No. 20 (1994)
Articles

Theoretical-methodological proposal to face and develop an archaea study

PDF (Spanish)
  • Byron Camino
Byron Camino
Instituto Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural. Quito. Ecuador

Published 2021-05-07

Keywords

  • archaeofauna,
  • species taxonomy,
  • interdisciplinary approach,
  • faunal remains,
  • resource trade

Copyright (c) 1994 IOA-author

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Camino, B. (2021). Theoretical-methodological proposal to face and develop an archaea study. Revista Sarance, 20, 171-179. https://doi.org/10.51306/

Share

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical-methodological proposal for the study of archaeofauna, focusing on the evolution and expansion of methods used in zooarchaeology. Traditionally, the analysis of bone remains was limited to taxonomic identification and quantification of species. However, recent advances have allowed a more detailed and complex approach, including the identification of traces of use and subsistence patterns. The proposed methodology advocates an integration of modern techniques and interdisciplinary approaches for a deeper interpretation of faunal remains. The value of bones is emphasized not only as dietary clues, but also as indicators of cultural activities, processing and trade of resources. The proposal includes the use of tools such as the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) and the Number of Identified Species (NISP), as well as the analysis of butchery traces and seasonal patterns. This approach aims to offer a more complete understanding of human-animal interactions in archaeological contexts.

PDF (Spanish)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Binford, L. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press.
  2. Grayson, D. (1979). On the quantifications of vertebrate archaefaunas. En M. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological methods and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 199-237). Academic Press.
  3. Hesse, B., & Wapnish, P. (1985). Animal bones: Archaeology from objectives to analysis. University of Alabama-Birmingham and Smithsonian Institution.
  4. Julian, M. (1978-1980). La industria ósea de Telarmachay - Periodo Formativo. Revista del Museo Nacional de Lima, 44. Instituto Nacional de Cultura.
  5. Klein, R. (1984). The analysis of animal bones from archaeological sites. University of Chicago Press.
  6. Lyman, R. L. (1982). Archaefaunas and subsistence studies. En M. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological methods and theory (Vol. 5, pp. 331-393). Academic Press.
  7. Mengoni, G. (1980). Notas zooarqueológicas I: Fracturas de huesos. Ponencia presentada en el VII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Colonia del Sacramento, Uruguay.
  8. Mengoni, G. (1981). Obtención de información cultural de arqueofaunas. Universidad Católica de Argentina.
  9. Olsen, S. (1971). Zooarchaeology: Animal bones in archaeology and their interpretation. A Mac Cabed Module in Anthropology, Addison Wesley Modular Publications, Florida State University.
  10. Semenov, S. A. (1981). Tecnología prehispánica (Estudio de las herramientas y objetos antiguos a través de las huellas de uso). Akal Universitaria.
  11. Stahl, P., & Zeidler, J. (1988). The spatial correspondence of selected bone properties and inferred activity in an early formative dwelling structure (S-20) at Real Alto, Ecuador. BAR International Series, 421.
  12. Villalba, M. (1988). Cotocollao: Una aldea formativa del Valle de Quito. Miscelánea Antropológica Ecuatoriana, Serie Monográfica 2. Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador.