Concluding Remarks

  • Umberto Albarella


Zooarchaeology in Practice provides us with a stimulating account of a wide range of methods applied in zooarchaeology today. The book mainly focuses on vertebrate remains but also includes research on molluscs. The internationality of the contributors, as well as the case studies, guarantees the participation of a diverse range of schools of thought. The many methodological applications that are discussed include taphonomy, quantification, identification, biometry, sample size, scale of analysis, isotopic and biomolecular applications, as well as some epistemological considerations. Several important themes emerge across different chapters; highlights include the need to be more explicit about the nature of zooarchaeological recording, to be aware of the past history of research, to integrate our evidence with that of other disciplines and branches of archaeology, and the importance of guaranteeing creativity and diversity in our research strategies. The book contributes to emphasize the centrality of zooarchaeology to the study of past human societies.


Zooarchaeology Archaeozoology Methodology Taphonomy Quantification Biometry Biomolecules 



I am very grateful to Christina Giovas and Michelle LeFebvre for very kindly asking me to write the conclusions of Zooarchaeology in Practice and for their immense patience in waiting for them to be produced. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the whole zooarchaeology community for their spirit of solidarity, tolerance, and mutual support in an age when it is the opposite behavior that is more often promoted and rewarded.


  1. Albarella, U. (2016). Defining bone movement in archaeological stratigraphy: A plea for clarity. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 8(2), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarella, U., Rizzetto, M., Russ, H., Viner-Daniels, S., & Vickers, K. (2017). The Oxford handbook of zooarchaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, J., & Brothwell, D. (1980). Animal diseases in archaeology. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Bartosiewicz, L., & Gál, E. (2013). Shuffling nags, lame ducks: The archaeology of animal disease. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  5. Beisaw, A. M. (2013). Identifying and interpreting animal bones. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, M., Whitcher Kansa, S., Howard, S., Campbell, S., Thomas-Oates, J., & Collins, M. (2010). Distinguishing between archaeological sheep and goat bones using a single collagen peptide. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaplin, R. E. (1971). The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. New York: Seminar.Google Scholar
  9. Cornwall, I. W. (1956). Bones for the archaeologist. London: Phoenix House.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The archaeology of animals. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  11. Efremov, J. A. (1940). Taphonomy: A new branch of paleontology. Pan-American Geologist, 74(2), 81–93.Google Scholar
  12. Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Leach, B. F. (1986). Method for the analysis of Pacific island fishbone assemblages and an associated database management system. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyman, R. L. (1996). Applied zooarchaeology: The relevance of faunal analysis to wildlife management. World Archaeology, 28(1), 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lyman, R. L., & Cannon, K. P. (Eds.). (2004). Zooarchaeology and conservation biology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  16. MacKinnon, M. (2001). High on the hog: Linking zooarchaeological, literary and artistic data for pig breeds in Roman Italy. American Journal of Archaeology, 105, 649–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacKinnon, M. (2010). Cattle ‘breed’ variation and improvement in Roman Italy: Connecting the zooarchaeological and the ancient textual evidence. World Archaeology, 42(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Connor, T. (2000). The archaeology of animal bones. Stroud: Sutton.Google Scholar
  19. Otaola, C., Wolverton, S., Giardina, M., & Neme, G. (2015). Geographic scale and zooarchaeological analysis of Late Holocene foraging adaptations in western Argentina. Journal of Archaeological Science, 55, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ruscillo, D. (Ed.). (2006). Recent advances in ageing and sexing animal bones. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  22. Ryder, M. L. (1968). Animal bones in archaeology: A book of notes and drawings for beginners. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  23. Watson, J. P. N. (1979). The estimation of the relative frequencies of mammalian species: Khirokitia 1972. Journal of Archaeological Science, 6, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, B., Grigson, C., & Payne, S. (Eds.). (1982). Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites. BAR British series 109. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  25. Wolverton, S., Nagaoka, L., & Rick, T. C. (Eds.). (2016). Applied zooarchaeology: Five case studies. New York: Eliot Werner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations