Becoming a zooarchaeologist requires receiving training from experienced zooarchaeologists. Most of us teach hands-on courses on zooarchaeology, whether they are about quantification, comparative osteomorphology, or preparing samples for isotopic analyses, as well as theoretical courses on reconstructing social, ecological, economic, cultural-historic and evolutionary aspects of past human-animal relationships. Further highlights of our curricula may include ethical aspects of our science such as data sharing. Additionally, an increasingly important aspect of our practice is to communicate zooarchaeology with the wider society, which has resulted in creative responses from zooarchaeologists and mutual benefits. How do we teach future zooarchaeologists? How do we overcome the challenges we face when we teach zooarchaeology, for example when we lack good comparative collections? Zooarchaeology is changing rapidly –how are we preparing future zooarchaeologists to build the future of zooarchaeology with mutual benefits for the wider public and our community? What are the inventive tools which we explore to explain our methods, practice, and high school kids, policy makers, prospective zooarchaeologists, to explain what zooarchaeology is? How do we disseminate our message? This session is intended as a platform to share our experiences in teaching and outreach activities, where we hope to combine classic oral presentations with a round table discussion, and given there is interest, document sharing.
Angelos Hadjikoumis (a.hadjikoumis@sheffield.ac.uk), Pam Crabtree (pc4@nyu.edu), Umberto Albarella (u.albarella@sheffield.ac.uk), Canan Cakirlar (c.cakirlar@rug.nl),
Today, the world is under pressure from a rapidly increasing human population and the associated environmental impact of husbandry regimes, including not only the intensification of food production, but effects from urbanisation, globalisation, climate change, disease transmission and inter-cultural conflict. Modern intractable problems, as identified in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, have implications for human-animal-environmental health and well-being, and yet these are not exclusively modern phenomenon. There is growing awareness that (zoo)archaeological perspectives can not only contextualise present day problems, but also inform current policy and mitigation strategies. However, zooarchaeologists are only just beginning to contribute to this agenda, despite the field being uniquely placed with access to large quantities of human-animal-environment data that can be analysed using a variety of arts and science-based techniques to unpick and model long-term bio-cultural dynamics. This potential has not been realised because zooarchaeology has traditionally been a backward-looking discipline, concerned only with the past, with a fractured approach. For instance, research is generally compartmentalised by temporal/geographical focus and divided by methodology (e.g. traditional zooarchaeology and biomolecular analyses – genetics, proteomics, isotopes). But examples of increasingly multidisciplinary research have shown how deep-time data can be collated, considered, and presented in a way that can help address modern global challenges. This session calls for papers that demonstrate how by studying the diverse inter-relationships between humans, animals and the environment it is possible to both obtain a better appreciation of past societies and also to inform on the lives and habitats of those in the present.
Naomi Sykes (N.Sykes@Exeter.ac.uk), Alan Outram (a.k.outram@exeter.ac.uk), Carly Ameen (cameen7@gmail.com), Robin Bendrey (robin.bendrey@ed.ac.uk),
A workshop session, organized by Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Levent Atici, and Richard Meadow Zooarchaeology (Archaeozoology) is a data-heavy discipline, and because zooarchaeologists adhere to several recording "standards", zooarchaeology is often seen as a "low-hanging fruit" for research programs that center on data aggregation and integration. While these goals are laudable, we need to look more critically at how zooarchaeological data integration works in practice. Prior efforts serve to highlight stumbling blocks that include: data being in coded form, varying use of standards, differences in data organization, and isolation from key contextual data. In this workshop, we will discuss the challenges of data sharing and identify areas where the community can agree on feasible common practices that will facilitate data integration and reuse. The aim of the workshop is to draft best practice guidelines for data creation and use that are developed collaboratively with workshop attendees and with feedback from the broader ICAZ community. These guidelines can inform data creation, journal editorial policies and practices, peer review of zooarchaeological publications, and research seeking to reuse zooarchaeological data from previous analyses. We also discuss how such guidelines may be maintained and updated over time, such as through the creation of a digital data working group or standing committee.
Sarah Whitcher Kansa (sarahkansa@gmail.com), Levent Atici (levent.atici@unlv.edu), Richard H Meadow (meadow@fas.harvard.edu),
Western elemental philosophy, the understanding of the cosmos though the four elements (earth, fire, air and water), originated in ancient Greece. Humoral theory developed out of these ideas, linking the elements to the four bodily fluids (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm), and became the dominant Western ontology during the Greek, Roman, medieval and early modern periods. Humoral theory described an integrated world, explained the causes of events, and gave meaning to human experience, until its influence ended in the nineteenth century with the development of germ theory. Similar philosophies remain important today in many parts of the world and there have been growing calls for a return to the broad principles of this approach in contemporary society, such as the ‘One Health’ initiative. Despite the centrality of this way of thinking in the past, archaeological interpretations seldom interpret evidence within this ontological framework. Jones et al. (2016, 175) have recently called attention to this problem arguing that “these ancient cosmologies … might provide fairer representations of past cultures, through the readoption of ideas that they understood rather than through the imposition of more recent and thus anachronistic frames of analytical reference”. In this session we welcome contributions from anywhere in the world, and from any time period, which evaluate archaeological evidence through the lens of elemental philosophy and humoral theory. Potential topics to discuss in this session include: diet (of humans and animals); animals as medicine; animal health; the perception of animals; and, farming practices. Jones, R., Miller, H. and Sykes, N. 2016. Is it time for an elemental and humoral (re)turn in archaeology? Archaeological Dialogues 23 (2): 175-192.
Rachel Small (rs523@le.ac.uk), Richard Thomas (Rmt12@le.ac.uk),
This session will explore how the cultures of Oceania shaped economic behaviour, consumption patterns, and taste in the island environments of the Pacific. This inclusive session continues to encourage representation of Pacific archaeologists within the international community of zooarchaeologists.
Kelila Jaffe (kelila.jaffe@gmail.com), Pam Crabtree (pc4@nyu.edu),
Throughout the Holocene, the domestication of key animal taxa across the Eurasian continent transformed the nature of subsistence and the structure of human societies in the Old World. The continental interior of Central Asia played a key role in the subsequent spread and exchange of these animals between East and West, an early and influential stage in the process of globalization that has shaped our world as it is today. This session will explore the role of animal domestication in social developments across East and Central Asia during prehistory, along with the processes of biological exchange that moved people and animals across these critical regions during antiquity.
William Taylor (taylor@shh.mpg.de), Juan Wang (lunajuan1983@hotmail.com),
Several independent loci of origin of food productions emerged during the Holocene, two areas of Eurasia that happened to become the earliest centers of domestication: the Fertile Crescent and Yangzi and Yellow River Basins of China. Important crops and animals, such as rice, millet, soybean, pigs and probably dog were domesticated indigenously in early China, where claimed to be another independent center of agriculture. However, with the mass increase of the available faunal assemblages, zooarchaeological researches in East Asia especially in China had been experiencing a developing period since 1990’s. Diversity of subsistence and animal exploitation patterns can be shown by case studies mainly from Neolithic and Bronze Age sites, as well as many special ritual usage. East Asia is also the key area which connecting Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Austronesia. The possible movement and dispersal of human population during ancient times might also be traced by the changes or the presences of certain diet preference. This session aims to present the diversified life ways of the vast east: hunting gathering and fishing, agriculture and also nomadic herding, as well as animal use in ritual activities, and try to find out the possible internal or external causes that might impact these temporal and spacial differences, including environmental and cultural factors.
chong yu (yuchong3@mail.sysu.edu.cn),
The Baltic Sea connects the shores of nine present-day countries – all having a long and colorful history. Connections within this region are known to have existed since the first human settlement, forming economic, cultural and natural processes. In zooarchaeology these complex processes are reflected in the introduction and exploitation of different animals. Given the diversity in zooarchaeological research in the region, we invite scholars to consider similarities and differences in human-animal relationships around the Baltic. What role has the sea played in “connecting” and “separating” peoples? How has local climate affected the introduction of domestic species and exploitation of game? How has maritime trade influenced the long-distance circulation of animal products from the European mainland and even Asia? Osteological remains are our primary source in studying these questions. However, we encourage a broad multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical documents, iconography, ethnography as well as sophisticated laboratory analyses. A critical evaluation of parallels and expanding evidence by applying advanced techniques could answer concrete questions such as cold adaptation, the religious/ritual use of animals, and trends in Hanseatic trade.
Eve Rannamäe (eve.rannamae@york.ac.uk), Laszlo Bartosiewicz (bartwicz@yahoo.com),
From early work on the faunal assemblages of Troy (Gejvall 1939) to groundbreaking studies of animal domestication (e.g., Perkins 1969; Kuşatman 1991), methodological innovations (e.g., Payne 1972, 1973), insightful new analytical approaches (e.g., Perkins and Daly 1968), and multidisciplinary work incorporating archaeological sciences (e.g., Evershed et al. 2008; Richards et al. 2003), there is a long and rich history of archaeofaunal work in Turkey. Zooarchaeological research in Turkey has been pivotal to the development of ICAZ and the internationalization of the discipline. With its deep cultural sequence spanning about at least the last 500,000 years and rich and varied archaeological record, Turkey has offered unique opportunities for innovative zooarchaeological research on some of the central topics in zooarchaeology including Pleistocene hunter-gatherer adaptations, origins and spread of domestic animals, and food provisioning in complex societies. Consequently, many of the founding members of our scholarly community (e.g., Joachim Boessneck, Sandor Bökönyi, Angela von den Driesch, Richard Meadow, Sebastian Payne, Dexter Perkins, Charles Reed, and Hans-Peter Uerpmann) have made seminal contributions based on material from Anatolia. Despite close to a century of zooarchaeological research on faunal materials from Turkey, there has never been an ICAZ session focusing on the influential and growing body of scholarship taking place in this special region at the crossroads of the Old World. The aim of this session is to celebrate zooarchaeology in Turkey at the occasion of the ICAZ meeting being held in Ankara, bringing together zooarchaeologists of all generations, creating a platform to discuss the achievements, recent developments, and the future of zooarchaeology in Turkey. As such, the session represents a first step toward compiling the scattered and fragmented zooarchaeological data to develop a diachronic picture of human-animal interaction in Turkey. We invite papers addressing all aspects of zooarchaeology in Turkey, with a preference for thematic papers. Works Cited: Evershed, R. P., et al. (2008). Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding. Nature 455: 528-531. Gejvall, N.-G. (1939). The fauna of the successive settlements of Troy. Second preliminary report. Årsberättelse. Kungliga Humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet i Lund: 1-7. Kuşatman, B. (1992). The origins of pig domestication with particular reference to the Near East. University College London, London. Payne, S. (1972). Partial recovery and sample bias: The results of some sieving experiments. In Higgs, E. (ed.), Papers in economic prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 49-64. Payne, S. (1973). Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan-kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281-303. Perkins, D. (1969). Fauna of Çatal Hüyük: Evidence for cattle domestication in Anatolia. Science 164: 177-179. Perkins, D. P., and Daly, P. (1968). A hunters' village in Neolithic turkey. Scientific American 219: 96-106. Richards, M. P., et al. (2003). Stable isotope evidence of diet at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 67-76.
Benjamin Arbuckle (bsarbu@email.unc.edu), Canan Cakirlar (c.cakirlar@rug.nl), Levent Atici (levent.atici@unlv.edu),
Zooarchaeological studies were not equally well represented in all regions and within particular archaeological traditions. In the South-East Europe, zooarchaeology was long neglected throughout the 20th century, with few notable exceptions. However, especially in past two decades, this situation changed considerably. New advances in archaeological method and theory brought in the increased interest in zooarchaeology; new courses are introduced in faculty programmes and young scholars started their academic career. Within past two decades, beside systematic excavations of different scale, also numerous large-scale rescue excavations were carried out, providing large amounts of archaeological material, which in turn produced new data and new, interesting results, Furthermore, several multi- and interdisciplinary scientific archaeological projects were conducted, both within national boundaries and international ones. The aim of this session is to present the results of the recent studies and diverse syntheses, and to offer a new framework for better understanding of the exploitation of animal resources in different periods of prehistory. Geographically, we would like to include the South-East Europe and adjacent areas. Thematically, we would like to invite all types of studies, from more traditional studies, focused on taxonomy and taphonomy, to multi- and interdisciplinary scientific analyses, specific case studies or general syntheses, as well as papers focused on methodological and theoretical problems. The intention of session organizers is to publish the papers, in an edited volume or as a special issue in a peer-reviewed journal.
Selena Vitezovic (s.vitezovic@ai.ac.rs), Sinisa Radovic (sinisa.radovic@gmail.com),
Since the publication of the first papers dedicated to molluscs in the early 1970s, archaeomalacology has raised the interest of an increased number of specialists, archaeologists, and historians. The objective of this proposed session at the ICAZ conference in Ankara is to bring together researchers studying shells of molluscs, but also crustaceans and echinoderms, and to facilitate discussions. This session should be very inclusive, to highlight the diversity of methods and approaches within the time periods, from Pleistocene to modern times, and in very diverse socio-cultural contexts. We would also welcome papers from both marine and non-marine environments. This session should therefore focus on a broad range of topics: discussing for example the specificities of littoral settlements and exchange networks, the changes in customs and cultures (diet, ornaments...), the impacts of human activities and/or their adaptations to the environment. We would like to address in particular the following research topics: archaeomalacology of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, as this area is a geographical focus of this ICAZ conference, and the uses of shells in architecture (as ornamentation or construction material). We would strongly encourage papers dealing with regional, inter-regional, methodological, environmental, and anthropological problems, bringing in multiple proxy-data rather than discussions restricted to one specific site or merely descriptive presentations. Please find below a first list of authors ready to submit a paper for this archaeomalacology session: M. ALLEN: New research in the Wessex chalklands: where’s all the woodland gone? D. E. BAR-YOSEF, B. GÜMÜS: The environment of Çatalhöyük based on the freshwater malacofauna A. BORVON: Discorvery of prawns rostrums at the roman port of Ratiatum (Loire-Atlantique, France) T. BRANSCOMBE: Integrating Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Methods in Archaeomalacological Analysis: Mollusc Diet and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Croatia V. DIMITRIJEVIC: A string of marine shell beads from the Neolithic site of Vršnik (Ovce polje, FYR Macedonia) F. HOOK: Shellfish exploitation and maritime adaptations of Australian Aboriginal people during the late Pleistocene, Carnarvon Bioregion, Western Australia L. LE GOFF: The use of shells in medieval construction on the French Atlantic coast C. MOUGNE ET AL.: Exploitation and use of marine animal resources in Saintes (Aquitaine, France), from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AC H. SCHECHTER: Shell beads in Neolithic burial contexts – the curious case of Kfar Hahoresh M. STINER: Ornemental uses and social signalling with marine shells R. VEROPOULIDOU: Archaeomalacology at Çatalhöyük
Laura Le Goff (laura.legoff.malaco@gmail.com),
This half-day session, hosted by the Microvertebrate Working Group (MVWG), is designed to highlight the important contribution of microvertebrate records to our understanding of Quaternary paleoecology. The long history of paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic research utilizing small mammal, reptile, and amphibian material recovered from Pleistocene-Holocene archaeological sites attests to the usefulness of these records in furthering our understanding of past human environments. Many characteristics of microvertebrate assemblages have been identified which facilitate the construction of precise and fine-scaled paleoenvironmental reconstructions, including the ubiquity of the material in cave sites, the small home ranges, affinity with certain microhabitats, and diversity of the taxa recovered, and the ecological input of the accumulating predator. Podium presentations detailing recent or on-going paleoecological studies from any geographic region are welcome, and those utilizing new or cutting-edge methodological techniques are encouraged. Poster contributions may be considered if interest exceeds the number of podium spots. Although this session is hosted by the MVWG, participation by both MVWG members and interested non-members is encouraged.
Angel Blanco-Lapaz (angel.blanco-lapaz@uni-tuebingen.de), Sara Rhodes (sara.rhodes@uni-tuebingen.de),
Zooarchaeological studies using both macro- and microvertebrate remains often strive to answer similar research questions using similar, if not the same, analytical methods. This half-day session will highlight both the similarities and differences between these approaches through the presentation of recent or on-going research utilizing methods applicable to large mammal, bird, fish, amphibian, reptile and rodent archaeological material. Additionally, talks focused on the ways in which studies of one particular scale of faunal material (macro- or microvertebrate) inform our interpretations of patterns in other faunal material records will also be considered. Research questions which bridge these two material scales include (but are not limited to) those addressing the pathways of commensalism and domestication, studies of paleoclimate and paleoecology, biogeographic reconstructions, and investigations into various site formation processes active at archaeological sites. Analytical methods which are utilized to address these research questions using both large and small faunal include (but are not limited to) nuclear and mitochondrial DNA studies, stable isotopic analysis, quantitative climatic reconstruction methods (i.e. the bioclimatic, co-existence, and Eco-geographic range methods), predictive computer modeling, and taphonomic studies. The goal of this session is to identify existing ways in which both macro- and microfaunal studies inform each other and identify new analytical pathways to collaboration between these two scales of zooarchaeological investigation. This session is hosted by the Microvertebrate Working Group (MVWG) and participation by both existing MVWG members and interested non-members, as either podium or poster presentations, is encouraged.
Sara Rhodes (sara.rhodes@uni-tuebingen.de), Angel Blanco-Lapaz (angel.blanco-lapaz@uni-tuebingen.de),
The animals that live amongst us, often unnoticed, have had some of the greatest impacts on human societies, and can provide a rich source of data on human ecology, living conditions, and even economy. Despite this, research within the discipline of zooarchaeology has focused primarily on domestic and hunted species, with relatively little research into the potential for these commensal animals to contribute to our understanding of past human social development and historical dynamics (e.g. communications, migration, urbanisation). A wide range of taxa have colonised anthropogenic niches in and around human settlements, in some cases resulting in populations dependent upon their association with humans. A striking example of this widespread process has been the spread of commensal species far beyond their original wild ranges as a direct result of their association with humans. This anthrodependency presents a range of opportunities for using the animals in question to track important developments in the human communities and settlement systems upon which these species depended. Rodents—particularly rats and mice—are currently the most commonly discussed commensals in this context, though various other species including insectivores, small carnivores, birds, and even insects also fit into this developing conceptual and analytical framework, in different times and places. This session showcases research in which evidence related to commensal animals—broadly defined—serves as a proxy for (pre)historical processes: from sedentism and food storage, through living conditions and urbanism, to migration and trade contacts. We welcome papers that address these issues in different periods and world regions, using any relevant taxa.
David Orton (david.orton@york.ac.uk), Alexandra Jamieson (alexandra.jamieson@st-annes.ox.ac.uk), Lior Weissbrod (lweissbr@research.haifa.ac.il), Ardern Hulme-Beaman (ardernhb@gmail.com), Thomas Cucchi (cucchi@mnhn.fr),
Animal health and well-being are essential concerns for people caring for domesticated animals, but they are also signals of human health and well-being. Zooarchaeologists have long recorded individual pathologies from skeletal remains. This lesional approach is however often limited by the difficulty of diagnosing non-specific lesions, and by the limited scope of results obtained on individual specimens. In this symposium, we aim to address issues of animal health on a populational scale, and attempt to integrate the paleopathological data with other factors of animal lives discerned from archaeological and zooarchaeological data. Patterns of stress and injury observed in large assemblages may indeed reveal important information about an entire animal population and the relationship of animals to human activities and conditions. Epidemiological investigations on large faunal samples can allow the diagnosis of otherwise unrecognizable conditions. Concerns for animal health can also be detected in tooth wear, in isotopic data for feeding and herd movement, in evidence for corrals, pens, and other protective structures, in herd demography, in the locations of settlements and water control features on the landscape, and in the ways diseased animal carcasses were disposed of. The integration of data from all these lines of evidence, and many more, can thus offer us a broader perspective on the topic of animal health in archaeology.
Katherine Moore (kmmoore@sas.upenn.edu), Annelise Binois (annelise.binois@mae.u-paris10.fr),
Humans have an ancient relationship with cattle. The aurochs (Bos primigenius) was regularly hunted by prehistoric societies, and the domesticated form (Bos taurus), along with sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus) and pig (Sus domesticus), has been one of the most important livestock species for the last 10,000 years. Zooarchaeological studies allow us to determine how important cattle were in the diet and economy of human populations and when and where cattle were domesticated and improved, and this is just the tip of the iceberg… Scientific innovations have led to the adoption of powerful research tools, for example, stable isotopes have enabled us to investigate animal diets and geographical origins, and ancient DNA allows to trace domestication events and to depict phenotypic traits of past animals. Additionally, historical texts and representations of cattle in art and literature can enhance zooarchaeological interpretations of cattle-human interactions. This session aims to bring together zooarchaeologists and their collaborators in other scientific fields investigating our relationship with cattle from prehistory to modern times. We welcome interdisciplinary contributions which combine zooarchaeological information with further scientific, ethnographic, philosophical or archival studies. Potential themes for inclusion are: • Early human cattle interactions: ancient depictions and hunting economies • Cattle domestication: new perspectives • Stock improvement and selective cattle breeding: where, how and why? • Cattle mobility and human migration • Cattle, the state and the individual: how have states and their ideologies shaped cattle husbandry and how can we study this archaeologically? • Cattle in religion, ritual, literature and art • Cattle biodiversity: the past, the present and the debate around resurrecting the aurochs
Lizzie Wright (e.wright@sheffield.ac.uk), Catarina Ginja (catarinaginja@cibio.up.pt),
Archaeological sciences and especially zooarchaeology have demonstrated their relevance to address the impact of humans on past aquatic and terrestrial faunas. This impact leads to the modification of faunal communities which is driven by a wide diversity of phenomena like introduction or extinction/extirpation of species, and erosion of the genetic or morphological diversity of taxa. The archaeological record is crucial to understand the slow mechanisms leading to the alteration of faunas as well as the environmental impact of past human populations in the light of the archaeological record. This kind of research is of special interest in the context of the current sixth mass extinction crisis, and is a good opportunity to generate exchange between zooarchaeology and other scientific fields like ecology and evolution sciences. This session seeks to discuss methodological questions and to present study case concerning every aspect of human impact on past wild fauna. Communicants working on all taxa and regions of interest for these questions are welcome in order to generate fruitful discussions about global trends observed in the archaeological record as well as current and future evolution of this field of research. Transdisciplinary approaches are especially welcome. Studies of modern faunas that can be used as model for the study of past assemblages are also relevant.
Corentin BOCHATON (corenboch@gmail.com), Tresset Anne (anne.tresset@mnhn.fr), Arnaud LENOBLE (arnaud.lenoble@u-bordeaux.fr),
Mobile pastoralism, including nomadic, semi-nomadic and transhumance practises, is as much an ancient application as a modern practise which may contain the answer to many problems created by industrialised animal raising. The movement of large number of animals and people through the landscape is shaped by environmental, economic and social factors. In turn, it inputs to all these three in numerous ways. It was thought that markets with high demand in specialised pastoral products was a precondition for the operation of such systems, nevertheless contemporary research indicates that this may not be so and the mobile pastoralism in some form might have been much more ancient. This session invites papers that will contribute to understanding the beginnings, the history, the structure and adaptation of the system at various natural/social environments and finally its relationship with the organised state and the opportunities/constrains/consequences involved. With animal husbandry sharply at focus, studies through traditional and new zooarchaeological techniques as well as any other disciplines that can contribute to the question ,such as archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, biology, (archaeo)botany, history and the study of ancient documents, economy or any other, are welcomed. Most interesting will be the combination of different disciplines’ data to the same question.
Evangelia Pişkin (ioannido@metu.edu.tr),
The purpose of this session is to present broad scale analyses that involve the relationship between different types of human societies and animals. Long-term perspectives are useful to assess cases of change, such as domestication processes, demographic changes in certain taxa, selective processes by humans, extinctions of taxa due to climatic causes or over exploitation. Likewise, there may be long-term stability in the use of some animal populations, allowing discussing whether this is due to the resilience of the habitats or the adaptive management of the species. It is our intention that reviewing cases of different regions, temporalities, which involve several species, related to different procurement strategies (hunting, herding, management) allows to draw conclusions about the diversity in the human-animal relationship that could be useful to address the current problems between society and nature.
Hugo Yacobaccio (hdyacobaccio@gmail.com), Isabel Cartajena Cartajena (isabel.cartajena@gmail.com),
This session explores the role of animals, and the decisions made by their keepers, in past food systems. Individual agents sometimes acted in opposition to maximum returns. This creates questions regarding the factors that influenced and regulated decision making. Cuisines are, in part, the accumulation of these decisions, and the formation thereof goes beyond economy and environment.
Kelila Jaffe (kelila.jaffe@gmail.com),
This session aims to highlight the important role of zooarchaeology in assessing the presence of dietary taboos in faunal assemblages, and interpreting their socio-cultural, religious, and economic significance. The session is open to all zooarchaeological studies dealing with dietary taboos in different geographical areas and periods, from prehistory to contemporary times. In archaeology, the characterisation of the socio-cultural background of past communities is often based on the study of buildings, funerary practices, and material culture. Despite the considerable amount of animal bones and teeth recovered from archaeological sites, this valuable material is less often used to determine identities in past societies. Nevertheless, animal remains are often associated with food consumption, an important cultural identifier. When humans recurrently eat a specific food, this becomes part of their cultural roots, whatever the origin of such consumption practices. Equally, the prohibition of some food products can be associated with specific cultural backgrounds. In the literature, the avoidance of eating certain foods (beef, pork, fish, etc.) is commonly defined as ‘food taboo’. This definition, however, does not only refer to the avoidance of consuming specific animal species, but also to the rules on how animal products were processed. Indeed, in some cultures (e.g. Jewish or Muslim) there are also well-defined butchery rules that make certain animals, or parts of thereof, allowed and others prohibited for consumption. This set of butchery practices may leave visible traces on the bones, thus allowing the identification of specific cultural practices. For all these reasons, the zooarchaeological study of animal remains has great potentials in detecting the presence of dietary taboos and in highlighting their wide implications within past communities. This session particularly welcomes papers presenting zooarchaeological case-studies, regional syntheses, and methodological approaches to the study of food taboos and/or particular butchery patterns linked to specific cultural practices.
Veronica Aniceti (vaniceti1@sheffield.ac.uk), Idoia Grau Sologestoa (i.grau-sologestoa@sheffield.ac.uk), Mikolaj Lisowski (mikolaj.lisowski@gmail.com), Marcos Garcia (marcosgarcia@ugr.es), Silvia Valenzuela (silviavalenzuelalamas@gmail.com),
This session is intended as a necessary, focused follow up to raw material sessions from the Paris (2010) and Mendoza (2014) general meetings of ICAZ. Ornament studies have only recently moved beyond the decorative aesthetic towards an understanding of how ornaments and their display are part of the complex way human beings communicate beliefs, social status and various identities both within their local group and the outside world. Ornaments can be worn directly by people or used to decorate animals, buildings, and settlements and even the surroundings of settlements. By raw materials we generally refer to various kinds of hard osseous materials such as bone, antler, tooth, ivories and eggshells. However, there were certainly other products from animals that were used for ornamentation that come from animals such as bone powder for coloring other objects, hides, sinew carving and sinew braiding. While these latter objects are rarely found because of preservation issues any examples would be welcomed. Sometimes the choice of raw material is connected to the size, density and consistency. Raw materials from animals can also be alternatives to more popular or typical raw materials. Other raw materials get their value from their exotic nature and rarity. Certain raw materials are chosen specifically because shared beliefs exist about the species and/or skeletal element they are manufactured from. Ornaments from carefully chosen raw materials can be connected to ritual, medicinal or apotropaic qualities. Finally, choice of individual raw materials can be influenced by multiple factors which change in importance within groups over time and place. We therefore invite papers on: 1. Descriptions and analysis of raw materials used for ornaments in site assemblages 2. Interpretations of raw material use in certain ornament types 3. General discussions of raw material choice in ornamentation 4. Interpretations of hard osseous materials used as ornaments and/or amulets in ritual and medicine. Bibliography: I have written a lot about this issue in most of my articles but it has rarely been at the center of the writing. I can suggest this recent volume Not Just for Show: The archaeology of beads, beadwork and personal ornaments. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Clive Bonsall and Alice M. Choyke (eds.), Oxbow books, 2017.
Alice Mathea Choyke (choyke@ceu.edu), Douglas Campana (Doug_V_C@comcast.net), Pam Crabtree (PamCDougC@comcast.net),
In the last years the study of dental remains from archaeological sites has been improved significantly with high-resolution techniques bringing new insights to understand past societies. This potential is related to the application of new methods or improvement of existing methods that provide high resolution data about the life history of both human and animal populations. These include a better understanding of individual demographic parameters (ages, sex), individual dietary patterns, territorial mobility, animal husbandry techniques or hunting strategies They contribute to provide a better knowledge of human palaeoecology, subsistence and social behavior. The objective of this session is to bring together presentations and discussions on the last advances on the analyzing dental evidences in the archaeological record. Themes are related to palaeoecology and zooarchaeology. Possible topics include but are not limited to stable isotopes, trace-element analysis, cementum analysis, tooth wear or enamel and dentin microstructure. In this session preference will be given to those presentations combining different methodologies and disciplines applied to mammals and with clear archaeological implications.
Florent Rivals (florent.rivals@gmail.com), Carlos Tornero (ctornero@iphes.cat),
The ageing and sexing of animal remains in zooarchaeological research is imperative for understanding the role of animals in subsistence strategies for past populations. Determining the age and sex of animals is significant because these data allow us to realize the biological and cultural life stages of animal groups. These life stages could have placed affordances and constraints on human populations in relation to practices of birthing, rearing, butchering and deposition of animals in special contexts. Recent research in zooarchaeology has more effectively addressed how the age and sex of animals can shed light on secular and ritual practices. The objective of this session is for participants to consider the social role of animal age and sex both for individual animals and for herd profiles to better understand how the involvement of animals in different practices was important for economic capital and religious veneration. Eduardo Kohn (2007) has discussed how the ‘anthropology of life’ can be a powerful tool when interpreting patterns among material records. We hope that by considering life histories of animals and animal groups we can make more substantial interpretations for past practice involving animals. We hope that participants working on already existing ageing and sexing methods can contribute. Also, those researchers that are developing new ways of determining or addressing age and sex among animals groups are encouraged to participate in this session.
Aleksa Alaica (aleksa.k.alaica@gmail.com), Deborah Ruscillo (druscill@wustl.edu),
Teeth are a fundamental archive of useful information for archaeozoological, anthropological and taphonomic research. They help in the reconstruction of the paleoenvironment, palaeoeconomy, and culture from prehistoric to modern times. They are organs of the oral cavity responsible for the primary function of chewing and preparing food for digestion and represent an indispensable tool for identifing species and for estimating sex, age and season at death. In some cases, they may indicate illness and disease. Finally, in all periods of human history, the teeth, preferably of carnivores, but also of other animals have been choosen for their shape, colour, brilliance and resistance. They were extracted from the dental arcade to make tools and ornaments. They were used for personal adornment, with a symbolic meaning or as elements of prestige or, in some cases were worn to intimidate the enemy (eg, ornaments for the mouth). This session aims to bring together specialists who deal with these themes to analyze all the information that may be derived from the teeth. The themes include taxonomic determination, wear, paleopathology, mastication marks, use as raw material, as a tool or meta-tool (spinning, handle) and as ornaments from Prehistoric times to the present day. This session will also deal with ethnographic comparisons, highlighting new approaches, methods and innovative diagnostic techniques for specific identification and age, analysis of gnawing marks (human, carnivores, rodents and ungulates), the techniques of extraction, processing and use of the teeth.
Ursula Thun Hohenstein (ursula.thun@unife.it), Marco Bertolini (marco.bertolini@unife.it), Matteo Romandini (matteo.romandini@unibo.it), Ivana Fiore (iva_fiore@yahoo.it),
Taphonomic studies are traditionally focused on the identification of anthropic or non-anthropic faunal accumulations in archaeological sites. Most of these analyses address hominin and early AMH abilities to acquire and exploit large vertebrates. However, new excavation techniques and methodologies on Palaeolithic sites resulted in the recovery of small vertebrates, such as lagomorphs, tortoises, birds or aquatic resources (i.e. turtles, fish and marine mammals). The inclusion of such taxa in the archaeological record can be accidental or linked to hominin or other predators’ activity. Likewise, in geographic areas, where larger vertebrates do not occur before the introduction of domestic species, smaller size animals could have been part of the main nutritional resources available for hominin consumption. This session tackles the role played by small vertebrates within hominin subsistence practices through taphonomic analysis. It welcomes contributions addressing the study of lagomorphs, tortoises, birds and aquatic vertebrate remains in order to identify the most effective taphonomic indicators for the separation of the different possible agents of bone accumulation within the archaeological record. Communications on neo-taphonomic experiments comparing and contrasting taphonomic issues on large and small vertebrates are also encouraged.
Sofia Samper Carro (sofia.samper@anu.edu.au), Mariana Nabais (mariananabais@gmail.com),
From an archaeological point of view, the abandonment of remains allows past human activities and occupations to be reconstructed. In the case of faunal studies, once the nutritional value is exploited, bones are thrown, generating a set of accumulations that, together with other processes, leads to a deposit formation. One of the main problems is that palimpsests are formed by multiple human occupations and disrupting processes that occur over time. The first bone refit studies, which examined on European Middle Palaeolithic palimpsests, were carried out in the 1970s in order to answer questions concerning the diversity of Neanderthal behaviour, including site function, seasonality and domestic areas. Currently, works about specific sites are mainly focused on the reconstruction of human subsistence strategies and how hominins interacted with the natural environment. Bone artifact refitting is a valuable aspect of archaeological research that can inform researchers on a variety of issues, such as prehistoric technology, site taphonomy, assemblage patterning and function. This technique offers a means of analysing sites with complicated occupational histories and is particularly useful in interpreting bone scattering on the surface. Refitting is also an intensive and time-consuming labour, especially for inexperienced refitting analysts, making it logistically challenging if many research projects are being conducted simultaneously. In this session, hominin occupation patterns and space use in caves, shelters and open-air sites will be explored, as well as site formation processes, by means of bone refitting and correlated spatial analyses. The scope of this session will not be restricted to Palaeolithic sites but will examine all chronological periods. Not only analyses focused on (a) specific site(s) or level(s), but also interdisciplinary contributions are invited. This session will bring researchers together from different generations and research traditions to review the most important developments and impasses in bone refitting studies. The aim is to debate the current research situation to learn about the efficiency of this methodology and inspire participants to make creative proposals on how to tackle and conceptualise bone refits.
Marta Modolo (marta.modolo@gmail.com), Ruth Blasco (rblascolopez@gmail.com), Jordi Rosell (jordi.rosellardevol@gmail.com),
Recent zooarchaeological advancements highlight the need for greater integration of stratigraphic and contextual data with zooarchaeological and taphonomic data to explain intra-site variability. The Contextual Taphonomy approach combines these data to clarify the 'life history' of a faunal sub-assemblage in a given context. Animal remains record multiple chapters in the life histories of assemblages, from species selection and use, to deposition, and finally, post-discard stages. Most importantly, reconstructing depositional histories has great potential to illuminate variability among site features as archaeofaunal remains are normally ubiquitous and are excellent indicators of site-formation processes, refuse behavior and activities, and by extension, site type and occupation intensity. Additionally, establishing the “normal” depositional signature for one or more sites improves the identification of deposits that deviate from the norm—for example, ritual caches and feast remains. While becoming more common, intra-site depositional studies are still not widespread in zooarchaeology. This approach was extremely useful in our own research of the Near Eastern Epipaleolithic-Neolithic transition, as intra-site faunal patterns signaled refuse behavior, site organization, site-occupation intensity and site type (e.g., refs 1–3). In this session, we aim to bring together researchers who employ intra-site faunal analyses to discuss ideas and practical experiences, and encourage proposals of new frames of reference that may extend sub-assemblage life histories or aid their comparison across sites. We invite paper submissions from zooarchaeology and related fields and welcome theoretical contributions and case studies from all places and periods. References Cited 1) Yeshurun R., Bar-Oz G., Kaufman D., Weinstein-Evron M. 2014. Purpose, permanence and perception of 14,000-year-old architecture: Contextual taphonomy of food refuse. Current Anthropology 55: 591-618. 2) Yeshurun R., Bar-Oz G., Nadel D. 2013. The social role of food in the Natufian cemetery of Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32: 511–526. 3) Meier J.S., Goring-Morris A.N., Munro N.D. 2017. Depositional histories of faunal remains from the Neolithic cultic site of Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 233-249.
Reuven Yeshurun (ryeshuru@research.haifa.ac.il), Jacqueline Meier (jacquelinemeier@trentu.ca),
Decades after its adoption from palaeontology, taphonomy is becoming a sine qua non in zooarchaeological studies. At the same time, interaction between the life sciences, digital humanities, geoarchaeology and zooarchaeology has led to the design of interdisciplinary researches in archaeological science. These interactions have provided new tools to address traditional zooarchaeological questions, but they have also created new problematics and questions, resulting in a further development of the discipline and the incorporation of more scientific and lab-based techniques in the study of zooarchaeological assemblages. Additionally, in our current digital society, where many researchers are inter-institutional and sharing our investigations with the general public is essential, the development of new techniques to disseminate our results provide an important launching platform for future researches. This session focuses on recent scientific advances in general analysis of faunal assemblages and specific taphonomic questions. From isotopic studies, dating techniques, genetics, geochemistry or histological analysis to the development of new techniques to observe and study zooarchaeological material, bone cortical modifications or breakage patterns, we welcome contributions showing the interaction between different techniques traditionally applied on physics, biology or geology with zooarchaeological research questions. Likewise, we encourage contributions regarding the dissemination of research, such as the creation of open access databases, virtual or digital libraries, catalogues and reconstructions, and inter-institutional collaborations, all of which increase the visibility of our discipline.
Sofia Samper Carro (sofia.samper@anu.edu.au),
The study of architectural remains likesimple huts or more elaborate units such as urban dwellings, castles or religious contexts, represents a major topic in archaeological research. From an archaeozoological perspective, buildings often provide favourable taphonomic conditions for the preservation of biological remains – both through physical and chemical properties. Especially in hollow features like cellars or substructions, important assemblages of animal bones may accumulate. Pathways by which animal remains enter built environments are manifold. Obviously, these can be related to the primary function of buildings and to the activities of former inhabitants. This notion is frequently encountered in studies of household activities and of spatial (horizontal) variation in general. Then it may correspond with the excavators‘expectations in archaeological science, namely to contribute or to confirm the interpretation of building function. However, at least as animal remains are concerned assemblages from buildings apparently are often linked to processes other than primary use. They may have been brought in by soil movements during earthworks and foundation works, in the course of reconstructions, or as waste disposed after the abandonment. Although it seems counter-intuitive, these „secondary“ or „unintentional“ fills often largely prevail. This session encourages papers, which discuss composition and formation processes of animal bone assemblages in relation to the life-cyle of buildings, to the internal stratigraphy and to the results provided by building research and other groups of archaeological finds. Especially welcome are experiences of animal remains contributing to, or being at odds with, suggested interpretations of built spaces.
Alfred Galik (alfred.galik@oeai.at), Günther Karl Kunst (guenther.karl.kunst@univie.ac.at),
Arid and semi-arid environments impose harsh and variable conditions on human and animal populations around the world. These environments often comprise seasonal and long-term climate changes that constrain human subsistence and mobility strategies. Animal exploitation strategies have been particularly affected by these constraints, which encouraged the development of specific practices in the past, such as mass killings of wild animal populations and nomadic herding of domesticated animals, among others. The objective of this session is to offer an occasion to discuss how stable isotope analysis carried out on archaeofaunal materials can provide new perspectives on the study of animal exploitation strategies in arid and semi-arid environments. In this sense, we aim to discuss phenomena such as the location of hunting areas, mass killings of ungulate populations, nomadic and transhumant pastoralism, seasonal foddering within herding strategies, long-distance trade of animal products, caravan trade, species biogeography and conservation biology, and climate and environmental change. These problems are currently being addressed through the analysis of different animal tissues such as bones, teeth, and fiber all over the world. We consider that arid and semi-arid environments provide a promising scenario to explore these and other problems through stable isotope analysis because of their seasonal and spatial variability and precipitation gradients. Hopefully, this session will encourage theoretical and methodological discussions between zooarchaeologists interested in the study of human subsistence and animal exploitation strategies in arid regions through the use of stable isotope analysis.
Celeste Samec (celestesamec@gmail.com), Augusto Tessone (gutitessone@gmail.com),
Our discipline is experiencing an outstanding radiation of analytical techniques beyond the conventional study of bones. Biomolecular and physico-chemical analyses have been used on archaeological remains since the ‘80s but it is in the last two decades when they have been really incorporated to answer archaeozoological-based questions. A wide range of isotopic analyses applied to both animal and human remains have provided new insights about diet, food webs, environment or seasonality; animal fats recovered in pottery are making possible to better understand material culture functionality in relation with diet and a growing attention is devoted to retrieve ancient molecules from sediments, coprolithes or dental calculus contributing to enlarge the corpus of data about environment, pastoralism and diet. The aim of this session is to bring together those analyses beyond the bones and how they are contributing to our understanding of human and animal past populations, culture and environment, within the scope traditionally encompassed by archaeozoology. The session will discuss how these techniques are being incorporated into our discipline, what future prospects they are going to make possible, what concerns are being arisen with their increasingly implementation, and good practices to face those negative aspects. From the widespread use of isotopes in dietary and environmental modelling to organic residue analyses or environmental DNA, any molecular and physico-chemical contributions are welcome to address how archaeozoological research embraces this new range of analytical techniques.
Aurelie Manin (aurelie.manin@york.ac.uk), Laura Llorente-Rodríguez (lallarual@gmail.com),
Several methods have been used in the study of faunal remains from archaeological areas, from the observation of macroscopic diagnostical structures (modern reference collections for comparison with magnifying glass/stereomicroscope, digital microscope), as well as the use of microstructural and molecular investigations (DNA, stable isotopes, microstructural characterization) and their impact on the technical training of human resources for zooarchaeological research. This session aims to promote a broad discussion about the evolution and the use of the various methodologies and techniques employed in animal vestiges analyses at present, which serve as important tools to the knowledge of the various relations between humans and fauna during the time, by the presentation of several case studies.
Alberico Nogueira de Queiroz (anqueiroz@hotmail.com), Rosa Cristina Corrêa Luz de Souza (rcclsouza@yahoo.com.br), Olivia Alexandre de Carvalho (ocarvalho99@hotmail.com),
This is an open session accepting papers/posters on any subject related to archaeozoology without any topic, period or geographical limit. If you would like to present at ICAZ 2018 but if, after reviewing the above detailed sessions, you find that your topic does not fit to any of them, please submit here.
ICAZ 2018 Ankara General Session (submissions@icaz2018ankara.com), Angelos Hadjikoumis (a.hadjikoumis@sheffield.ac.uk), Arkadiusz Marciniak Marciniak (arekmar@amu.edu.pl), Laszlo Bartosiewicz (bartwicz@yahoo.com), Daniella Bar-Yosef (baryosef@tauex.tau.ac.il), Canan Cakirlar (c.cakirlar@rug.nl), Deniz Burcu Erciyas (berciyas@metu.edu.tr), Mehmet Özdoğan (c.mozdo@gmail.com), Can GÜNDEM (canyumni@hotmail.com), Alice Mathea Choyke (choyke@ceu.edu), Christine Lefèvre (christine.lefevre@mnhn.fr), Gülçin İlgezdi Bertram (gilgezdi@yahoo.com), Hugo Yacobaccio (hdyacobaccio@gmail.com), Hitomi Hongo (hongouhm@soken.ac.jp), karali-Giannakopoulou Ioulia (Lilian ) (ikarali@arch.uoa.gr), Luis Alberto Borrero (laborrero2003@yahoo.com), Levent Atici (levent.atici@unlv.edu), Luminita Bejenaru (lumib@uaic.ro), Lutgarde Vandeput (lvandeput@biaatr.org), Mashkour Marjan (mashkour@mnhn.fr), Richard H Meadow (meadow@fas.harvard.edu), Mihriban Özbaşaran (ozbasaranmihriban@gmail.com), Rémi Berthon (remi.berthon@mnhn.fr), Sebastián Muñoz (smunoz@conicet.gov.ar), inci togan (togan@metu.edu.tr), Umberto Albarella (u.albarella@sheffield.ac.uk), Yılmaz Selim Erdal (yserdal@gmail.com), Salima Ikram (salimaikram@gmail.com),
Sessions will have the format of paper presentations (20 min max.) and may also include poster presentations. “Poster only” sessions and round tables may also be proposed.
Conference sessions will be announced after evaulation of session proposals.
Please write us about your questions about submission proposals submissions@icaz2018ankara.com
009 0312 2107267 http://www.icaz2018ankara.com For general inquires general@icaz2018ankara.com For submission proposals submissions@icaz2018ankara.com For accommodation at METU metuaccommodation@icaz2018ankara.com For accommodation outside of METU and trips hotelandtrip@icaz2018ankara.com
Sponsor names/logos