Zooarchaeology

Zooarchaeology merges the disciplines of zoology and

archaeology, focusing on the analysis of animal remains within
archaeological sites. This field, managed by specialists known as
zooarchaeologists or faunal analysts, examines remnants such as
bones, shells, hair, chitin, scales, hides, and proteins, such as DNA,
to derive insights into historical human-animal interactions and
environmental conditions.[1] While bones and shells tend to be
relatively more preserved in archaeological contexts, the survival of
faunal remains is generally infrequent.[2] The degradation or
fragmentation of faunal remains presents challenges in the accurate
analysis and interpretation of data.[2]

Characterized by its interdisciplinary nature, zooarchaeology

bridges the studies of ancient human societies and the animal
kingdom.[3] Practitioners, from various scientific backgrounds Illustration of an Egyptian mummy of
including anthropology, paleontology, and ecology, aim primarily to a dog
identify and understand human interactions with animals and their
environments.[4] Through the analysis of faunal remains,
zooarchaeologists can gain insight into past diets, domestication practices, tool usage, and ritualistic
behaviors, thus contributing to a comprehensive view of human-environment interactions and the sub-field
of environmental archaeology.

Development
The development of zooarchaeology in eastern North America can be broken up into three different
periods.[5] The first being the Formative period starting around the 1860s, the second being the
Systematization period beginning in the early 1950s, and lastly the Integration period which began about
1969.[5] Full-time zooarchaeologists came to be during the Systematization period.[5] Prior to the
Systemization period, it was just a technique that was applied but not specifically studied.

Zooarchaeological specialists started to come about partly because of a new approach to archaeology
known as processual archaeology.[6] This approach puts more emphasis on explaining why things
happened, not just what happened.[6] Archaeologists began to specialize in zooarchaeology, and their
numbers increased.[6]

Uses
One important aspect of zooarchaeology is using morphological and genetic evidence to answer questions
zooarchaeologists have about the relationship between animals and humans.[7]: 172 These questions include:

1. What was the diet like, and in what ways were the animals used for food?[6]
2. Which animals were eaten, in what amounts, and with what other foods?[6]
 3. Who were the ones to obtain the food, and did the
availability of that food depend on age or gender?[6]
4. How was culture, such as technologies and behavior,
influenced by and associated with diet?[6]
5. How can faunal remains identify social differences such
as class or ethnicity?[8]
6. What purposes, other than food, were animals used
for?[6]
A reference collection of shinbones
7. What was the environment like?[7]: 170 (Tibia) of different animal species
8. How did hunter-gatherers collect food? [7]: 170 helps determining old bones. Dutch
9. How have human populations changed over time? [7]: 171 Heritage Agency.
10. How have humans domesticated animals over time?
[7]: 171

11. How do modern animals compare to animals of the past, and how does this give context to
human populations who interacted/still interact with those animals? [7]: 172
Another important aspect of zooarchaeology is its application to the migration patterns of humans. In areas
where people are either closely tied to animal as companions or regularly follow the migrations of herds, the
data collected from these animals can help give context to human movement as well.[9]: 103 Studying
animal remains can also give context to other remains and artifacts found in association with them.[10]: 1

Faunal remains
Faunal remains are parts of animals that have been left in the material record, which archaeologists study.
These remains are important to the record because they can show cultural practices, such as what food they
were eating, based on the remains left behind.[11] Zooarcheologists can find out information like the species
the animal is, the age the animal was when it died, and what its sex was.[11]

Some common faunal remains found at sites include, as stated above, bones, shells, hair, chitin, scales,
hides, proteins and DNA. These are often found in piles of waste left behind. This means zooarchaeology is
part of the general study of waste or garbology. Archaeologists may have to sort through and identify the
species and body region of faunal remains.[12] The types of fauna that leave behind these remains will
depend on where the archaeological site is located. These animals can be domesticated or wild, and
sometimes they find both types of remains at sites.[12]

In addition to helping us understand the past, zooarchaeology can also help us to improve the present and
the future.[13] Studying how people dealt with animals, and their effects can help avoid many potential
ecological problems.[13] This specifically includes problems involving wildlife management.[13] For
example, one of the questions that wildlife preservationists ask is whether they should keep animals facing
extinction in several smaller areas, or in one larger area.[13] Based on zooarchaeological evidence, they
found that animals that are split up into several smaller areas are more likely to go extinct.[13]

Techniques

Taphonomy
One of the issues to which zooarchaeologists pay close attention is taphonomy.[5] Techniques used in the
study of taphonomy include researching how items are buried and deposited at an archaeological site, what
the conditions are that aid in the preservation of these items, and how these items get destroyed, all a part of
what is referred to by archaeologist Michael Brian Schiffer as behavioral archaeology.[5] One important
aspect of taphonomy is assessing how a specimen became damaged; understanding the taphonomy of a
faunal assemblage can explain how and why bones were damaged.[10] One source of damage to animal
bones is humans.[10]: 169 Cut marks on animal bones provide evidence for butchering.[10]: 169 Fractures,
such as by percussion impact and spiral fracture on a bone can suggest that it was processed by humans for
its marrow, minerals, and nutrients.[10]: 170 Other human processes that affect bones include burning[10]: 171
and damage from archaeological excavations.[10]: 178 Non-human damage to bones includes interspecies
damage,[10]: 173 damage from raptors and scavengers,[10]: 173 damage from rodents,[10]: 175 damage from
fungi,[10]: 176 environmental weathering,[10]: 176 and polishing.[10]: 176 Distinguishing different types of
damage to animal bones is a tedious and complex process that requires background in multiple scientific
fields.[10]: 169 Some of the physical damage on bones can be seen with the naked eye, but a lens with 10x
magnification and good lighting is necessary for seeing most damage.[10]: 169

Identification and taxonomy

Identification is integral to the archaeological analysis of animal remains.[10]: 1 Identification of animal
remains requires a combination of anatomy, taxonomy, and studies of archaeological context.[10]: 1 The
ability to identify a piece of bone requires knowing what element (bone in the body) it is, and to what
animal the bone belongs.[10]: 1 The latter is referred to as taxonomy, which is used to sort animals into
different groups.[10]: 1 Zooarchaeology uses Linnean nomenclature, which includes varying degrees of
specificity in regards to the species.[10]: 2 Linnaean nomenclature (Linnaean taxonomy) is used because it
allows archaeologists to identify and show the genetic and morphological relationships between
species.[10]: 2 These relationships are based on species evolution, which can often be subject to
interpretation.[10]: 4 While more specific identification is preferable, it is better to be less specific in the
identification rather than identify a specimen incorrectly.[10]: 2 When examining animal remains, it is
common that there are bones that are too small or too damaged to be able to accurately identify it.[10]: 3
Archaeological context can be used to help with assumptions about species identification.[10]: 3 Skeletal
classification is the other half of properly identifying animal remains.[10]: 1 Zoological osteology is useful to
zooarchaeology because certain morphological aspects of a bone are associated with particular periods of
growth, which can help narrow down the age the specimen was at death.[10]: 9 The analysis of teeth require
a slightly different approach than bone, but retain the same level of importance when it comes to
analysis.[10]: 9 The wear pattern and tooth morphology provides information about a species diet and age;
the enamel also has biochemical remains of what the animal ate.[10]: 9 While animal remains can include
more than just bones and teeth, the nature of things like hair and muscle cause it to deteriorate quickly after
death, leaving the skeleton behind; this is why most of zooarchaeology revolves around skeletal
morphology.[10]: 6 Laboratory analysis can include comparing the skeletons found on site with previously
identified lab specimens.[5] This not only helps to identify what the animal is, but also whether the animal
was domesticated or not.[5]

Genetic analysis
Genetic analysis using ancient DNA is an important tool used by zooarchaeologists. Genetic history of an
animal can give information on population movement over time and environmental adaptations necessary to
live in an area.[9]: 103 It can also give context to how animals may or may not have been domesticated over
time by a group of people.[9]: 104 Ancient DNA is critical to the genetic analysis of animals remains.
Whereas modern DNA has very long fragments in samples, ancient DNA has very short fragments, making
it very easily contaminated.[9]: 94 The extraction and sampling of ancient DNA requires highly specialized
training, as well as intensive protocol to prevent it from being contaminated by modern DNA.[14]: 5 The
paper :Ancient DNA Analysis of the Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic
Contribution to the Domestic Dog" by Lee et al. gives a description of claws and teeth were sampled for
ancient DNA. In a facility specially designed for ancient DNA extraction, with the use of personal
protective equipment and regular bleaching of surfaces and tools, the claws and teeth were wiped with
bleach to destroy all modern DNA on the surface, and were then drilled into a powder. The DNA fragments
were extracted from the bone powder using an ancient DNA extraction protocol. After using several
processes to replicate the DNA fragments and verify the results (PCR and gel electrophoresis), the ancient
DNA from the bone powder was sequenced and then analyzed.[14]: 5

ZooMS
With ZooMS analysis (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry), the animal species behind a bone fragment
or bone artifact can be determined even when no morphological traits survive. The method makes use of
interspecies differences in the structure of collagen.

Quantification
Yet another technique zooarchaeologists use is quantification.[5] They make interpretations based on the
number and size of the faunal remains.[5] These interpretations include how important different animals
might have been to the diet.[5]

Examples from prehistory

Human-animal relationships and interactions were diverse during prehistory from being a food source to
playing a more intimate role in society.[15] Animals have been used in non-economical ways such as being
part of a human burial. However, the majority of zooarchaeology has focused on who was eating what by
looking at various remains such as bones, teeth, and fish scales.[15] In the twenty-first century researchers
have begun to interpret animals in prehistory in wider cultural and social patterns, focusing on how the
animals have affected humans and possible animal agency.[15] There is evidence of animals such as the
mountain lion or the jaguar being used for ritualistic purposes, but not being eaten as a food source.[15]

Analyses of faunal remains are important to show how prehistoric and hunter-gatherer civilizations
interacted with the animals in their environment.[11] This information can be used to help reconstruct
Paleolithic environments. Faunal remains with cut marks, teeth marks, burns, or butchering can signify
human interaction which can be important to archaeological data.[16] Sometimes these analyses can be
difficult due to decomposition and weathering, which can cause damage to the remains. Not only do faunal
remains help reconstruct environments from the past they can show other cultural practices as well. These
remains are not always from food, but can be found in jewelry, tools, spiritual practices, and more.[16] This
information can show the fauna located in the area of analyses, as well as cultural significance.
Animal burials date back to prehistory with examples emerging from the
Mesolithic period. In Sweden at the site of Skateholm I, dogs were found
buried with children under eight years old or were found buried by
themselves. Some of the dogs who were buried alone have grave goods
similar to their human contemporaries such as flint weapons and deer
antlers.[15] Meanwhile, during the same time period Skateholm II emerged
and was very different from Skateholm I, as dogs were buried along on the
North and West boundaries of the grave area.[15] Another burial site in
Siberia near Lake Baikal known as the "Lokomotiv" cemetery had a wolf
burial among human graves.[15][17] Buried together with, but slightly
beneath the wolf was a male human skull.[17] The wolf breed was not
native to this area as it was warm and other research for the area shows no Carpet exemplifying the
other wolf habitation.[17] Bazaliiskiy and Savelyev suggests that the image of a Pazyryk
presence and significance of the wolf could possibly reflect human horseman in 300 B.C. The
interaction.[17] Another example occurred in 300 B.C. in Pazyryk known as Pazyryk were known as
superb horseman please
the Pazyryk burials where ten horses were buried alongside a human male,
see Pazyryk culture, other
the horses were fully adorned with saddles, pendants, among other
findings alongside the
valuables.[15] The oldest horse as also the horse with the grandest horses can be explored in
attachments. Erica Hill, a professor in archaeology, suggests that the burials Pazyryk burials.
of prehistory animals can shed light on human-animal relationships.[15]

Related fields
Zooarchaeology overlaps significantly with other areas of study.
These include:

Agricultural science
Anthropology
Anthrozoology
Archaeology
Biology
Ecology
Ethnography
Garbology
Geology
Paleopathology
Palaeontology
Paleozoology
Poster of the Zooarchaeology forum
Veterinarian
in Zagreb (2023).
Zoology

Wider areas of study

Such analyses provide the basis by which further interpretations can be made. Topics that have been
addressed by zooarchaeologists include:

Animal husbandry Belief systems

 Cultural exchange Landscape
Diet and nutrition Material culture
Disease Pastoralism
Domestication Seasonality
Environment and environmental change Social status
Ethnicity Subsistence strategies
Food processing Technology

References
1. "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains" (https://zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.o
rg/). zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
2. Yohe II, Robert M. (2006). Archaeology: The Science of the Human Past. Pearson. pp. 248–
264.
3. "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains" (http://zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.or
g/). zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
4. L. Lloveras; M. Moreno-García; J. Nadal (September 2009). "The eagle owl (Bubo bubo) as a
leporid remains accumulator: taphonomic analysis of modern rabbit remains recovered from
nests of this predator". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 19 (5).
doi:10.1002/oa.v19:5 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Foa.v19%3A5). ISSN 1047-482X (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/issn/1047-482X).
5. Landon, David B. (2005). "Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and
Prospects". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 12 (1): 1–36.
doi:10.1007/s10816-005-2395-7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10816-005-2395-7).
S2CID 12323687 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12323687).
6. Thomas, Kenneth D. (1996). "Zooarchaeology: Past, Present and Future". World
Archaeology. 28 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/00438243.1996.9980327 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F
00438243.1996.9980327). PMID 16475284 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16475284).
7. Steele, Teresa (2015). "The contributions of animal bones from archaeological sites: the past
and future of zooarchaeology". Journal of Archaeological Science. 56: 168–176.
Bibcode:2015JArSc..56..168S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JArSc..56..168S).
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.036 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.2015.02.036).
8. Muñoz, Jennifer (Fall 2011). "Faunal Remains As Markers Of Ethnic Identity: The
Philadelphia House As A Case Study Of German-American Ethnicity" (https://scholarworks.c
alstate.edu/downloads/vd66w048s). scholarworks.calstate.edu. Retrieved 13 November
2020.
9. Kaestle, Frederika A.; Horsburgh, K. Ann (2002). "Ancient DNA in Anthropology: Methods,
Applications, and Ethics". Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 45: 92–130.
doi:10.1002/ajpa.10179 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fajpa.10179). PMID 12653310 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653310).
10. Broughton, Jack; Miller, Shawn (2016). Zooarchaeology and Field Ecology: A Photographic
Atlas. University of Utah Press.
11. Meadow, Richard H. (January 1983). " "BA" Guide to Artifacts: The Study of Faunal Remains
from Archaeological Sites". The Biblical Archaeologist. 46 (1): 49–53. doi:10.2307/3209691
(https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3209691). ISSN 0006-0895 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0006-
0895). JSTOR 3209691 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3209691). S2CID 134042623 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:134042623).
12. Jenkins, Cliff. "Zooarchaeology" (http://www.msarchaeology.org/maa/jenkins.pdf) (PDF).
msarchaeology.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220302161023/http://www.msar
chaeology.org/maa/jenkins.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-02. Retrieved 20 October
2020.
13. Lyman, R. L. (1996). "Applied Zooarchaeology: The Relevance of Faunal Analysis to Wildlife
Management". World Archaeology. 28: 110–125. doi:10.1080/00438243.1996.9980334 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438243.1996.9980334).
14. Lee, Esther J.; Merriwether, D. Andrew; Kasparov, Alexei K.; Nikolskiy, Pavel A.; Sotnikova,
Marina V.; Pavlova, Elena Yu; Pitulko, Vladimir V. (2015). "Ancient DNA Analysis of the
Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic Contribution to the Domestic
Dog" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446326). PLOS ONE. 10 (5):
e0125759. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025759L (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PLoSO..
1025759L). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125759 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.012
5759). PMC 4446326 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446326).
PMID 26018528 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26018528).
15. Hill, Erica (2013). "Archaeology and Animal Persons: Toward a Prehistory of Human-Animal
Relations". Environment and Society. 4 (1). doi:10.3167/ares.2013.040108 (https://doi.org/1
0.3167%2Fares.2013.040108).
16. "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains" (http://zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.or
g/). zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 2020-10-08.
17. Bazaliiskiy; Savelyev (2003). "The Wolf of Baikal: The "Lokomotiv" Early Neolithic Cemetery
in Siberia (Russia)". Antiquity. 77 (295): 20–30. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00061317 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2FS0003598X00061317). S2CID 164017161 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:164017161).

Further reading
Acosta, Guillermo; Beramendi, Laura E; González, Gali; Rivera, Iran; Eudave, Itzel;
Hernández, Elisa; Sánchez, Serafín; Morales, Pedro; Cienfuegos, Edith; Otero, Francisco
(2018). "Climate change and peopling of the Neotropics during the Pleistocene-Holocene
transition" (http://boletinsgm.igeolcu.unam.mx/bsgm/index.php/component/content/article/36
8-sitio/articulos/cuarta-epoca/7001/1857-7001-1-acosta). Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica
Mexicana. 70: 1–19. doi:10.18268/BSGM2018v70n1a1 (https://doi.org/10.18268%2FBSGM2
018v70n1a1).
O'Connor, Terry (2013). The Archaeology of Animal Bones. The History Press. ISBN 978-
0750935241.
Orton, David C. (2011). "Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism,
Complexity and Animal Transformations". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 21 (2): 323–
24. doi:10.1017/S0959774311000345 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0959774311000345).
Reitz, Elizabeth J.; Wing, Elizabeth S. (2008). Zooarchaeology, Second Edition. Cambridge
Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521673938.

External links
International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) (https://www.alexandriaarchive.org/icaz/)
ArchéoZoo: collaborative website of archaeozoology (http://www.archeozoo.org) (French)
OpenContext.org (Zooarchaeology data) (https://opencontext.org/query/?cat=oc-gen-cat-bio-
subj-ecofact---oc-gen-cat-animal-bone&type=subjects) Multiple zooarchaeological datasets
and media published in Open Context.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zooarchaeology&oldid=1224589958"