Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, No.

4, 1999

Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology—

Epistemology Reconsidered
Arkadiusz Marciniak1

The objective of this paper is twofold. It intends to reformulate the assumptions of

interpretive archaeology and within this context to elaborate the framework within
which one can study social and symbolic relationships between humans and an-
imals in the prehistoric farming communities of Central Europe. Postprocessual
archaeology has failed to provide a satisfactory account of how to judge the cred-
ibility of competing issues about the past. In the interpretive approach to animal
bone assemblages, it is argued that the results of actualistic studies justify this
credibility. The objective of actualistic studies is to establish how, when, and by
whom the archaeological record has been produced. Credibility is also provided by
the biological characteristics of animals maintained and consumed. The first level
of credibility is a prerequisite to a further interpretation of the social dimensions of
human action with respect to animals. The second level of interpretation is based
on the horizontal distribution of archaeological pasts within and between sites.
KEY WORDS: faunal materials; interpretive archaeology; epistemology; zooarchaeology; Central
Europe.

INTRODUCTION

The Central European tradition of archaeozoology is characterized by the

lack of an explicitly articulated theoretical framework within which one can study
human-animal relationships with animal bone assemblages. Archaeozoology is
defined here as a theory-free realm of expertise whose objective is to study and
recognize economic exploitation of animals by a prehistoric group. It is believed
that the proportion of bones of different species of animals in archaeological de-
posits directly reflects the composition of these species in a prehistoric herd. Fur-
thermore, archaeozoology's objective is the study of a human group's impact on
1
institute of Prehistory, University of Poznan, sw. Marcin 78, 61-809 Poznan, Poland. Fax: (4861)
8536-536. e-mail: arekmar@main.amu.edu.pl.

293
1072-5369/99/1200-0293S16.00/0 c 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation
294 Marciniak

the biological characteristics of domesticated animals. It is mainly because the

majority of active archaeozoologists had (and still have) a strong zoological back-
ground that, when applied to faunal remains from archaeological sites, generates
evolutionary and anatomical questions. In practice, faunal analyses in prehistoric
archaeology are usually no more than laundry lists, published in the appendices of
field reports. The causes of this situation are numerous, and it is beyond the scope
of this article to analyze them in detail. The Central European tradition stands in
distinct contrast to American zooarchaeology, which has become one of the most
dynamic archaeological subdisciplines over the last 20 years.
At the same time, one can observe an increasing demand for more theoretically
oriented research procedures in Central and Eastern European archaeologies (e.g.,
see Marciniak, 1996b; Trifonov, 1996). These two tendencies call for a new agenda
in interpreting faunal assemblages from European farming communities within the
theoretical framework of contemporary archaeology.
This article presents an attempt to formulate such a program, building on the
tradition of British and American theoretical archaeology. It should be stressed
that these proposals are formulated by someone who is, to some extent, outside
the theoretical circle of the Anglo-American tradition and who evaluates the given
archaeological data (animal bone assemblages from Central European prehistoric
farming communities) in a different light. Therefore, beyond its immediate rele-
vance to European archaeology, this article raises issues of particular relevance
to archaeologists engaged in working through the themes of interpretive and pro-
cessual archaeologies in their own works. In this sense, it can be a contribution
to the increasing awareness of the complementarity of these two approaches. It
also leaves behind previous misunderstandings by trying to be more effective in
its contribution to a wide range of commonly shared issues (e.g., see Hodder,
1991b; Preucel, 1991; Shanks and Hodder, 1995a; Skibo et al., 1995). It seems
that we are beyond postprocessualism and/or postmodernism and moving toward
a new paradigm which might be termed neoprocessualism, as suggested by Bintliff
(1991).
What is proposed here is an explicit way of dealing with the shortcomings of
postprocessual archaeology while analyzing human-animal relationships through
a study of animal bone assemblages. This paper advocates an approach moving
toward an interpretive zooarchaeology, supplemented and explicitly supported by
methodological procedures developed in the American processual and behavioral
archaeological traditions. Improvement of an archaeological interpretation can be
achieved by the explicit use of results of actualistic studies, both experimental and
ethnoarchaeological. What is of special interest here is the "materialistic" aspect
of ethnoarchaeological studies. It is necessary to enumerate certain parameters
of analysis, since we can further use them as touchstones in moving toward less
readily apprehended causes of patterning in the data.
Most zooarchaeological projects and interests over the last 30 years have
concerned studies of early hominids and hunter-gatherer communities, mainly in
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 295

Africa and the Americas (O'Connell, 1995, p. 220). There do, however, exist some
exceptions as, e.g., Hesse (1986, 1995), Greenfield (1986, 1988, 1991), Crabtree
(1991),andZeder(1988,1991). Attempting to deal with faunal data from European
agricultural communities in a more contemporary way forces us to rethink and
reevaluate the fundamental assumptions of zooarchaeology based on studies of
hunter-gatherers, such as uniformitarianism or analogy. This is not to say that ev-
erything previously ascertained about hunter-gatherers must be rejected or refor-
mulated. However, it is necessary to examine these issues through the perspectives
required in dealing with faunal data from European prehistoric food-producing
groups. In other words, our concern here is to use the results of ethnoarchaeolog-
ical studies of hunter-gatherers from this point of view. Another key issue is an
evaluation of the importance of actualistic studies toward the recognition of the for-
mation processes of faunal assemblages from settlement sites of Neolithic and post-
Neolithic groups. This aspect of the archaeological record has hardly been touched
by archaeologists working with Central European animal bone assemblages.
Such an approach can help overcome the "economic" bias of European ar-
chaeozoology and actually permits a reconceptualization of economic aspects of
human-animal relationships from social and symbolic perspectives. As such, it
corresponds well with the requirement that interpretive archaeology should recon-
struct social and public meanings (see Shanks and Hodder, 1995a, p. 17). Among
zooarchaeologists themselves, one can observe a growing tendency towards more
social analysis of animal bone assemblages (e.g., Gifford-Gonzalez, 1991, 1993;
Hawkes, 1993; Kent, 1993; Keswani, 1994; Gifford-Gonzalez and Bartram, 1997;
Enloe, 1997; Stiner and Kuhn, 1997; Zeder, 1997). Their general postulate is to
analyze and recognize the social context of animal use. Zooarchaeologists are
recognizing that animals were maintained and consumed in ways that accented
social relationships, such as those highlighting inequalities, importance of gender,
negotiating social roles, links, and evaluating and/or maintaining an individual's
status. Bearing in mind the complexity and variability of human uses of animals,
archaeology cannot formulate a coherent methodology to recognize past social re-
lations, which could successfully be adapted by zooarchaeologists on a new level
of the discipline's development, as postulated by Gifford-Gonzalez (1991).
This paper also discusses interpretive strategies, which, by using a reformu-
lated agenda of interpretive archaeology, can most successfully be used for recog-
nition of the social and symbolic dimensions of human-animal relationships.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Interpretive archaeology is a term coined very recently by Hodder (1991a) as

a more recent reformulation of the postprocessual agendas presented in numerous
publications in the 1980s (e.g., Hodder, 1982a,b, 1986; Shanks and Tilley, 1987a,b).
The scope of interpretive archaeology is broad, as has recently been summarized
296 Marciniak

by Shanks and Hodder (1995a,b). The research objective of this program con-
tains a hermeneutic component in interpretation, a guarded "objectivity" of the
past, and a reflexive consideration of the production of archaeological knowledge
(Hodder, 1991a; see also Marciniak, 1997). The focus of our studies, animal bone
assemblages, forces us to concentrate only on certain aspects of this diverse pro-
gram, namely, interpretation of the material culture, paying special attention to
issues regarding the relation of artifacts and ecofacts to social practice and so-
cial change, with an emphasis "upon reading, meaning and context" (Shanks and
Hodder, 1995b, p. 33).
Both postprocessual (or interpretive) and processual archaeologies have
strengths and weaknesses at their ontological and methodological levels. The un-
derlying goal of processual archaeology is a causal explanation of human behav-
ior, whereas interpretive archaeology is more concerned with "understanding" and
making sense of the social dimensions of human existence (see Shanks and Hodder,
1995a, p. 5). The processual program postulates a functional understanding of past
behavior as almost the only dimension of archaeological inquiry, almost completely
rejecting social issues, which Binford (e.g., 1962) stressed in his earliest works.
In contrast, an interpretive framework calls for the interpretation of "internal" so-
cial dimensions of human action. The most important contribution of processual
archaeology to archaeological methodology is an explicit study of the relationship
between static material culture and dynamic human behavior, especially through
ethnoarchaeological and experimental projects. On the other hand, postprocessual
archaeology, as revealed by the debate in the second half of the 1980s, suffers from
widely acknowledged problematic interpretations. To some extent, this was the re-
sult of an arbitrary perception and treatment of the archaeological record. This has
simply excluded an extensive range of potential data information from the research
procedure of particular kinds of archaeological records (including animal bones)
by neglecting processes which are of cardinal importance to revealing character-
istics of these materials (as results of formation processes, chemical and physical
properties of bones, etc.). Generally, postprocessualists have failed to give a sat-
isfying account of how archaeologists judge the credibility of competing claims
about the past (Wylie, 1991). Mutual critics of the two traditions have detailed their
respective weaknesses. It is, however, possible to move beyond these weaknesses
by recognizing the structural relationships of their respective strengths.
One of the biggest problems of postprocessual archaeology is its failure to
come to terms with epistemological issues while constructing interpretations. It
almost categorically rejects science as a proper tool for analyzing the past. This
practice has been, and must continue to be, questioned. A postulate of withdrawal
from early postprocessual archaeology, which deals with archaeological evidence
arbitrarily with no comprehension of its nature, has been brought up in recent
discussions on theoretical archaeology (e.g., Bintliff, 1991; Hodder, 1991a; cf.
Klejn, 1993), and its shortcomings (e.g., Hodder, 1985) have been recognized in
recent publications (e.g., Hodder, 1991a,b).
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 297

The research objective of the early postprocessual stance recalls Dilthey's

(e.g., 1947) hermeneutics. For him the aim of hermeneutics was to understand the
intentions of man-the-creator through an analysis of written texts. Since it is not
possible to learn directly about the life of humans in the past, it was assumed that
lives could be reconstructed by interpreting signs and objects that were left behind,
and that were granted individual existence—a unique nature. The goal of such
hermeneutics was to understand the individual expressed in the text and to penetrate
his/her mind. Hence the text was not an object in itself, and it was valuable only
inasmuch as it provided information about the author hidden behind it.
Though the contextual method of interpretation characteristic of contextual
archaeology is generally acceptable, some of its tasks are not. In the first place, its
research objectives are questionable. The proposition presented by Collingwood
(1956) and then adopted by Hodder (e.g., 1982b, 1984, 1986) can no longer be
maintained. Its methodology, employing empathy as a means of reaching the mind
of a prehistoric subject and, by means of identification with his intentions, ex-
plaining the reality thus observed, is hardly adequate. However accurate Hodder's
opinion, expressed in the above-mentioned works, that there are many cultural
worlds, each of them governed by rules, to a certain degree characterized by dif-
ferent properties, it seems that his postulate identifying these worlds through an
analysis of a meaningfully constituted material culture, allowing for a penetration
and understanding of past societies—as if archaeology were social anthropology—
is implausible. The methodology offered by contextualists cannot help us achieve
the goal (i.e., the understanding of the human mind, the principles of structure
and symbols, whose meaning is encoded in the material culture). In the same way,
Dilthey's hermeneutics failed to discover the ideas of the author hidden behind
the text that he/she had brought into being. The practice of the last few years has
clearly proven that what was to have been the main objective of this approach has
actually turned against it. The results obtained within contextual archaeology, to
a large extent, turned out to be speculative; there were no grounds for choosing
among various claims about the past (see Wylie, 1989, p. 3). Reconstructions of
these past subjective worlds have, in effect, become projections of the "worlds" of
the authors of these projects, the archaeologists themselves, and, as a consequence,
have resulted only in their deconstruction. As a result, any interpretation is deemed
equally justifiable. The right to create pictures of prehistory has, thus, ceased to
be the domain of archaeologists and, as a consequence, has been granted to ethnic
minorities, tribal groups, and other nonprofessionals. The role of archaeology as an
academic discipline has been reduced to the level at which one may even question
the necessity of its existence. Such a reduction has almost led to the annihilation of
the discipline itself, since the vision of prehistory conceived by an archaeologist has
become one of many equally justifiable interpretations (cf. Hodder, 1991a). Both
Dilthey and Hodder, in their later works, indicate a way of overcoming the impos-
sibility of achieving postulated goals, though neither of them refers to the methods
guaranteeing "objectivism" in the sense of the natural sciences; instead, they both
298 Marciniak

point at interpretation (cf. Ricoeur, 1989, p. 206; see also Johansen and Olsen,
1992).
If it is assumed that human understanding, including the understanding of
prehistoric processes, is dependent on hermeneutic procedure, then the proce-
dure which is proposed here is close to Ricouer's understanding of hermeneutics.
Ricoeur insisted on going beyond the limitations of structural analysis in linguis-
tics, differences between explaining (Erklaren) and understanding (Verstehen). He
(Ricoeur, 1989, p. 176) asserted that "explaining requires understanding... (and)
constitutes interpretations as a whole." For our purposes, in order to be able to
reach completeness in the interpretation of faunal materials, it is indispensable to
remember the stage of explaining ensured by actualistic studies: ethnoarchaeolog-
ical and experimental attempts at comprehending the way in which the assemblage
was created. To a certain extent, this level of analysis parallels a role which was
played by structural analysis in Ricoeur's hermeneutics. It has become a kind of
indirect idea, something that is both a correction of a subjective and the justifica-
tion of an objective attitude toward a text. He clearly defines its role by saying that
"what we have said about deep semantics and gradually uncovered by structural
analysis, makes us think about the sense of a text, as a new way of perceiving
things, as advice to think in a certain way" (Ricoeur, 1989, pp. 178-179). An anal-
ysis of faunal assemblages also ought to be directed by these "recommendations"
offered by relatively objective actualistic research results.
I would argue that the interpretation we produce will always be partial and
contextualized and we will never obtain a definitive understanding of the past. This,
however, does not necessarily mean that "anything goes" and that all interpretations
are equally justified. We produce an interpretation that is not true of the past but,
rather, stands apart from the past and, in any case, cannot diminish the efforts
of archaeologists. So when the evidence has been interpreted, "the possibility
of competing hypotheses emerges, which may not be simply 'right' or 'wrong'
so much as emphasizing different aspects of reality" (Thomas, 1995, p. 352).
Consequently, the interpretive endeavor is seen as an open-ended project constantly
reevaluating the past (Barrett, 1995, p. 78). Additionally, it is necessary seriously
to challenge justified skepticism that the probability of extracting real social and
ideological links from our osteological variables remains very low (see Hesse,
1995, p. 206; Enloe, 1997). This is simply because some things archaeologists
want to know are not empirically knowable.
From this perspective, it still seems justifiable to accept the metaphor of
material culture as a text. However, it should not be treated as autonomous. It is a
text that has been irrevocably separated from its author, hence it exists as a self-
contained entity. Although we reject the unrealistic postulate of recognizing the
intentions of a prehistoric person, we do not forget the interpretation offered to us by
the recorded configuration of material objects (cf. Trigger, 1991, p. 71). Otherwise,
the evidence could be interpreted in number of different ways, supporting multiple
interpretations and explanatory hypotheses (Wylie, 1989, p. 2).
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 299

Research objectives should reveal the conditions under which certain knowl-
edge becomes possible rather than recover some transcendental truth (Barrett,
1995, p. 71). These "materialistic" data are obviously not theory-free, especially
when they are a result of certain theoretical characteristics for functionally ori-
ented research projects. It does not imply, however, that they can be of no value
when seen within other interpretive frameworks. As Wylie (1989, p. 16) puts it,
'There are certainly no such things as factual 'givens' or wholly neutral evidence
that could stand as a foundational 'grid' [...] it is also not the case that data are
entirely plastic, that they are so theory-permeated that facts can be constituted at
will, whatever form a contextually appealing theory requires."
Thus, the analysis and interpretation of animal bone assemblages outlined
here may serve as examples of how to deal with some of the obvious shortcom-
ings of interpretive archaeology. Bones thus provide an excellent opportunity to
join the "objectivism" of processual archaeology with the "subjectivism" of post-
processual archaeology (see remarks by Wylie, 1989). A similar idea has been
proposed recently by Hesse (1995), who claimed that, on the level of interpreta-
tion/explanation, both processual and postprocessual archaeologies can be used
together in Near Eastern zooarchaeology.
The pursuit of "objectivity in interpretation" has been a widely discussed
topic of the humanities over the last decade or so. Generally, one can recognize
two opposing positions. One of them, advocated by, among others, Umberto Eco
(e.g., 1979, 1990, 1992), postulates that unrestrictedness in interpretation excludes
the intention of the text itself; that is, the limits of interpretive discretion are situated
within the text. Eco assumes that it is possible to establish the intention of the text,
albeit not precisely, and therefore it is possible to evaluate which interpretations
of the text are incorrect. These include those which do not take into account the
coherence of the text and the meaningful system which it uses.
The opposite position is taken by, among others, Richard Rorty (e.g., 1992),
who rejects the very possibility of the existence of any kind of features within a text
itself which could be regarded as criteria to be used for its correct interpretation.
The text acquires its meaning in the process of individual reading and is given as
many meanings as it is read in changing contexts. The only reasons distinguishing
among the results of interpretations are those linked to particular historical and
cultural contexts. The significance of a given interpretation is connected only with
the existence of a particular interpretive community which is able to accept it.
Other interpretations not fulfilling this requirement are not regarded as justified. It
becomes clear that interpretive limitations exist on the side of the recipient rather
than inside the text. This position is sometimes defined as "interpretive anarchism"
(Szahaj, 1997, p. 11).
Some attempts to cope with the weaknesses of earlier postmodernist agen-
das are evident in both recent ethnography and recent historiography (see, e.g.,
Aunger, 1995; Topolski, 1994, 1996), which merge the textualist challenge with
the requirements of scientific analysis. Stress is laid on a detailed analysis of the
300 Marciniak

nature and quality of data prior to the inference step; otherwise, inferences made
on weak foundations may affect the conclusions reached (Aunger, 1995, p. 99).
Asserting that both "storytelling and science are necessary for a complete under-
standing of ethnographic realities," Aunger (1995, p. 112) proposes a two-step
procedure of ethnographic research "consisting of reflexive analysis [scientific;
A.M.], followed by comparative event history approach" [interpretive; A.M.]. The
objective of the first step is to explain general processes operating in human soci-
ety, while the objective of the second step is to make possible the understanding
of a particular culture.
In order to link together the narrativist and the scientific approaches to history
in historiography, one must "elucidate the relationship between historical expla-
nation and narrative understanding" (Ricouer, 1984, p. 14; after Topolski, 1994,
p. 18). This new procedure, according to Topolski (1994, p. 34), should consist of
"the chronicler's layer and the layer of story and/or interpretation...." The charac-
teristic feature of the chronicle layer is to give the narrative its temporal expansion
and is based on so-called base sentences. These are the sole basis for any kind
of narration. There is an obvious distinction between statements (sentences) and
narration.

THE NATURE OF ANIMAL BONE ASSEMBLAGES FROM CENTRAL

EUROPEAN FARMING COMMUNITIES

The presentation of an interpretive framework for the study of faunal as-

semblages from Central European prehistoric farming communities cannot be
successfully completed without an understanding the nature of these faunal data.
This, in turn, enables us to reject "traditional" inferential models and assumptions
of Central European archaeozoology. Archaeofaunal assemblages deposited on
settlement sites of agricultural communities represent only some of the bone ma-
terials that might have been derived from the sum total of all animals exploited as
a herd (see Cowgill's distinction between physical consequence and physical find
population). The relationship between the bones in an archaeological context and
the animals in their living context is usually quite difficult to estimate properly.
Faunal assemblages of farming communities from prehistoric Central Europe are
usually supplemented by the bones of wild animals acquired by the group, which
are not isomorphic with the natural animal communities. This lack of isomorphism
is due to various factors. One of the most important is the spatially variable scope
of human group behavior (Cribb, 1985, p. 77). In other words, not all actions
connected with animal exploitation took place at a given settlement or camp. The
final character of a particular animal bone assemblage, then, is the result of com-
plex factors related mainly to the position and role of a given settlement in the
microregional network of exchange and also, to a lesser degree, in the network of
macroregional relationships. Specifically, the character of faunal material is shaped
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 301

by the position of the assemblage in a particular settlement system (dwelling place,

camp, settlement), whether the herd was used exclusively by a given group or was
part of an export-import system, social relationships at a site, and also its po-
sition within the network of ceremonial exchange. A second important cause of
the lack of isomorphism between animals in their living context and bones in an
archaeological context is the temporal duration of archaeological accumulations
(e.g., Kruk, 1980, p. 278; Cribb, 1985, p. 77). A given bone assemblage is not
normally formed by a single event. In agricultural settlements, deposition of each
category of archaeological materials is a long-term process, consisting usually of
a nonspecifiable series of different individual or communal actions. Consequently,
archaeological materials from a particular stratigraphic unit are often palimpsests
formed as a result of overlapping, multiple events in the exploitation of different
animal species and subsequent transformations of remaining bones. Their deposi-
tion thus takes more time than individual sequences of phenomena characterizing
the everyday life of an individual or group.
Thus, archaeological material, in such contexts, should be potentially consid-
ered as the consequence of many events taking place over a duration that cannot be
ethnographically observed (Binford, 1983b, pp. 231-232). Therefore, archaeolog-
ical artifacts, and archaeological cultures, should not be indiscriminately identified
and referred to any concrete social and economic system. Instead, they should be
treated as a sort of model situation, a new structure which in the observed con-
figuration (in the sense of a "physical find population") has never occurred in the
past (Clarke, 1968, p. 287; Tabaczynski, 1971, p. 25; see also Tabaczyriski, 1987,
1990). Thus, a precise estimate of the duration of site occupation is extremely diffi-
cult or even impossible at most archaeological sites (e.g., Prummel, 1989, p. 255).
Finally, the "herd," almost the only target of traditional European archaeozoology
available as an archaeological deposit, is never the remains of one concrete animal
herd existing in a given period of prehistory. Therefore, if the focus of the study
is to reconstruct a particular herd structure, it is clear that such a "herd" cannot be
treated as a cohort. If the herd were understood as a cohort, it would be regarded
as a static phenomenon, which, in turn, would not enable one to see changes in
herd composition over time (Cribb, 1987, p. 385).
The third important factor characterizing the nature of bone assemblages
relates to culturally specific aspects of refuse disposal at settlements. This kind of
activity may have very little relation to the way the animals were managed and
consumed. It may, however, cause considerable disturbance in the spatial relation of
animal bone assemblages and the set of activities which they supposedly reflect.
These include the categorization of objects as garbage, the distinction between
clean and dirt, the nature of food preparation, diet and consumption, reuse and
recycling, population size, animal roles, and abandonment and postabandonement
activities (e.g., Schiffer, 1976, 1983, 1985; Deal, 1985; Hayden and Cannon, 1983;
Binford, 1978; Staski and Wilk, 1981; Rathje, 1979; Rathje and Hughes, 1975).
Each analysis of faunal material from settlement sites of farming communities
302 Marciniak

has to account for these processes and recognize the ways faunal remains were
deposited (Maltby, 1981, p. 193; Hesse, 1986, p. 21; Zeder, 1988, p. 47; Wilson,
1994, p. 42). Furthermore, the bone material itself, from the time it is part of
a living individual until it is recovered in the archaeological context, undergoes
considerable changes. The transformation processes of bone material by different
factors into fossil and subfossil forms and the taphonomic history of particular
aspects of a given animal bone assemblage have been widely discussed in the
literature (e.g., Brain, 1969, 1976, 198l;Binford and Bertram, 1977;Noe-Nygaard,
1977; Gifford, 1980, 1981; Lyman, 1987, 1994; Blumenschine, 1988; Todd and
Rapson, 1988; Marean, 1991; Marean and Spencer, 1991; Bunn and Ezzo, 1993;
Marean and Bertino, 1993). Accordingly, the nature of these transformations is
not discussed in detail here.
In the case of modifications due to natural processes, one can speak of
n-transformations (Schiffer, 1976, pp. 15-16). These are all modifications of bone
assemblages due to natural factors acting on the morphological and anatomical
properties of bones. These are factors maximizing the destruction of the less
durable parts of a skeleton and are the result, for instance, of the properties of
a carnivore's jaws and the transport abilities of water. This destruction is posi-
tively correlated with the morphological properties of particular bones on which
the destruction is executed (e.g., their density, morphology, size, magnitude, shape)
(e.g.,Brain, 1969,198l;Binford and Bertram, 1977;Lyman, 1984, 1994;Kreutzer,
1992; Lam, 1992; Marean et al., 1992; Armour-Chelu and Andrews, 1994; Butler
and Chatters, 1994; Morlan, 1994; Hedges and Millard, 1995; Miller and Burger,
1995; Turner-Walker and Parry, 1995). The natural causes of bone modification
cannot, however, be unequivocally separated from cultural ones. Human agents
were determinative of the types of nonhuman modifications to which bones were
subjected, as, e.g., owning of dogs, throwing them outside the door vs. putting
them in covered pits, and burning vs. not burning them before discarding.
The character of modifications made through human activity is more difficult
to comprehend. Because of the complexity and diversity of human activities, one
encounters many extremely important questions whose proper formulation has a
bearing on understanding the significance of bone assemblages (e.g., Brain, 1976;
Binford, 1978, 1981; Schiffer, 1983; Maltby, 1985; Jones and Metcalfe, 1988;
Metcalfe and Jones, 1988; Olsen and Shipman, 1988;Grayson, 1989; Klein, 1989;
Marshall and Pilgram, 1991; White, 1992; Marshall, 1994).
These characteristics of faunal assemblages correspond to the nature of the
archaeological record in general. Patrik (1985, p. 34) claims that an archaeological
record "is presumably the product of both natural processes and behavioral pro-
cesses, rather than one of these alone." This statement refers specifically to organic
materials, including animal remains, which, in the sociocultural context, are, to a
large extent, created by an individual or a group acting within a culturally orga-
nized system. The remains possess a natural dimension for two reasons: (1) they
are the result of activities created through a relationship between the group and its
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 303

external environment, and (2) natural conditions had an enormous influence on the
structure of these materials from the moment they were deposited to the moment
of their discovery in the archaeological context.
In this situation, it becomes obvious that the faunal materials from settlement
sites of farming communities from prehistoric Europe, currently at our disposal,
are the result of these two, very generally characterized processes. This does not
mean that the role of one or the other of the modifications is easy to determine. It
should, however, be expected that the impact of natural, environmental factors on
observable evidence will be relatively more significant in the case of organic and
faunal materials.

FAUNAL MATERIALS AND INTERPRETIVE

ARCHAEOLOGY RECONSIDERED

In the proposal for studying social, symbolic, and economic relations between
humans and animals from the perspective offered by reformulated interpretive ar-
chaeology, two explicitly recognized levels of research procedure are assumed.
These two aspects result from the treatment of archaeological records in cate-
gories of fossil and textual models. The first is constituted by a recognition of
formation processes of the archaeological record and includes how, when, and
by whom this record was produced and, furthermore, by the knowledge of bio-
logical characteristics of an animal population as well as general ecology. The
second constitutes an interpretation of culturally specific human uses of animals
and refuse disposal patterns with regard to social and economic complexity [see
Wylie's (1991) vertical and diagonal tackling]. It is assumed that there is a close
relationship between these two elements. Actualistic studies provide "objective"
verification, which alone, offers only a limited scope of information. The inter-
pretive framework, however, cannot disregard the results yielded by the first study
level. Consequently, if one approaches faunal remains at these two levels, two
theoretical concepts must be used. Although I am generally opposed to reduction-
ism, generalizations from the study of the lower-level systems remain useful for
understanding the research proposal advocated here (see also Marciniak, 1996a).
Following the same line of reasoning, one can imagine the opposite situation,
when some characteristic features of a bone assemblages can be analyzed without
the necessity of taking into account the results of the first phase, i.e., actualistic in-
ference. In this case, as well, it is impossible to identify clearly arbitrary criteria that
would allow us to indicate unambiguously where such situations occur. Nonethe-
less, some sets of bone assemblages do exist for which the above conditions can
be met, such as bones deposited in graves and so-called sacred deposits.
One of the crucial elements in the model is actualistic zooarchaeological stud-
ies because they deliver the credibility of physically mediated observation (see
Wylie, 1991). They constitute the foundation of the later hermeneutic analysis and
304 Marciniak

provide the "objective" dimension without which hermeneutics would remain only
"pure speculation." The application of these kinds of studies, as far as the faunal
remains from Central European prehistoric settlement sites are concerned, is lim-
ited, bearing in mind that they are mostly undertaken among hunter-gatherers. The
range of use of this research procedure is dependent on two factors, which are, in a
way, complementary: the possibility of doing experimental or ethnoarchaeological
research on all kinds of osteological records and the opportunity to use the results
of these studies in explaining the observable configuration of bone materials. In
this light, the border drawn between what is (and can be) grasped by actualistic
studies and what is not remains, to a large extent, intangible. The determination of
this border should be carried out for each particular analysis. Knowledge acquired
in an empirical way (characteristic of this kind of research) is, to a certain extent,
of a cumulative nature.
What this postulates is that the vast majority of studies carried out within
the framework of interpretive archaeology are not feasible without prior consid-
erations and accounts of actualistic analyses (see also Crabtree, 1990, p. 188). It
is not possible to create cultural meanings or to make attempts at interpretations
on the basis of an osteological record as it occurs in the archaeological context.
The results of actualistic studies make a significant contribution to the understand-
ing of the processes of formation and deposition of materials in archaeological
sites. Moreover, this perspective ensures Hodder's (199la, pp. 10-11) "objectivity
guard." This "guard" must be recognized as a requirement for contextual studies
within the dimension of interest (Gould and Watson, 1982, p. 367; Binford and
Todd, 1983, p. 207; MacDonald, 1991, p. 79). This kind of ethnoarchaeological
and experimental endeavor "can serve, not just to widen the range of analogs on
which an interpretation can draw, but also to sharply limit [A.M.] them, providing
an important basis for critical assessment of their credibility" (Wylie, 1989, p. 13).
It can be decisive in setting what can be reasonably claimed about the past.
What is proposed here is adopting an approach developed in the tradition
of postprocessual archaeology on the second level of the research procedure by
focusing our research on the particularity of relations (expressing action, will, etc.)
among choices being undertaken and technology, social dimensions of choice,
social relations, negotiating status, gender-driven decisions, symbolism, sacrifice,
etc. This is not to suggest, however, that another line of inquiry [as that proposed by
O'Connell (1995) to use behavioral ecology as a general theory of behavior] is not
valid or that it cannot be comprehended [see, e.g., the successful archaeological
application of foraging theory by Broughton (1994)]. In fact, my suggestion here
is the other possibility, one more closely related to the European tradition of
archaeological theoretical thought.
Thus, the possibilities offered by the proposed model, which to some degree
depends on the nature of the archaeological record, have been discussed. At present,
it appears necessary to give a more comprehensive presentation and to define the
character of the proposed interpretation.
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 305

Numerous studies of faunal materials performed during the last two decades
have clearly proven that it is possible successfully to apply modern observations
to establish cause-effect relationships between the action of different agents and
the physical consequences of these actions. It is possible to identify, with con-
siderable reliability, similar modifications observed on prehistoric material and,
consequently, to determine the causative agents and their behavior before drawing
inferences on a human social organization (see Lyman, 1987, p. 258; Marean et al.,
1992; Marean and Bertino, 1994; Schmitt and Lupo, 1995). Many reliable analyses
have already been undertaken, and they allow for a relatively precise determination
of distinctive morphological traces left on bones as a result of human action, as
well as the establishment of distinctive features of modifications caused by animals
or induced as an effect of flowing water, wind, treadage, etc. (Ginford-Gonzalez,
1991, p. 261). These studies have proven to be so successful because of the bio-
logical nature of faunal remains, namely, their general properties of structure and
durability. The results of actualistic studies can be reliably used even when they are
ultimately intertwined with more abstract notions about the groups being studied
and they are not independent of general theory (see Bettinger, 1987, p. 128). In this
context it can be acknowledged that the results obtained on the basis of actualistic
studies—given the morphological and anatomical properties of bones—permit the
formulation of certain generalizations as regards bone modifications. Moreover, if
the regularities in bone modification are assumed to be cross-cultural, then, via the
relational analogy, this type of data may successfully be applied to an explanation
of observed modifications of bone assemblages from prehistoric settlement sites.
This type of analysis may provide results that are, to a certain degree, "objective"
(in the sense of processual archaeology).
Consequently, in the case of identification of causative agents and their im-
pact on faunal material, one can argue that epistemological issues regarding the
relationship among uniformitarian assumptions, reasoning by analogy and actual-
istic research, have been successfully undertaken (e.g., Binford, 1978, 1981, 1982;
Gifford, 1981). In the case of social relationships standing behind these behaviors,
however, these relationships seem not to be as clear as on the previous level of
analysis. One can hardly argue that uniformitarian principles can be formulated
concerning the social scope of how prehistoric societies used animals, given the
profoundly varied, culturally specific exploitation of animal populations by differ-
ent societies. This is because the social dimension necessarily comprises complex
acquisition and consumption of animal resources as well as the final discard of
faunal remains. Ingold (1994, p. 1) states very clearly that people's ideas about
animals and attitudes toward them reflect an astonishing diversity of cultural tra-
ditions. The conception of an animal is by itself a cultural construct as it is best
reflected in many "folk" taxonomies of other cultures.
While the recognition of the social aspect of human-animal relations becomes
the new agenda, the problem arises of how to deal with this complexity. O'Connell
and Metcalfe (1997; see also O'Connell, 1995) acknowledge that zooarchaeology
306 Marciniak

is generally not well prepared to anticipate human-produced patterns in assemblage

composition. They claim that "anywhere a direct ethnographic analogy cannot be
confidently applied to the interpretation of zooarchaeological remains." Despite
this, however, they believe that similar generalizations, such as those on the physi-
coreductive level, would be possible to formulate. They argue that a comprehensive
framework, capable of predicting or explaining variation in human behavior and its
archaeological consequences, is offered by behavioral and evolutionary ecology.
This is regarded as the most effective framework because it proposes to explain
patterns in behavior by identifying the constraints that underlie them, namely,
fitness- related costs and benefits to be considered by an individual (Hawkes, 1993,
p. 342). Additionally, it is stressed that such a model accurately captures decision
variables if the hypotheses about values are accurate. It is doubtful, however, that
such postulated hypotheses can be precisely and accurately grasped, in view of
the complexity and variability of human culture. Only when such hypotheses are
proposed and tested can this idea be regarded as something more than just another
very general statement. Furthermore, not all decisions undertaken by individuals
are fitness driven, and therefore, fitness-related categories seem to be too broad to
capture the complexity of social reality. Thus, evolutionary ecology is regarded as
sociologically impoverished (e.g., Petereson, 1993, p. 355).
Paradoxically, this has also been stressed by O'Connell and Metcalfe (1997);
they claim that the methodological advances of the past two decades "... provide
little or no basis for connecting such inferences to other than non-human processes
on body part representation and damage morphology and simple inferences about
the roles of humans or hominids aspects of behavior especially if it involves pat-
terns unrepresented [A.M.] in the ethnographic record." The interpretive conclu-
sions depend on foundations resulting from actualistic studies but become further
comprehensible thanks to a number of independently constituted lines of evidence.
This aspect, however, remains beyond the scope of this article.
Although the social dimension of human animal use is difficult to establish
and imagine, the biological requirements and behaviors of the animal population
can be accurately described, based upon the contemporary achievements of zool-
ogy. Prehistoric farmers would have had to take into consideration the requirements
of the species managed. Conducting a preliminary analysis within this framework
does not necessarily imply, however, that the final interpretation of particular cat-
egories of faunal remains in terms of the herd composition, age and sex structure,
and body part representation has to be situated within this framework. For exam-
ple, each fragment of the skeleton can be described in terms of its contemporary
nutritional value; it can be measured by the content of protein, fat, grease, min-
eral salts, energy, etc. (see, e.g., Binford, 1978). However, it has too frequently
been implicitly assumed in archaeological interpretations, using such facts, that
prehistoric societies perceived and used animals they kept and hunted according
to presently accepted standards of husbandry and economics. For example, in
the light of contemporary zoological knowledge, it is known that cattle between
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 307

18 and 30 months of age have meat of the highest nutritional value. This does
not necessarily imply, however, that this value, as such, was perceived by a given
cultural group in the past (see also Crabtree, 1990, p. 174).
It can, therefore, hardly be argued that there is only one kind of economic opti-
malization defining relations toward animals. Even within this "rational" (formalist
economist) framework, there is room for culturally specific decisions and activi-
ties (see Binford, 1983a). This means that it might often be impossible to link the
quality of particular parts of a mammal body with human needs and choices under-
stood through adaptationalist maximal effectiveness. Quite recently, Bartosiewicz
(1997) presented pork and beef prices of different anatomical parts in the rural
markets of 14 countries throughout Europe. The value of these anatomical parts
measured by their prices, in some European countries, does not positively correlate
with their nutritional value.
The proof that such an "optimal" interpretation might not apply in each
situation also comes from contemporary ethnographic observations. O'Connell
and Metcalfe (1997) stress that recent research on contemporary hunter-gatherers
shows that people often bypass resources that are regularly encountered, reliably
acquired, and easily defended in favor of others (usually large animals) which are
less "attractive" on all levels. Marshall (1996) observed that most East African pas-
toral and many agricultural groups today, in contrast to hunter-gatherers, eat only
wild animals with hooves, ungulates like eland and wildebeest, and not carnivores
or primates with nails or claws. Another example shows that a high frequency
of horse bones on some sites in Turkey might have unequivocally suggested that
this species had been consumed on a large scale. Ethnographic research on these
territories, however, reliably informs us that there was a religious taboo restrict-
ing horse meat consumption (Payne, 1972, p. 11). Another example comes from
Arabia and central Afghanistan. There is evidence here that meat of the high-
est value, according to contemporary standards, was not regarded as having the
highest value in those societies. Preference was given to the meat of old castrated
rams, because of the amount of fat they possessed (Hesse, 1986, pp. 17-18). In
the Bible we find a prohibition on pork consumption (Hesse, 1995, p. 217). This
serves as an example of differences in animal exploitation guided by religious
rules. In central New Guinea, pigs are integral to social and ritual transactions and
are rarely eaten outside of ritual and ceremonial occasions. A very similar situation
can be observed in rural Indonesia, where pigs, goats, horses, and water buffalo
are used prominently in the rituals pertaining to marriage and death (Keswani,
1994, pp. 257-258). These examples clearly demonstrate that accepting an array
of unwarranted assumptions results in an overly simplistic interpretation of faunal
remains.
Within this context and at this level, one can view ethnographic and ethnoar-
chaeological analogies from a different perspective. Instead of being a basis for
any kind of uniformitarian explanation of a given social structure, they offer us
multiple, independently derived lines of evidence, which, in their richness and
308 Marciniak

diversity, offer some possible interpretations (see Wylie, 1989). Therefore, eth-
nological and ethnoarchaeological observations cannot even formulate or project
proper "frames of reference" as defined by Binford (1987) at a level comprehend-
ing the social complexity of farming societies. By no means can we juxtapose
an independent frame of reference at this level. This is especially obvious when
we realize that even in biology, at the level of ecological systems, such laws are
not easy to formulate, because it is very difficult to comprehend the complexity
of such highly hierarchical, integrated systems. This is especially so when one
deals with such a diversity of human-produced patterns in assemblage composi-
tion. Furthermore, this is even more difficult to achieve in farming communities
where ecological constraints are not of such importance as for hunter-gatherers.
An interesting example of interpreting the relationship between animals and
humans, illustrating some of the problems discussed here, was recently presented
by Thomas (1996, pp. 103-104). He rejects a simple economic interpretation of
cattle predominance in the Band Pottery Culture of Central Europe. Instead, he
proposes that following the herd represented a particular kind of dwelling in a
landscape. Through elaborated patterns of mobility, a familiarity with places and
landscapes would have been promoted. In this example, a cattle herd is a means of
understanding the world rather than one merely promoting the production of a cer-
tain number of calories. This does not necessarily mean that the latter "function"
has to be rejected. It is a kind of interpretation that the presented model sup-
ports. While proposing his interpretation, however, Thomas bases his argument
directly on the species frequencies built on faunal data from scarce and poorly
preserved sites. A lack of understanding of formation processes in these settle-
ments is especially obvious in this case. The creation of deposits on European
Neolithic settlements was usually a long process which comprised complex activ-
ities undertaken by subsequent inhabitants. It thus, cannot be, assumed that any
kind of simple correlation exists between the number of cattle bones in the assem-
blage and the dominance of the cattle herd. Rather than carefully examining the
assemblage, Thomas uncritically used empirical generalizations referring to the
number of bones recovered.
In another example, Thomas (1996, pp. 203-205, Fig. 7.8) uses empirical
generalizations regarding differences between primary butchery waste and meat
bones of pigs and cattle in various intrasite locations in the later Neolithic in
Mount Pleasant, to recognize the symbolic significance of space and the character
of communal feasting (meat consumption). The pattern he supposedly recognizes,
however, resembles the schlepp effect (Perkins and Daly, 1968) insofar as he
claims that killing on-site versus off-site could have produced an observable pat-
tern. This pattern could, however, have been caused by a series of other factors,
i.e., bone density, something which was convincingly presented in the zooarchae-
ological literature (see, e.g., Lyman, 1987, 1994; O'Connell et al., 1988, 1990,
1992; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993). Similarly, the use of faunal data in this example
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 309

is again very simplistic and lacks necessary reflection on the nature of faunal as-
semblages and the possible effects of other factors shaping the observable pattern
of the assemblage.

SOCIAL DIMENSION AND FAUNAL DATA—INTERPRETIVE

STRATEGIES

This paper suggests that horizontal patterns of distribution of archaeological

materials, in this case the patterns of distribution of fragments of bones or whole
skeletons, can provide the most accurate information about social and cultural
meanings and ideas which determined the place of animal populations in prehis-
toric societies. Such an approach to the faunal material is epitomized in Hodder's
(1982a, p. 112) statement that "the organization of the animal world and the parts
of carcasses offer a wealth of natural patterning that can be used as hooks on which
to hang the logic of the social and cultural wealth of man."
As has already been pointed out, the interpretive procedure presented above
has to be based on objective fundamentals that are guaranteed by the results of
actualistic studies. On the other hand, this interpretation hinges on the context
analysis. The latter thus becomes the key issue. Following Hodder (1986, p. 139),
context means "all accessible dimensions, where their relevance refers to signif-
icant relations of a given object, i.e., relations indispensable in identifying and
differentiating the meaning of objects." The context is treated in two ways. It is
considered a key operational term and the most essential framework permitting
the interpretation of animal bone materials. The locale in which they are found
constitutes the basis for establishing the role and importance of animals in differ-
ent aspects of the prehistoric society's life (see also Enloe, 1997). On the other
hand, the context in which bone materials are deposited is directly responsible
for the state of their preservation. Deposition in a defined feature or layer signifi-
cantly shapes a whole range of taphonomic processes, such as access to scavengers
(dogs), trampling, and the influence of water.
Accordingly, the context can be regarded as a "reference frame." Contextual
analysis thus understood should ensure recognition of internally compact pro-
cesses acting in particular contexts, rather than seeking a comparative explanation
aiming at determining universal regularities. This is because, as has already been
pointed out, observations concerning contemporary human behavior, as expressed
in contemporary patterns, laws, and universal regularities, cannot be transferred to
prehistoric populations (Sherratt, 1993, p. 128).
Animal bone assemblages found on almost all archaeological sites of agri-
cultural communities are characterized by different horizontal distributions on an
intrasite scale (e.g., Halstead et al., 1978, p. 81) as the effect of "a different net-
work of behavior in a systemic context" (Gamble, 1978, p. 332). The horizontal
310 Marciniak

distribution of faunal material is caused, to a large extent, by the activity of both

individuals and the given group under consideration (e.g., Grant, 1984, p. 539;
Huelsbeck, 1988, p. 135; Mudar, 1988, p. 151).
Taking into account the character of cultural depositional processes on the
settlement, two main categories of materials can be distinguished: (1) primary
deposits, which means materials left at the place where they were used; and (2)
secondary deposits, which means materials deposited outside the place where they
were used (e.g., Schiffer, 1972, p. 163, 1987, pp. 58-98; Meadow, 1980, p. 66;
Moore, 1981, p. 90; Armitage, 1982, p. 94; Chapman and Grant, 1989, p. 67;
O'Connell, 1995, p. 214). Primary deposits of animal bone assemblages at agri-
cultural settlement sites are from the following: butchering sites, distinct or po-
tentially distinct activities and zones of food preparation and of consumption, and
bone working sites (Serjeantson, 1991, p. 87).
The potential for analyzing primary deposits is not the same throughout the
whole site. Only some parts of the site enable such an analysis, mainly the interiors
of stable, dwelling structures such as houses and dugouts (Uerpmann, 1973, p. 307;
Choyke, 1984, p. 52), as they "reflect" activities carried out there (see Schiffer,
1972). This context is especially valuable when there are no spatially restricted
refuse disposal practices. It seems, however, that even when these rules existed and
even if we assume that the floors of houses had been cleaned, this locale still yields
valuable materials (Chapman and Grant, 1989, p. 64). It is only the scope and
frequency of such an activity which are usually very difficult to assess (Chaplin,
1971, p. 121). These potential possibilities are offered especially by the cumulative
character of faunal remains and deposition in certain locales. The analysis of such
a primary deposit allows us to recognize and interpret nutritional preferences of a
group. Once discarded, the material is accumulated again, and the character of
such subsequent deposits is very similar due to the like nutritional preferences of
the inhabitants of such a house. Primary deposits are the most valuable category
of materials for research on the particular kinds of activities and can be used to
recognize specific activity areas on the basis of different characteristics of a given
bone assemblage providing the material to be interpreted. The research value
of secondary refuse composition seems to be relatively lower. However, Wilson
(1994) has recently made some attempts to identify and characterize secondary
refuse aggregates. He identified economic and demographic factors which affect
the composition of secondary refuse aggregates.
The situation presented here offers a valuable perspective only when the
impact of further disturbance caused by the reoccupation and reworking of a set-
tlement is relatively low. It is obvious that there is a considerable shift of all mobile
materials, including animal bone remains, due to frequent rebuilding, enlarging,
construction of new objects, changes in functional utilization of particular parts of
the settlement, etc. (e.g., Bailey, 1981, pp. 109-110; Levine, 1983, p. 33; Choyke,
1984, p. 51; Hivernel and Hodder, 1984, pp. 97-99; Hesse, 1986, p. 20; Schmitt
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 311

and Juell, 1994), and also due to many noncultural factors (e.g., Armour-Chelu
and Andrews, 1994, p. 442; Marean and Bertino, 1994).
Social factors, according to Marshall (1996), influence the following kind
of animal patterns: use of domestic vs. wild animals, use of particular wild ani-
mals, patterns of adoption of domestic animal breeds, carcass distribution, food
preparation, and discard. The most appropriate aspect of an analytic strategy, in
which the social dimension of human-animal relationships in prehistoric farming
communities can effectively be addressed, is the analysis and interpretation of
horizontal distributions of skeletal parts, both within a given settlement and within
the microregion. Such a system is more valuable than one based on the relative
taxonomic abundance or the age and sex structure (see also Crabtree, 1990, p. 171;
Wapnish and Hesse, 1991, p. 46). It provides information about functional utiliza-
tion of animals (or their parts) in different places within the settlement and allows
us to get at the social relations of animal resources. The distributions of body part
representation at various hunter-gatherer sites has been widely discussed recently
by O'Connell et al. (1988, 1990, 1992), Bunn et al. (1988), and Marshall and
Pilgram (1993). Specifically, these proportions are shaped by the size of the ani-
mal, the distance from the kill site to the residential base, the number of carcasses
available, marrow yields, etc. (see also Jones and Metcalfe, 1988; Blumenschine
and Madrigal, 1993). Observations made by Marshall (1994, p. 68) among Okiek
hunter-gatherers from Kenya enable her to point out that "butchery at the site of the
kill also provided the initial context for sharing through carcass allocation and cre-
ated characteristic skeletal units shared at this time." She also claims that "spatial
relationships are overwhelmingly the strongest predicator of patterns of sharing"
(p. 74). The recognition of meat sharing in archaeological situations is very dif-
ficult, at least as far as hunter-gatherers are concerned, because there is "no sin-
gle body part profile that can stand unambiguously as an indicator of sharing"
(Marshall, 1994, p. 74). Ethnoarchaeological studies, however, show that even
when a bone fragment is recognized as having been used in sharing, this not
necessarily is reflected in the bone assemblage (Kent, 1993, p. 360).
These analyses have been concentrated mainly on the recognition of subsis-
tence strategies as methods of meat acquisition such as scavenging and a variety
of hunting techniques, differences between foraging and collecting strategies, and
issues of anatomical utility. The works mentioned above point out that the anal-
ysis of skeletal profiles can address the question of meat transport, site function,
hunting success, access to different parts of animals, sharing, and trade. From
these aspects, sharing, and trade patterns seem to be a promising line of inquiry
in farming societies. Archaeologists working with differential body part represen-
tation in farming communities are aware that carcass dismemberment and, as a
result, the composition of its fragments are often caused by exchange patterns and
meat sharing both within and between sites (e.g., Gilbert and Singer, 1982; Zeder,
1988). The decision of what part of an animal's body to use, and, consequently,
312 Marciniak

what kind of butchery practices should be used, is determined by such social ends.
One can argue that in farming households the entire division of meat is driven
by these factors. Sharing could have had considerable importance in reaffirming
and solidifying social relationships (Kent, 1993, p. 352); however, its importance
varies among different societies (p. 370). The social division of carcasses could
have been different from the physical one, e.g., anatomically dictated, thus "ruled"
by generalizations delivered by the first level in the proposed model.
Being the result of the distribution of "prime cuts," body part representation
can reflect members of particular age, sex, or status groups (see Keswani, 1994,
p. 261), assuming that they have been consumed in specific locations within a
settlement. One has to bear in mind, however, that different aspects of animals are
perceived as having value, for their size, the size of their horns, and the growth
of their coats, as these reflect the prestige associated with ownership, display, pre-
sentation, or sacrifice (Keswani, 1994, p. 260). Therefore, the analysis of the body
part distribution has to be situated in the context of other material features such
as architecture and artifacts. For those groups where trade had not taken place, at-
tention was focused on the continuum from cooking through disposal. Especially
important are the final stages of meat preparation and consumption. Focus on the
end products could possibly have had a great impact on the patterns recovered
archaeologically. Possible indicators of status differences include diversity, dis-
card location, methods of butchery, and methods of cooking (e.g., Crabtree, 1990,
p. 177, Wilson, 1994, pp. 45-48; Miller and Burger, 1995, p. 440). This can also re-
veal more social-based factors affecting this distribution, such as cooking practices
and gender, which have been put forward recently by Gifford-Gonzalez (1993),
Kent (1993), and Marshall (1994).
Furthermore, distributions of body parts enable us to recognize a group
predilection toward a particular method of refuse disposal. The possibility of its
recognition is a prerequisite in all kinds of analyses of a given assemblage. One
also has to remember that the spatial patterning of archaeological assemblages, as
originally deposited by people, are susceptible to alteration by various agents, both
biotic and abiotic (e.g., Marean and Bertino, 1994, p. 749), to a considerable degree
caused by density-driven attrition. Systemic analysis under controlled experimen-
tal conditions of the skeletal element survival process has recently been presented
by Marean et al. (1992). Additionally, the impact of noncultural agents of bone
destruction and density-dependent attrition on the structure of skeletal part profiles
can be quite easy to evaluate and assess, especially in a situation of directional
accumulation of deposits and when there is information available about different
bone densities (or of their fragments) [on the impact of context on the character-
istics of bone assemblages, see, e.g., Stiner et al. (1995)]. This does not, however,
necessarily mean that the problem of equifinality has already been successfully
resolved. The impact of predepositional processes, such as carnivore ravaging,
has rarely been addressed during interpretations of skeletal element abundance
while analyzing faunal assemblages from agricultural societies. In order to have a
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 313

coherent analysis of body part representation, another line of evidence such as bone
surface modification has to be addressed as well. Bone surface modification is an
especially crucial body of evidence for investigating the role of human and nonhu-
man taphonomic processes in site formation (recently discussed by Fisher, 1995).

FINAL REMARKS

The model presented in this paper is an attempt to conceptualize the most

important issues concerning research on animal bone materials from prehistoric
farming settlements in Central Europe. An analysis of such materials has to con-
sist of two stages. Explanation of the complex factors responsible for the cre-
ation of animal bone assemblages by actualistic studies, further supplemented by
the knowledge of biological characteristics of animals maintained and consumed,
should be the aim of the first level; and an interpretation of the horizontal distri-
bution of skeletal parts, within the frames proposed by interpretive archaeology,
using the results of the first level, should be the second level of such an analy-
sis. In other words, interpretation follows explanation, and it makes no difference
which aspect of past reality is the subject of study. It concerns economic issues as
well as social and religious relations. It is necessary to take into account feeding
preferences characteristic of a group. It should, as well, be made clear whether
animals were used for food, sacrifice, sharing, or other purposes and whether a
quality recognition of cattle value had really taken place.
Actualistic studies "guard objectivity" (Hodder, 1991a, p. 10) in interpretive
archaeology, and this kind of research developed in a tradition of processual ar-
chaeology for similar reasons (cf. Klejn, 1993, p. 510). The reintroduction of this
element gives autonomy to interpretive archaeology. An archaeologist, once again,
becomes responsible for the determination of the range of this "objectivity" and for
recognition as the result of justified archaeological interpretations. As presented
by Thomas (1995, p. 353), "rather than accept a total relativism in which 'anything
goes,' however, archaeologists have the responsibility of making choices: they
have to discriminate." This paper opposes the relativist position that there is no
sovereign truth or reality. This position corresponds with the one recently advo-
cated by Thomas (1995), who, however, formulated it from a different perspective,
calling such a position "perspectivism." Interestingly, it meets the expectations of
some opponents of postprocessual archaeology who claim that "... it is crucial
that archaeologists assert that there is at least a partly knowable antiquity and that
they are guardians of its integrity" (Yoffee and Sherratt, 1993, p. 7). As one sees,
there is a call for some kind of "objectivity" from both sides. If one accepts that the
past is, to some extent, knowable, it is the archaeologist who should decide this
knowability and its limitations.
This attempt to construct an approach to faunal analysis using processual
means to interpretive ends does not necessarily imply, however, that a fusion of
314 Marciniak

these two perspectives is possible at this point. However, aspects of processual

methodology can be effectively used by interpretive archaeology. Likewise, in
searching for a social theory accounting for human-animal relations, zooarchae-
ology can find the social theory developed within the milieu of postprocessual
archaeology useful and fruitful.
The concept introduced by processual archaeologists, to apply the scientific
method in archaeology, is a necessary inferential component of the interpretive
procedure. Moreover, the return to this concept is almost a necessity, especially
in times when the archaeological sciences are becoming a self-contained uni-
versity branch. Disregarding this important tendency will not, however, cause its
disappearance. Nor will the dynamics of its development be diminished. It is to
be predicted that future tendencies in theoretical archaeology will aim for the
inclusion of achievements and proposals offered by the archaeological sciences.
Consequently, there is a need to join these two branches of archaeological activity
carried out on both the theoretical and the methodological levels. This is the sole
way to reach a plausible merger of these two trends of research on the past. The
proposition of a common theoretical plane which has been proposed in this pa-
per provides possibilities for more effective use, and this model should be a step
in this direction. Moreover, the proposed model is an attempt to withdraw from
the illusions and exaggerated expectations of data presented by postprocessual
archaeology. Finally, it is formulated as a challenge and an attempt to jettison the
relativism of its theoretical program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the reviewers who offered valuable comments and crit-
icism on the draft of this paper: Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, Chris Gosden, Judith
Habicht-Mauche, Danuta Minta-Tworzowska, and Andrew Sherratt. Their careful
reading and comments have expanded my thinking. I owe special thanks to Diane
Gifford-Gonzalez for the valuable discussion and careful correction of the whole
text. I also thank anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism and Michael B.
Schiffer for guiding the paper through the editorial process. However, the respon-
sibility for any errors of omission or commission is solely that of the author.

REFERENCES CITED

Armitage, P. L. (1982). Studies on the remains of domestic livestock from Roman, mediaeval, and early
modern London: Objectives and methods. In Hall, A. R., and Kenward, H. K. (eds.), Environ-
mental Archaeology in Urban Context, pp. 94-106.
Armour-Chelu, M., and Andrews, P. (1994). Some effects of bioturbation by earthworms (Oligochaeta)
on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 433-443.
Aunger, R. (1995). On ethnography. Storytelling or science? Current Anthropology 36(1): 97-114.
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 315

Bailey, G. (1981). Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In Sheridan, A.,
and Bailey, G. (eds.), Economic Archaeology. Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social
Approaches, BAR International Series 96, Oxford, pp. 97-117.
Barrett, J. C. (1995). Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200
B.C., Blackwell, Oxford, Cambridge, MA.
Bartosiewicz, L. (1997). This little piggy went to market... An archaeozoological study of modern
meat value. Journal of European Archaeology 5(1): 170-182.
Bellinger, R. L. (1987). Archaeological approaches to hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology
16: 121-142.
Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217-225.
Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology, Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones. Ancient Men and Modem Myths, Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. (1982). Meaning, inference and the material record. In Renfrew, C., and Shennan, S.
(eds.), Ranking of the Archaeology of Early European Society, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 160-163.
Binford, L. R. (1983a). Objectivity—explanation—archaeology, In Binford. L. R. (ed.), Working at
Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 45-55.
Binford, L. R. (1983b). Behavioral archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise." In Binford, L. R. (ed.),
Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 229-241.
Binford, L. R. (1987). Data, relativism and archaeological science. Man 22(3): 391-404.
Binford, L. R., and Bertram, J. B. (1977). Bone frequencies—and attritional processes. In Binford,
L. R. (ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 77-156.
Binford, L. R.,and Todd, L. C. (1983). On arguments for the "butchering" of Giant Gelades. In Binford,
L. R. (ed.). Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 205-209.
Bintliff, J. (1991). Post-modernism and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological
theory. Antiquity 65: 274-278.
Blumenschine, R. J. (1988). An experimental model of the timing of hominid and carnivore influence
on archaeological bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 483-502.
Blumenschine, R. J., and Madrigal, T. C. (1993). Variability in long bone marrow yields of East African
ungulates and its zooarchaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:555-587.
Brain, C. K. (1969). The contribution of Namib desert Hottentots to an understanding of australop-
ithecine bone accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 39: 13-22.
Brain, C. K. (1976). Some principles in the interpretation of bone accumulations associated with man.
In Isaac, G. L., and McCown, E. R. (eds.), Human Origins. Louis Leakey and the East Africa
Evidence, pp. 97-116.
Brain, C. K. (1981). The Hunters or the Hunted? University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Brewer, D. J. (1992). Zooarchaeology. Methods, theory and goals. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory, Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 195-244.
Broughton, J. M. (1994). Declines in mammalian foraging efficiency during the Late Holocene, San
Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 371-401.
Bunn, H. T., and Ezzo, A. J. (1993). Hunting and scavenging by Plio-Pleistocene hominids: Nutritional
constraints, archaeological patterns, and behavioural implications. Journal of Archaeological
Science 20: 365-398.
Bunn, H. T., Bartram, L. E., and Kroll, E. M. (1988). Variability in bone assemblage formation from
Hadza hunting, scavenging, and carcass processing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
7: 412-457.
Butler, V. L., and Chatters, J. C. (1994). The role of bone density in structuring prehistoric salmon bone
assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 413-424.
Chaplin, R. E. (1971). The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Seminar Press, London
& New York.
Chapman, R., and Grant, A. (1989). The Talayotic monuments of Mallorca: Formation processes and
function. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8(1): 55-72.
Choyke, A. M. (1984). Pitfalls in the analysis of animal production at complex societies. MASCA
Journal 3(2): 49-52.
Clarke, D. (1968). Analytical Archeology, Methuen, London.
Collingwood, R. G. (1956). The Idea of History, Oxford University Press, New York.
316 Marciniak

Crabtree, P. J. (1990). Zooarchaeology and complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the
study of trade, social status and ethnicity. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 2, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 155-205.
Cribb, R. L. D. (1985). The analysis of ancient herding systems: An application of computer simulation.
In Barker, G., and Gamble, C. (eds.), Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe. Investigations
in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity, Academic Press, New York, pp. 75-106.
Cribb, R. L. D. (1987). The logic of the herd: A computer simulation of archaeological herd structure.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 376-415.
Deal, M. (1985). Household pottery disposal in the Maya Highlands: An ethnoarchaeological interpre-
tation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243-291.
Dilthey, W. (1947). Origine et developpement de 1'hermeneutique (1900), In Le Monde de I'Espirit I.
Aubier, Paris.
Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interprelativa nei testi narrativi, Gruppo Editoriale
Fabbri, Milano.
Eco, U. (1990). The Limitation of Interpretation, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indianapolis.
Eco, U. (1992). Interpretation and history. In Collini, S. (ed.). Interpretation and Overinterpretation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 24-44.
Enloe, J. G. (1997). Producers and consumers: Social aspects of zooarchaeology (manuscript). Fisher, J.
W., Jr. (1995). Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 2(1): 7-68.
Gamble, C. (1978). Optimising information from studies of faunal remains. In Cherry, J. F., Gamble,
C., and Shennan, S. (eds.), Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology, BAR British Series
50, Oxford, pp. 321-353.
Gifford, D. P. (1980). Ethnoarchaeological contributions to the taphonomy of human sites. In
Behrensmeyer, A. K., and Hill, A. P. (eds.), Fossils in the Making. Vertebrate Taphonomy and
Paleoecology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 93-106.
Gifford, D. P. (1981). Taphonomy and paleoecology: A critical review of archaeology's sister disci-
plines. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4, University
of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 365-438.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. (1991). Bones are not enough. Analogies, knowledge, and interpretive strategies
in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 215-254.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. (1993). Gaps in the zooarchaeological analyses of butchery: Is gender an
issue? In Hudson, J. (ed.), From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental
Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, Occasional Paper No. 12, Southern Illinois
University Press, Carbondale, pp. 181-199.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D., and Bartram, L. E. (1997). Animals and social relations: Linking concepts to
archaeofaunal samples (manuscript).
Gilbert, A. S., and Singer, B. H. (1982). Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification. World Archae-
ology 14(1).
Gould, R. A., and Watson, P. J. (1982). A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchae-
ological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 335-381.
Grant, A. (1984). Animal Husbandary. In Cunliffe, B. (ed.), Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in
Hampshire, Vol. 2. The Excavations, 1969-1978: Finds, Council for British Archaeology, London,
pp. 496-548.
Grayson, D. K. (1989). Bone transport, bone destruction, and reverse utility curves. Journal of Archae-
ological Science 16: 643-652.
Greenfield, H. (1986). The Paleoeconomy of the Central Balkans (Serbia). A Zooarchaeological Per-
spective on the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (ca. 4500-1000 BC). Part 1, BAR International
Series 304, Oxford.
Greenfield, H. (1988). The origins of milk and wool production in the Old World. Current Anthropology
29(4): 573-587.
Greenfield, H. (1991). Fauna from the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: Issues in subsistence and
land use. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 161-186.
Halstead, P., Hodder, I., and Jones, G. (1978). Behavioural archaeology and refuse patterns: A case
study. Norwegian Archaeological Review 11(2): 118-131.
Hawkes, K. (1993). Why hunter-gatherers work. An ancient version of the problem of public goods.
Current Anthropology 34(4): 341-351.
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 317

Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. (1983). Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117-163.
Hedges, R. E. M., and Millard, A. R. (1995). Bones and groundwater: Towards the modelling of
diagenetic processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 155—164.
Hesse, B. (1986). Animal use at Tal Mique-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Bulletin of the
American School of Oriental Research 264: 17-27.
Hesse, B. (1995). Husbandry, dietary taboos and the bones of the ancient Near East: zooarchaeol-
ogy in the post-processual world. In Small, D. B. (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean. Histor-
ical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology, E. }. Brill, Leiden, New York, Koln,
pp. 197-232.
Hivemel, R, and Hodder, I. (1984). Analysis of artifact distribution at Ngenyn (Kenya): Depositional and
postdepositional effects. In Hietala, H. (ed.), Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 97-115.
Hodder, I. (1982a). The Present Past. An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists, B. T.
Batsdorf, London.
Hodder, I. (1982b). Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view. In Hodder, I. (ed.). Symbolic and
Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-16.
Hodder, I. (1984). History vs. science: No context. Review of L. R. Binford, 1983, In Pursuit of the
Past and J. G. Clark, 1983, The Identity of Man. Scottish Archaeological Review 3(1): 66-68.
Hodder, I. (1985). Postprocessual archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 8, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1-26.
Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. (1989). This is not an article about material culture as text. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 8: 250-269.
Hodder, 1. (199la). Interpretive archaeology and its role. American Antiquity 56(1): 7-18.
Hodder, I. (1991b). Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Pro-
cessual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Occasional Paper
No. 10, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 30-41.
Huelsbeck, D. (1988). Faunal remains and the identification of social groups in the archaeological
record. In Webb, R. E. (ed.), Recent Developments in Environmental Analysis in Old and New
World Archaeology, BAR International Series 416, Oxford, pp. 131-149. Ingold, T. (1994). In-
troduction. In Ingold, T. (ed.), What Is an Animalq Routledge, London, pp. 1-16.
Johansen, H., and Olsen, B. (1992). Hermeneutics and archaeology: On the philosophy of contextual
archaeology. American Antiquity 57(3): 419-436.
Jones, K. T., and Metcalfe, D. (1988). Bare bones archaeology: Bone marrow indicies and efficiency.
Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 415-423.
Kent, S. (1993). Variability in faunal assemblages: The influnce of hunting skill, sharing, dogs, and
mode of cooking on faunal remains at a sedentary Kalahari community. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 12: 323-385.
Keswani, P. S. (1994). The social context of animal husbandry in early agricultural societies: Ethno-
graphic insights and an archaeological example from Cyprus. Journal of Anthropological Archae-
ology 13: 255-277.
Klein, R. G. (1989). Why does skeleton part representation differ between smaller and larger bovids
at Klasies River Mouth and other archaeological sites? Journal of Archaeological Science 16:
363-381.
Klejn, L. (1993). It's difficult to be a God. Current Anthropology 34(4): 508-511.
Kosso, P. (1991). Methods in archaeology: Middle-Range Theory as hermeneutics. American Antiquity
56(4): 621-627.
Kreutzer, L. A. (1992). Bison and deer bone mineral densities: Comparisions and implications for the
interpretation of archaeological faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 271-294.
Kruk, J. (1980). Gospodarka w Polsce poludniowo-wschodniej w V-III tysiacleciu p.n.e., Ossolineum,
Wroclaw.
Lam, Y. M. (1992). Variability in the behaviour of spotted hyeanas as taphonomic agents. Journal of
Archaeological Sciences 19: 389-406.
Levine, M. A. (1983). Mortality models and the interpretation of horse population structure. In Bailey,
G. (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. A European Perspective, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 23-46.
318 Marciniak

Lyman, R. L. (1984). Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes. Journal of Anthro-
pological Archaeology 3: 259-299.
Lyman, R. L. (1985). Bone frequencies: Differential transport, in situ destruction, and the MGUI.
Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 221-236.
Lyman, R. L. (1987). Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: A taphonomic perspective. In Schiffer,
M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 10, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, pp. 249-337.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. MacDonald,
K. C. (1991). Interpreting archaeological science. A discussion with Colin Renfrew and Ian
Hodder. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10(1): 70-85.
Maltby, J. M. (1981). Iron Age, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon animal husbandary—A review of
the faunal evidence. In Jones, M., and Dimbleby, G. (eds.), The Environment of Man: The Iron
Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period, BAR British Series 87, Oxford, pp. 155-203.
Maltby, J. M. (1985). Patterns in faunal assemblages variability. In Barker, G., and Gamble, C. (eds.),
Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe. Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and So-
cial Complexity, London, pp. 33-74.
Marciniak, A. (1996a). Archeologia i jej zrodla. Materialy faunistyczne w praktyce badawczej arche-
ologii, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Poznan, Warszawa.
Marciniak, A. (ed.) (1996b). Section 2: Poland, World Archaeological Bulletin 8, Southampton.
Marciniak, A. (1997). Setting a new agenda. Ian Hodder and his contribution to archaeological theory.
Archaeologia Polona 35-36: 409-426.
Marean, C. W. (1991). Measuring the post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological assem-
blages. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(6): 677-694.
Marean, C. W., and Bertino, L. (1994). Intrasite spatial analysis of bone: Subtracting the effect of
secondary carnivore consumers. American Antiquity 59(4): 748-768.
Marean, C. W., and Spencer, L. M. (1991). Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures
of element abundance. American Antiquity 56(4): 645-658.
Marean, C. W., Spencer, L. M., Blumenschine, R. J., and Capaldo, S. D. (1992). Captive hyaena bone
choice and destruction, the schlepp effect and Olduvai archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological
Science 19: 101-121.
Marshall, F. (1994). Food sharing and body part representation in Okiek faunal assemblages. Journal
of Archaeological Science 21: 65-77.
Marshall, F. (1996). Bones and the social context of human bahavior: Pastoral and ethnoarchaeological
insights. Paper presented at the 59th SAA Meeting, New Orleans.
Marshall, F., and Pilgram, T. (1991). Meat versus within-bone nutrients: Another look at the mean-
ing of body part representation in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:
149-163.
Meadow, R. H. (1980). Animal bones: Problems for the archaeologist together with some possible
solutions. Paleorient 6: 65-78.
Metcalfe, D., and Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body part utility indices. American
Antiquity 53: 486-504.
Miller, G. R., and Burger, R. L. (1995). Our father the cayman, our dinner the llama: Animal utilization
at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. American Antiquity 60(3): 421-458.
Moore, H. (1981). Bone refuse—Possibilities for the future. In Sheridan, A., and Bailey, G. (eds.),
Economic Archaeology. Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, BAR In-
ternational Series 96, Oxford, pp. 87-94.
Morlan, R. E. (1994). Bison bone fragmentation and survivorship: A comparative method. Journal of
Archaeological Science 21: 797-807.
Mudar, K. M. (1988). The effects of context on bone assemblages: Examples from the Uruk period in
southwest Iran. Paleorient 14(1): 151-158.
Noe-Nygaard, N. (1977). Butchering and marrow fracturing as a taphonomic factor in archaeological
deposits. Paleobiology 3: 218-237.
O'Connell, J. F. (1995). Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behavior. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Research 3(3): 205-255.
O'Connell, J. F., and Metcalfe, D. (1997). Behavioral ecology and zooarchaeology (manuscript).
O'Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K., and Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1988). Hadza hunting, butchering, and bone
transport and their archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Research 44: 113-161.
Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology 319

O'Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K., and Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1990). Reanalysis of large mammal body part
transport among the Hadza. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 301-316.
O'Connell, J. F, Hawkes, K., and Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1992). Patterns in the distribution, site structure
and assemblage composition of Hadza kill-butchering sites. Journal of Archaeological Science
19:319-345.
Olsen, S. L., and Shipman, P. (1988). Surface modification on bone: Trampling versus butchery. Journal
of Archaeological Science 15: 535-553.
Patrik, L. E. (1985). Is there an archaeological record? In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory, Vol. 8, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 27-62.
Payne, S. (1972). On the interpretation of bone samples from archaeological sites. In Higgs, E. S. (ed.),
Papers in Economic Prehistory, pp. 65-81.
Perkins, D., and Daly, P. (1968). A hunters' village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219:
96-106.
Peterson, N. (1993). Comment on Hawkes, K., Why hunter-gatherers work. An ancient version of the
problem of public goods. Current Anthropology 34(4): 355-356.
Preucel, R. W. (1991). The philosophy of archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processual and Postpro-
cessual Archaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Occasional Paper No. 10, Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 17-29.
Prummel, W. (1989). Iron Age animal husbandry, hunting, fowling and fishing on Voorne-Putten (The
Netherlands). Paleohistoria 31. 235-265.
Rathje, W. L. (1979). The telltale garbae of Tucson. Early Man Winter: 19-21.
Rathje, W. L., and Hughes, W. W. (1975). The garbage project as a non-reactive approach: Garbage
i n . . . garbage out. In Sinaiko, H. W., and Boedling, L. A. (eds.), Perspectives on Attitude Assess-
ment: Surveys and their Alternatives, pp. 151—167.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and Narrative, Vol. I, Chicago University Press, Chicago and London.
Ricoeur, P. (1989). Jezyk, tekst, interpretacja, Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa.
Rorty, R. (1992). The pragmatist's progress. In Collini, S. (ed.), Interpretation and Overinterpretation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 87-107.
Schiffer, M. B. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37: 156-165.
Schiffer, M. B. (1976). Behavioral Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
Schiffer, M. B. (1983). Toward the identification of formation process. American Antiquity 48:675-706.
Schiffer, M. B. (1987). Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Schmitt, D. N., and Juell, K. E. (1994). Toward the identification of coyote scatological faunal accu-
mulations in archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 249-262.
Schmitt, D. N., and Lupo, K. D. (1995). On mammalian taphonomy, taxonomic diversity, and measuring
subsistence data in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 60(3): 496-514.
Serjeantson, D. (1991). "Rid grasse of bones": A taphonomic study of the bones from midden deposits
at the Neolithic and Bronze Age site of Runnymede, Surrey, England. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 1: 73-89.
Shanks, M., and Hodder I. (1995a). Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. In
Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J., and Lucas, G. (eds.),
Interpreting Archaeology. Finding Meaning in the Past, Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 3-29.
Shanks, M., and Hodder, I. (1995b). Interpretive archaeologies: some themes and questions. In Hodder,
I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J., and Lucas, G. (eds.), Interpreting
Archaeology. Finding Meaning in the Past, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 30-33.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987a). Re-constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987b). Social Theory and Archaeology, Polity, Cambridge.
Sherratt, A. (1993). The relativity of theory. In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (eds.). Archaeological
Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 119-130.
Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E. (eds.) (1995). Expanding Archaeology, University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Staski, E., and Wilk, R. R. (1981). Material culture of poor people in marginal areas: A case from
the Toledo district, Belize. Paper presented at the 17th Meeting of the Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropologia, San Cristobal, Chiapas, Mexico.
320 Marciniak

Stiner, M. C., and Kuhn, S. L. (1997). On the place of zooarchaeology in research on Pleistocene
human sociality (manuscript).
Stiner, M. C., Kuhn, S. L., Weiner, S., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1995). Differential burning, recrystallization,
and fragmentation of archaeological bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 223-237.
Szahaj, A. (1997). Granice anarchizmu interpretacyjnego. Teksty Drugie 48(6): 5-33.
Tabaczyriski, S. (1971). Kultura. Znaczenie pojecia i problemy interpretacyjne w badaniach archeo-
logicznych. Archeotogia Polski 16(1/2): 19-36.
Tabaczyrtski, S. (1987). Archeologia sredniowieczna. Problemy. Zrodla. Metody. Cele badawcze,
Ossolineum, Wroclaw.
Tabaczyriski, S. (1990). Jednostka-spoTeczeristwo-kultura w perspektywie badan archeologicznych.
Kosmos 39(1): 47-57.
Thomas, J. (1995). Where are we now? Archaeological theory in the 1990s. In Ucko, P. J. (ed.), Theory
in Archaeology: A World Perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 343-362.
Thomas, J. (1996). Time, Culture and Identity. An Interpretative Archaeology, Routledge, London.
Todd, L. C., and Rapson, D. J. (1988). Long bone fragmentation and interpretation of faunal assem-
blages: Approaches to comparative analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 307-325.
Topolski, J. (1994). A non-postmodernist analysis of historical narratives. In Topolski, J. (ed.),
Historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism. Contributions to the Methodology of
the Historical Research, Rodopi, Amsterdam and Atlanta, pp. 9-85.
Topolski, J. (1996). Jak sie pisze i rozumie historie. Tajemnice narracji historycznej, Oficyna
Wydawnicza RYTM, Warszawa.
Trifonov, V. (ed.) (1996b). Section 1: Russia, World Archaeological Bulletin 8, Southampton.
Trigger, B. (1991). Post-processual developments in Anglo-American archaeology. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 24(2): 65-76.
Turner-Walker, G., and Parry, T. V. (1995). The tensile strenght of archaeological bone. Journal of
Archaeological Science 22: 185-191.
Uerpmann, H. P. (1973). Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: A critical study of "osteo-
archaeological" method. World Archaeology 4: 307-322.
Wapnish, P., and Hesse, B. (1991). Faunal remains from Tel Dan: Perspectives on animal production
at a village, urban and ritual center. Archaeozoologia 4(2): 9-86.
White, T. D. (1992). Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Wilson, D. C. (1994). Identification and assessment of secondary refuse aggregates. Journal of Archae-
ological Method and Theory 1: 41-68.
Wylie, A. (1989). Archaeological cables and tacking: The implications of practice for Bernstein's
"option beyond objectivism and relativism." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19: 1-18.
Wylie, A. (1991). On "heavily decomposing red herrings": Scientific method in archaeology and the
ladening of evidence with theory (manuscipt).
Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (1993). Introduction: the sources of archaeological theory. In Yoffee, N.,
and Sherratt, A. (eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agendaq Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-9.
Zeder, M. A. (1988). Understanding urban process through the study of specialized subsistence econ-
omy in the Near East. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 1-55.
Zeder, M. A. (1991). Feeding Cities. Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, and London.
Zeder, M. A. (1997). Zooarchaeology and the study of complex societies in the Ancient Near East
(manuscript).
Copyright of Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory is the property of Springer Science & Business
Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.