The following is a transcript of my keynote talk from the Zooarchaeology Saves the World conference held in May 2022.
Introduction
Does zooarchaeology matter? Perhaps this is an intentionally provocative question to ask zooarchaeologists but given the status of the world today – the intensification of climate change, the rise of fascism across the globe, economic crises compounded by a pandemic, the increase of institutionally sanctioned violence and harm against marginalised peoples – it is a question worth asking. Do we not, as researchers and scholars and scientists, have a moral imperative towards at least reflecting upon the usefulness of our work in light of ever-intensifying global crises?
Of course, this isn’t only directed towards zooarchaeologists, either. Archaeology as a discipline has much to atone for given its historical (and, unfortunately, even contemporary) transgressions rooted in colonialism, imperialism, and white supremacy. The least that we, as modern-day archaeologists who have inherited a discipline that is inherently problematic, can do is utilise our theoretical and practical skills and methodologies towards creating a more equitable world.
A Call for Actionable Archaeologies
As such, I am calling for a shift towards conceptualising and developing “actionable archaeologies”. This proposed concept is inspired by two similar proposals based on the idea that archaeology can be not only scientific practice, but also political and community-centred praxis.
The first concept is arguably the closest to what I have proposed, which is the notion of “action archaeology”. Although it was first introduced in 1956 by Kleindienst and Watson, it has since been expanded greatly through Sabaloff (2008), who emphasises situating archaeology within its modern context of practice despite its focus on the past, and as such cannot avoid being inherently connected to many modern issues (ibid, pp. 16, 27). Combined with the broadness of the discipline itself, archaeology has the ability to provide historical and archaeological context for decision-making on a wide range of issues (ibid, pp. 17, 28).
The second concept to acknowledge is McGuire’s (2008) call for archaeology as political action. Originally developed from his programme based on a dialectical Marxist approach to archaeology (ibid p. 2), McGuire’s notion of an archaeology poised for political action was focused on creating a “more humane world in which there is less alienation and more emancipation” (ibid p.4), where archaeology both recovers and confronts hidden, non-mythical histories and memories of injustice (ibid p. 33). McGuire correctly configures archaeology as an inherently political vehicle for creating ideologies (ibid p.16), which requires archaeologists to recognise the responsibilities that this entails.
So what makes “actionable archaeologies” different from these two concepts? Perhaps it is simply semantics, but I want to emphasise how making archaeology “actionable” is connected to the notion of “potentiality” – that any archaeology has the potential to become actionable through careful consideration and reflection of the elements within the research that may be most relevant to contemporary and future issues. Through critical re-evaluation of our work through these lenses of “actionability” and “potentiality”, we can identify lessons from the past that can be applied to the present, as well as actions that we can also take into the future. An actionable archaeology is one that not only recognises the inherent political nature of our work and the ability to take action through it, but also sees the vast spectrum of potential that all archaeology has, if only we take the opportunity to utilise it.
Zooarchaeology as Actionable Animal Archaeologies
But how can we transform zooarchaeology into something more actionable? It is difficult enough to imagine the ways in which we can utilise general archaeological concepts towards contemporary issues, but how do we similarly reframe research from a more focused subfield such as zooarchaeology? Perhaps it would first be useful to examine existing examples of what could potentially be categorised as “actionable animal archaeologies” for inspiration.
Arguably the most pertinent contemporary issues for zooarchaeological research are environmental ones, specifically conservation efforts and climate change. There is a wealth of paleoenvironmental and historically environmental data that zooarchaeological analysis can provide, not only with regards to non-human species but also for understanding the broader ecosystems of the past as well. In applying zooarchaeology to conservation biology, for example, zooarchaeological data can provide guidance towards wildlife management decisions and inform models to help predict future population fluctuations (Lyman 1996, p. 118). Applied zooarchaeology has since been used in research undertaken on freshwater mussels in the Yazoo River of the Mississippi (Peacock, Mitchell, and Buchner 2018) and rodents in the Sierras of Cordoba, Argentina (Medina et al. 2021). Analysis of zooarchaeological contexts from previous periods of climate change can not only increase our understanding of the environmental impact of such a massive shift on past ecosystems but also the human responses to such change, which can thus inform the ways in which we begin to plan for a potentially difficult future adapting to current climate change (Jones and Britton 2019). For example, research into north-western Patagonia during the Late Holocene has provided further information as to the ways in which human populations may have adapted subsistence strategies in response to climate change (Gil et al. 2020), while recent work undertaken in South Greece has illustrated the important and adaptive relationship between foodways and climate during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (Dibble and Finné 2021).
Another issue that can be supported through zooarchaeological research is that of Indigenous sovereignty, not only of land but also of food and other resources. It could be argued that this issue should be at the forefront of any considerations made by settler archaeologists on occupied Indigenous territories, given the ways in which archaeology has historically been used to perpetuate colonialism in the past and present. For zooarchaeologists, it may be useful to consider how we engage with Indigenous knowledge and those who are actively working to Indigenise academic and scientific understandings of human-animal relations (e.g., Todd 2014); this could also potentially be part of a movement to decolonise zooarchaeology (Fitzpatrick 2019) through recognition of how Euro-Western binary understandings of human/animal relations (similar to our binary understandings of nature/culture) are often at odds with Indigenous perspectives (Belcourt 2015, pp. 4-5) and such binary understandings can ultimately leave space for further rationalisation of attitudes of exploitation and domination (Hovorka 2017, p. 388). An example of zooarchaeology applied towards issues regarding Indigenous sovereignty can be seen in Moss’s (2010, 2020) work on the role of Indigenous peoples in the broader ecology of southeast Alaska.
Similarly, zooarchaeology can be used in accountability processes and restitution as part of a broader decolonial approach to archaeology, providing transparency and further context to the processes upon which archaeological (and archaeofaunal) materials have been subjected to (Fitzpatrick 2021, 2022). Arguably one of the best examples of this from an adjacent field of study was the Displays of Power exhibition at the Grant Museum of Zoology, where natural history specimens were displayed with biographies that illustrated their connections to longer histories of colonialism through extractive practices of scientific research and specimen collection (Guasco 2021, p. 1069). However, it should be noted that many zooarchaeologists have already begun to utilise zooarchaeology as a method of grappling with histories of colonialism, such as Kennedy and VanVakenburg’s (2016) work on food practices in Peru following Spanish colonisation as well as Wallman’s (2020) research on subsistence strategies in the Caribbean during European colonisation. Others have also begun to explicitly apply decolonial theory to their zooarchaeological analyses, including van Litsenburg’s (2021) recent work in Caribbean zooarchaeology and Laurich’s (2021) research on canid-human relationships in Southwestern United States.
Conclusion: Does Zooarchaeology Matter?
To return to the original question posed at the start of this paper – does zooarchaeology matter? Ultimately, I believe it is up to us to create a positive answer to that question – that we can make our research matter outside of our intellectual circles and add to the wealth of knowledge being generated and shared as part of a broader coalition of researchers and scholars who understand the urgency of the global crises at hand. Again, I will concede that some work is more obviously applicable to others – but I do think that critically and thoroughly considering the ways in which one’s work may be connected to contemporary and future issues is a worthwhile exercise for anyone in the field.
Perhaps then it may be more productive to reframe the question itself and ask, “how can we make zooarchaeology matter?” The onus is on us as zooarchaeologists to develop answers to this question through evaluating the potential usefulness of our work beyond the arbitrary borders of our discipline and how it can be applied to various issues both in the present and near future. We need to be asking ourselves why people outside of zooarchaeology should care about our work, and what we as zooarchaeologists can do to make our work useful for others around the world.
Ultimately, by reframing zooarchaeology as its own form of actionable archaeology, we are opening ourselves up to opportunities to support change and transformation, viewing archaeology not just as stories from the past but part of a larger tapestry of time and space, where everything is connected and thus able to enact upon each other. Making zooarchaeology actionable means acknowledging the responsibilities we have as people who interpret the past to taking action in the present and the future, ensuring that the broader narrative of time continues onward for future generations of archaeologists to learn from our own mistakes and further strive towards a better world.
References
Carruthers, W., Inala, J., Davis, S., Challis, D., Schiappacasse, P.A., Dixon, S., Milosavljević, M., Moore, L., Nevell, R., Fitzpatrick, A., Abd el Gawad, H. and Stevenson, A. (2021). Special Issue: Inequality and Race in the Histories of Archaeology. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 31(1).
Dibble, F., & Finné, M. (2021). Socioenvironmental change as a process: Changing foodways as adaptation to climate change in South Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Quaternary International, 597, 50-62.
Fitzpatrick, A. (2019) Beyond Decolonisation and Subsistence: A Call for a Decolonised Zooarchaeology. Decolonising Science Narratives, 11 October, Science Museum.
Fitzpatrick, A. (2022) Gesturing Beyond Bones: Proposing a Decolonised Zooarchaeology. Approaches to Decolonising Research, 8 February, Liverpool John Moores University.
Gil, A. F., Villalba, R., Franchetti, F. R., Otaola, C., Abbona, C. C., Peralta, E. A., & Neme, G. (2020). Between foragers and farmers: Climate change and human strategies in Northwestern Patagonia. Quaternary, 3(2), 17.
Guasco, A. (2021). ‘As dead as a dodo’: Extinction narratives and multispecies justice in the museum. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(3), 1055-1076.
Hovorka, A.J. (2017) Animal Geographies: Globalizing and Decolonizing. Progress in Human Geography 41, 382–394.
Jones, J., & Britton, K. (2019). Multi-scale, integrated approaches to understanding the nature and impact of past environmental and climatic change in the archaeological record, and the role of isotope zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 23, 968-972.
Kennedy, S.A., and VanValkenburg, P. (2016) Zooarchaeology and Changing Food Practices at Carrizales, Peru Following the Spanish Invasion. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 20, 73–104.
Kleindienst, M. and Watson, P.J. (1956) Living Action Archaeology: The Archaeological Inventory of Living Community, Anthropology Tomorrow 5(1), pp.75-78.
Laurich, M.S. (2021) Archaeological Pets: A Pathological Examination of the Human-Dog Relationship in the American Southwest (MA Thesis). Northern Arizona University.
Lyman, R. L. (1996). Applied zooarchaeology: The relevance of faunal analysis to wildlife management. World Archaeology, 28(1), 110-125.
McGuire, R.H. (2008) Archaeology as Political Action. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Medina, M. E., De Santi, N. A., Rivero, D. E., Verzi, D. H., & Tonni, E. P. (2021). Fossorial rodents and applied zooarchaeology to ecosystem conservation in Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina. Austral Ecology, 46(1), 139-147.
Moss, M.L. (2010). Rethinking subsistence in Southeast Alaska: The potential of zooarchaeology. Alaska Journal of Anthropology, 8(1), 121-135.
Moss, M.L. (2020) Did Tlingit Ancestors Eat Sea Otters? Addressing Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage through Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 85, 202–221.
Peacock, E., Mitchell, J., & Buchner, C. A. (2018) Applied Zooarchaeology of Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Shell from Golson (22HU508), A Deasonville-Period Site on the Yazoo River, Mississippi. Environmental Archaeology, 23(2), 152-159.
Sabloff, J.A. (2008) Archaeology Matters: Action Archaeology in the Modern World. New York: Routledge.
Todd, Z. (2014) Fish Pluralities: Human-Animal Relations and Sites of Engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 38, 217–238.
Van Litsenburg, Z. (2021) How Can We Decolonize Caribbean Zooarchaeology? A Call for Conversation. ARCHON Day 2021, Allard Pierson Museum.
Wallman, D. (2020) Subsistence as Transformative Practice: The Zooarchaeology of Slavery in the Colonial Caribbean. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 9, 77–113.
Please click here to donate to fundraisers that are directly helping people currently in Gaza.
Animal Archaeology 