherd,definednotsimplybyagebutbysex.Thefragmentarynatureofmostfaunalsamplesmeansthat
individualbonescanrarelybesexed.Therefore,ontheprincipalofsexualdimorphism(thefactthatmalesarenormally
largerthanfemales),archaeozoologistsmusttrytodeterminesexualgroupswithintheslaughteredpopulationusingsize
measurementstakenfromindividualbonesorepiphyses.
AgoodexampleofthistechniqueisillustratedinFigure7,whichsbowstheclusteringofmeasurementstakenonthe
widthofthedistalmetacarpal,aforelimbbone,fromcattlesamplesfromamodernpopulation,neolithicsitesinBritain
andDenmark,andStarCarr(LEGGE1981).Inthemodernsamples,ofknownsex,thereisacleardicotomyinsize
betweenthesmallercowsandlargerbulls.Themeasurementsfromtheprehistoricsitesalsotendtoclusterintotwosize
groups,whichLeggethereforeinterpretsasfemaleandmale.ThedominanceofcowsintheBritishneolithicsitesis
particularlystriking.
However,thesizeofananimalreflectsanumberoffactorsapartfromsex.Somefthesearereflectedinthegragh
illustratedasFigure8,whichchartsthewithersheightofBritishcattlefromthemesolithicperiodtotoday(DAVIS
1987,178)TherewasasteadydecreaseinsizefrommesolithictimestotheIronAge.Thedecreasefrommesolithicto
neolithictimesiscommonlytakentoreflecttheprocessofdomestication,althoughitmayhaveasmuchormoretodo
withclimaticandecologicalchange.Theverysmallsizeofironagestockisassumedtoreflectabovealltheprimitive
natureofthehusbandryregime,thelackofwinterfodderandsoon.TheriseincattlesizeinRomanandearlymedieval
timessuggestsbettermanagement,followedoncemorebypoorerconditionsintheMiddleAges,andthenbythe
dramaticimprovementinsizeinthepostmedievalperiod.
Seasonality
Anumberofmethodsisusedtodemonstrateseasonalityofoccupationusingfaunalmaterial.Bestknownistheuseo`f
antlers:asdeercarrytheseinsomeseasonsbutshedtheminothers,thepresenceofshedorunsFedantlersmaybea
guidetowhentheanimalswerekilled.InthecaseofStarCarr,Clarkusedtheevidenceofreddeerandelkantlersto
arguethatthesitewasprimarilyoccupiedinthewinter(CLARK1954).Intherecentreview,however,Leggeand
RowleyConwyusedtheevidenceofroedeertootheruptiontosuggestanalternativemodel,ofasummeroccupation.
Thisargumentwasbasedontheassumptionthatroedeerinthemesolithicperiodcalvedataboutthesametimeasroe
decrinBritaintoday,sotEat theageofdeathcalculatedfrom modernratesforroedeercouldbeappliedtothe
mesolitLicmaterial.
The otoliths or earbones of fish were used to indicate seasonality of occupation at the mesolithic settlement of
Oronsay,togetherwiththeevidenceofshellfishcollectedtodayincertainseasong(MELLARS1978;MELLARSand
WILKINSON1980).Anotherindicatorofseasonalityisthepresenceofmigratoryfishorbirdsinafaunalsampleon
theassumptionofunchangedpatternsofbelaviourbythesespecies.Amajordifficultywiththiskindofstudyistofind
unequivocalevidenceforabsenceofoccupationinaparticularseason,asopposedtopresenceinanother.
Fromsitetoregion
Beforeindustrialization,mostruralcommunitieshadtoextracttheirsubsistencefromtheterritorysurroundingthe
settlement, and most urban communities had to be supported by a rural hinterland, although there are of course
examplesofmajorcitiessuchasimperialRomewhichweresupportedbyfoodstuffsbroughtinfromdistantlands.
Thusthefaunalremainsfoundonanarchaeologicalsiteareusuallyevidenceofbothfoodconsumptionatthesiteand
foodproductioninthesurroundinglandscape.Itisinthissensethatanyfaunalanalysisshouldprovideanindirectbut
criticalcontributiontolandscapearchaeology.
SiteCatchmentAnalysiswasproposedasatechniquetodefinetheterritoryhabituallyexploitedbytheinhabitantsofa
site for their subsistence (HIGGS and VITAFINzI 1970). Higgs and VitaFinzi proposed that the likely area or
catchmentaroundahuntergatherersite,onthebasisoftheterritoriesofmodernhuntergatherers,ougEttobethearea

withintenkilometresortwohours'walk.Foragriculturalsites,againusingtheevidenceofmodernpeasantfarmers,
theyproposedacatchmentoffivekilometresoronehour'swalk.Duringthe1970's,thetechniquewaswidelyapplied
bytheCambridgeschoolof'palaeoeconomy',particularlyinthestudyofearlyfarmingsitesinEurope(HIGGS1975).
Thereweremanyweaknessesinthemethod,butatleastSiteCatchmentAnalysisprovidedanexplicitprocedureby
whichtodefinetheterritoryfromwhichtheanimalbonesandplantremainsfoundonanexcavationwerederived.
Some of the most effective studies integrating the analysis of such residues with a catchment analysis provided
convincingcasestudiesinsubsistencereconstruction(DENNELLandWEBLEY1975).
Oneweaknessofthemethodwasitsassumptionthatmostsiteswere'homebases',thesubsistenceactivitiesofwhich
couldbeunderstoodintermsofthecatchment,withlittlerelationsliipwiththelandscapebeyond.However,asthe
taphonomicstudiesoftheStarCarrandOronsayfaunalsamplesclearlydemonstrated,thesehuntergatherersitescan
onlybeunderstoodasjustonepartoftheregionalhuntingterritoryusedbythepeoplewhooccupiedeachofthesesites.
AnotherexampleistheneolithicsettlementofBrzescKujawskiinPoland(BOGUCKI1982),asitelocatedbyalakein
whatwasaheavilyforestedarea.Organicremainswerewellpreservedatthesite,andtherewereexcellentsamplesof
fish,birdandmammalbones,molluscs,andplantremains,includingmanyhigElyseasonalresources.Ontheevidence
ofhisanalysisofthesematerials,Boguckiproposedthattheearlyneolithicsettlementwasoccupiedbypeoplewho
practisedamixedeconomyofhunting,fishingandherding,butwhoonlylivedatthesiteforamonthormoreinthe
summer.Hesuggestedthatthecommunityprobablyspentmostoftheyearinthearea,movingfromsitetositeround
thelake,tUoughtheymayhavemovedawayintheworstofthewinter(Fig.9).Inthelaterneolithicphasethesite
becameapermanentsettlement,butitwasprobablysupportedbyanetworkofoutlyingcampsusedforspecialized
subsistenceactivities.
FaunalsamplesfromurbanexcavationsmayallowquitedetailedinferencesontheruraleconomytEatsupportedthe
towns.AnelegantexampleoftLisistheinformationprovidedbytheanalysisoftheRomanandmedievalmaterialfrom
ExeterinsouthwestEngland,onthechanginghistoryofanimalhusbandryinthesurroundingcountryside(MALTBY
1979).ChangingpatternsofmeatconsumptionintheHellenisticandRomancityofBerenice(modernBenghazi)in
Libyaprobablyreflectchangingsystemsoffarminginthemountainstothesouth,asRomanstyleintensivefarming
spreadsouthwardsfromthecoastandencroachedonthetraditionalsystemsofsubsistence(BARKER1982a).Onthe
otherhand,faunalsamplesfromimperialRomeconldwellderivefromanimalsraisedhundredsofkilometresfromthe
city,insouthernItaly(BARKER1982b).
Regionalintegration:modellingalandscape
Themosteffectivearchaeozoologicalstudiesintermsoflandscapereconstructionarethoseinwhichmaterialfroma
numberofcontemporarysitescanbeintegratedattheregionalscale.Onlywiththisapproachcanwebegintomake
reliableinferencesaboutproductionsystemsfromtheevidenceofconsumptionattheindividualsites,andtomodelthe
roleofanimalsinsocialrelations.
Forearlyprehistory,agoodexampleofthisapproachisJochim'sstudyofmesolithicsettlementintheDanubevalleyin
southwestGermany(JoCH:IM1976;Fig.10)Thesitesconsistedofaseriesofcavesinthevalleyandinthelimestone
hillstothenorth(theSwabianalps),andofopensitesaroundtheFederseelaketothesouth.Jochimusedtheorganic
remainsfoundatthesesitestopredictasystemofhunting,fishingandgatheringthroughtheyear,asresourceswere
exploitedattheirtimeofmaximumaLundanceoravailability.Hearguedthatreddeer,wildboarandsmallgamewould
havebeencriticalresourcesintheautumnandwinter,plantsimportantfromspringtoautumn,andfishimportantfor
mostoftheyearbutwithapeakofabundanceinthespring.WithinthecontextoftLismodelandthedifferentlocations
ofthesites,heputforwardamodelofmesolithicsubsistencetoaccountforthedistributionofsite:twobandsspent
mostoftheyearintheDanubevalleyanditstributariesoradjacentuplands,andcametogetherforsummerfishing(and
socialinteraction)attheFederseelake.
AsecondexamplecomesfromthezimbabwestatesofcentralandsouthernAfrica,betwecntheZambeziandLimpopo
rivers(BARKER1988).Thezimbabweswerestoneenclosures,regionalcentresofpower,ofwhichGreatZimbabweis
thebestknown.Theelitesandtheirfollowerslivedinthesecentres,andtheTrfollowersinthesurroundingterritories.
FannalsampleshavenowbeenstudiedfromGreatZimbabweandanumberofothercentres,andfromafewlowstatus
sitessuchasvillagesandfarms.Thefaunalanalysesfromthelowstatussitesshowthattheordinarypeoplekeptcattle
andsmallerstock,andhuntedalsofortheirsubsistence,butthattheydidnotconsumetheirbestcattle.Thefaunal
analysesfromthezimbal~wesshowthattheeliteswereconsumingprimecattle,broughttothesitesfromelsewhere.
Theevidenceisclear,therefore,thatcattlewereamajorformofwealthforthezimbahweelites,thecriticalmeansof
signifyingwealthandmaintainingclientship.Theregionalperspectivethatisnowpossiblewiththefaunaldatasbows
howcattlewereimportantinsomewaysforsubsistence,butweremostimportantfortheeconomicgoalsoftheelites
andfortheirsocialrelations.
ThefinalexampleistakenfromtheBifernovalleyinMolise,fromthepreRomanSamniteandRomanperiods.Faunal
sampleshavebeenrecoveredfromanumberofsitesofSamniteandRomandateintheuppervalley(BARKER1989;

Fig.11).FortheSamniteperiod,thesampleshavebecncollectedfromafarm(Matrice),avillage(MonteVaTrano),
andtwosanctuaries,asmallruralsanctuary(ColleSparanise)andthemainsanctuaryinthevalley(Campochiaro);in
addition,materialhasbeenstudiedfromthemainsanctuaryintheregion,Pietrabbondante.FortheRomanperiod,
materialisavailablefromthreesites:Matrice(whichbynowhaddevelopedasasubstantialvilla),theCampochiaro
sanctuary,andthetownofSaepinum,whichwasfoundedsoonaftertheRomanstookcontrolofthearea.Althoughthe
faunalsamplesareverysmall,theyprovideinterestinginsightsintothesocialandeconomicnetworksoftheupper
valleyandthetransformationsthattookplaceinthemwithRomanization.IntheSamniteperiodtheanimalhusbandry
ofthefarmsandvillagesprobablyconcentratedonsheepforsubsistence,buttheelitessentsurpluspigstothelocal
sanctuariesandprimeyoungcattletoPietrabbondante.Thesacrificeoftheseanimalsinthesanctuaryritualswasan
importantmeansbywhichtheSamoiteeliteslegitimatedtheirauthorityovertheordinarypeople.WithRomanization
andtheurbanizationitimposedonthevalleythefocusofwealthandpowershiftedfromthesanctuarytothetown.
Theelitesstillsentanimalstothesanctuaries,butforthemostparttheywereengagedinproducingsurplusanimals
(particularlypigs)forthenewurbanmarkets,probablyincludingRomeitself.
Conclusion
Thispaperhasreviewedtheprincipalmethodsusedbyarchaeozoologistsinthestudyofanimalbones,andthekindsof
informationwhichtheycanobtainfromthem.Astheexampleshaveshown,wecanobtainawidevarietyofinsights
intotherelationbetweenenvironmentandculture.Atthefirstlevel,afannalanalysiscanyieldinsigEhtsintothe
enviroomentroundasiteandonhowitwasexploitedbytheinhabitantsofthesitefortheprocurementoffood.Inthe
caseofahusbandryasopposedtoahuntingsystem,suchsubsistencemaywellinvolvetheproductionofsecondary
productsaswellasmeat.Thewayinwhichanimalswereexploitedformeatandsecondaryproductswillalsoyield
inferencesontheeconomicgoalsofthecommunity,andoftenalsoontheirsocialrelations.Anyfaunalanalysiswill
normallyallowinferencesaboutactivitiesinthelandscapebeyondthesettlementfromwhichthefannalsamplederives.
Finally,ifmaterialisavailablefromanumberofsitesinaregion,particularlysitesofthesameperiodbutofdifferent
functions,archaeozoologycanmakeacriticalcontributiontolandscapearchacologyindocumentinghowanimalswere
usedtoarticulateeconomicandsocialrelationswithinaregion.
However, one point must be emphasised in conclusion. If the rich potential of fannal analysis is accepted by
archacologists,soalsomustbethecostsandimplications.Faunalsampleshavetobecollectedinwayssothatthey
remainrepresentativeofthesampleinthegroundbeforeexcavation:soilsievingisusuallynecessarytoensurethatthe
smallerbonesandsmalleranimalsareproperlycollocted,andsystematicsamplingacrossasitetoensurethatthe
materialfromdifferentbehaviouralcontextscanbeanalysedseparately.Thecollectionofanimalboneshastobeas
muchapriorityasthatofothercategoriesofdata,centraltotheexcavationstrategyratherthananaccessorytoit.
GRAEMEBARKER

Bibliography
G.BARKER,1982a,EconomiclifeinBerenice:theanimalandfishremains,marinemolluscsandplantremains,inJ.
A.Lloyd(ed.),ExcavationsatSidiKhrebish,Benghazi(Berenice)II,LibyaAntiquaSupplementsV,II,pp.149.
G. BARKER, 1982b, Food consumption andmarketing inlate imperial Rome: the animal bonesfrom the Schola
Praeconum,pp.8191inD.WHITEHOUSE,G.BARKER,R.REECE,andD.REECE,TheScholaPraeconumI:the
coins,pottery,lampsandiauna,PapersoftheBritishSchoolatRome,L,pp.53101.
G.BARKER,1985,PrehistoricfarminginEurope,Cambridge,UniversityPress.
G.BARKER,1986, L'archeologiadel paesaggio italiano:nuovi orientamenti erecenti esperienze,Archeologia
Medievale,XIII,pp.729.
G.BARKER,1988,Cowsandkings:modelsforzimbawes,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety,LIV,pp.22339.
G.BARKER,1989,Animals,ritualandpowerinancientSamnium,inP.Meniel(ed.),Animaletpratiquesreligienses:
lesmanifestationsmaterielles,Paris,L'HommeetL'Animal(Anthropozoologica),TroisiemeNumeroSpeciale,pp.111
7.
L.H.BINFORD,1978,Nunamiutethnourchaeology,NewYork,AcademicPress.
P.BOGUCKI,1982,EarlyneolithicsubsistenceandsettlementinthePolishlowlandsOxford,BritishArchacological
reports,InternationalSeries150.
P.BOGUCKI,1988,Forestiarmersandstockherders,CambriUge,UniversityPress.
C.K.BRAIN,1967, Hottentotfoodremainsandtheirbearingontheinterpretationof fossilboneassemblages,
ScientificPapersoftheNamibDesertResearchInstitute,XXXII,pp.111.

C.K.BRAIN,1981, Thehuntersorthehunted.?AnintroductiontoAfricancavetaphonomy,Chicago,University
Press.
J.G.D.CLARK,1954,ExcavationsatStarCarr,Cambridge,UniversityPress.
J. G. D. CLARK, 1972, Star Carr: a case study in archaeology, Reading, Massachusetts, McCaleb Modole in
Anthropology10.
R.CRrss,1985,Theanalysisofancientherdingsystems,inG.BarkerandC.S.Gamble(eds.),Beyonddomesticationin
prehistoricEurope:investigationsinsubsistencearchacologyandsocialcomplexity,London,AcademicPress,pp.75
106.
S.DAVIS,1984,TheadventofmilkandwoolproductioninwesternIran:somespeculations,inJ.CluttonBrockandC.
Grigson (eds.), Animals and archaeology: 3. herders and theirflocks, Oxford, British Archacological Reports,
InternationalSeries202,pp.26578.
S.DAVIS,1986,Thearchaeologyofanimals,London,Batsford.
R.W.DENNELLandD.WEBLEY,1975, PrehistoricsettlementandlanduseinsouthernBulgaria,inE.S.Higgs
(ed.),Paleoeconomy,Cambridge,UniversityPress,pp.97109.
A.GRANT,1988,Animalresources,inG.AstillandA.Grant(eds.),ThecountrysideofmedievalEngland,Oxford,
Blackwells,pp.14987.
A.GRANT,1989,AnimalsinRomanBritain,inM.Todd(ed.),ResearchonRomanBritain,196089,London,Society
forthePromotionofRomanStudies,BritanniaMonographSeriesNo.11,pp.13546.
A.GRANT,inpress,Theanimalhusbandry(withC.RusheamdD.Serjeantson),inB.W.CULNIFFE,Danetury,an
ironagehillfortinHampshire,vol.5.Thefinds19781988,London,CouncilforBritishArchaeology.
C.GRIGSONandP.A.MELLARS,1988, Themammalianremains,inP.Mellars(eds.) ExcavationsatOronsay,
Edinburgh,UniversityPress,pp.24389.
E.S.HIGGS,1975(ed.),Paleoeconomy,Cambridge,UniversityPress.
E.S.HIGGSandC.VITAFINZI,1972,Prehistoriceconomies:aterritorialapproach,inE.S.Higgs(ed.),Papersin
EconomicPrehistory,Cambridge,UniversityPress,pp.2736.
M.A.JOCHIM,1976,Huntergatherersubsistenceandsettlement:apredictivemodelNewYork,AcademicPress.
A.KING,1978,AcomparativestudyofboneassemblagesfromRomansitesinBritain,BulletinoftheInstituteof
Archacology,London,XV,pp.20732.
A.KING,1984, AnimalbonesandthedietaryidentityofmilitaryandciviliangroupsinRomanBritain,inT.F.C.
BlaggandA.King(eds.),MilitaryandCivilianinRomanBritain,Oxford,BritishArchacologicalreports,International
Series,pp.187217.
A.KINGetal.,IrestianimaliinA.CARANDINI(ed.),Settefinestre.UnaVillaSchiavisticanell'EtruriaRomana.La
villaeisuoireperti,Modena,EdizioniPaninispa,pp.278305.
A. J. LEGGE, 1981, Aspects of cattle husbandry, in R. Mercer (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory,
Edinburgh,UniversityPress,pp.16981.
A.J.LEGGEandP.ROWLEYCONVY,1989,StarCarrRevisited,London,InstituteofArchaeology.
M.MALTBY,1979, FaunalstudiesonurbansitestheanimalbonesfromExeter,Sheffield, SheffieldUniversity
(DepartmentofArchacologyandPrehistory).
P.A.MELLARS,1978,ExcavationandeconomicanalysisofmesolithicstellmiddensontheislandofOronsay(Inner
Hebrides),inP.A.Mellars(ed.),TheearlypostglacialsettlementofnorthernEurope,London,Duckworth,pp.37196.
P.A.MELLARSandM.R.WILKINSON,1980,Fishotolittsasevidenceofseasonalityinprehistoricshellmiddens:
theevidencefromOronsay(InnerHebrides),ProccedingsofthePrehistoricSociety,XLVI,pp.1944.
S.PAYNE,1972, Partialrecoveryandsamplingbias:theresultsofsomesievingexperiments,inE.S.Higgs(ed.),
Papersineconomicprehistory,Cambridge,UniversityPress,pp.4964.
S.PAYNE,1973,Killoffpatternsinsteepandgouts:themandiblesfromAsvanKale,JournalofAnatolianStudies,
XXIII,pp.281303.
B.WILSON,C.GRIGSON,andS.PAYNE,1982,(eds.)Ageingandsexinganimalbonesfromarchaeologicalsites,
Oxford,BritishArchaeologicalReports,BritishSeries109.