See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291381500

Michael. B. Schiffer. Formation processes of the archaeological record. xxiv +

Article  in  Antiquity · June 1989

CITATIONS READS

0 342

1 author:

Iain Davidson
University of New England (Australia)
222 PUBLICATIONS   3,531 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The narrative of Australian archaeohistory View project

Archaeological history and cultural heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Iain Davidson on 16 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

gated. Another would be a study of the changing The danger is that unless the ethnoarchaeological
environment that must have occurred with the drying demonstration that there are formation processes is
of the Fayum basin and correlation with the represen- tied to specific archaeological examples, the catalo-
tations of water birds in the different periods. gue is dull and dangerous. Thus there is an excellent
The scholarship and excellent production of the section (pp. 114-20) on the effects of collecting and
two books, The birds of ancient Egypt and Die pot-hunting which concludes with an argument that
Tierwelt des alten Agypten, should help to provide a prehistoric collecting might be a better explanation
platform for these and many other investigations into for some materials in the American southwest than
palaeoecology and biogeography, as well as increas- prehistoric trade. By contrast, the important subject
ing our understanding of the profound relationships of trampling (pp. 1 2 6 9 ) does not have specific
which exist between humans and animals. instances in which archaeological interpretation is
JULIET CLUTTON-BROCKaltered by understanding of these effects. In the
Department of Zoology absence of such examples, for many processes, the
British Museum (Notural History), London uncritical might choose arguments from the catalogue
of selected instances, in a shotgun approach similar to
Reference the worst abuses of selective ethnographic parallels.
LORTET,L. & C. GAILLAKD. 1903-9. La f a u n e mornifit‘e de And it is no help that there are several supposed
I’oncienne Egypte. Lyons: Henri George. principles (Flannery’s Mickey Mouse Laws?) with
names in Schiffer’s inimitable (please!) style, of
Michael. B. Schiffer. Formation processes of the which my favourite is: ‘The tendency of trash to
archaeological record. xxiv + 428 pages, 70 illustra- attract more trash is known as the Arlo Guthrie
tions, 7 tables. 1987. Albuquerque: University of New trash-magnet effect’ (p. 62). Only one of these, the
Mexico Press; ISBN 0-8263-00963-1 hardback $39.95; Clarke Effect (which ‘describes the statistical ten-
ISBN 0-8263-0964-X paperback $1 9.95. dency for the variety of discarded artefacts to increase
with a settlement’s occupation span’ (p. 55)), is
When this book arrived in October, two of my actually put to any use in the book. Far from Schiffer’s
graduate students pounced on it eagerly. One soon contention that ‘the label merely facilitates commu-
dismissed it; there is little in it for the specialist in nication among archaeologists’ (p. loo), I would
taphonomy of bones. The other was scornful of her argue that such naming only distracts and obfuscates.
dismissal: ‘How could any archaeologist not find In the chapter on disturbance processes, Schiffer
something of interest?’ It is that sort of book - returns to the position which led to him being
something for everyone, but little for the specialist. criticized for believing the ’Pompeii premise’
A book of this scale - the lifetime annotated [Binford 1981). ‘Disturbance processes’ damage ear-
bibliography of a leading scholar of site formation lier archaeological evidence, but, particularly in
processes - should not be assessed for its judgements Schiffer’s view that archaeology embraces modern
on the individual works which inform it, but rather technology, they create their own record. Archaeo-
on the theoretical position which links it together. logists are routinely selective about what they regard
Schiffer’s enduring contribution has been to make us as the archaeological record, and in Environmental
all aware of how artefacts and ecofacts move from Impact Statements and their equivalents assess the
their systemic context to an archaeological context, impact of the creation of a modern archaeological
suffering cultural and non-cul turaI transformations record on a n older one. At some stage we have to make
as they move. The stuff of archaeological analysis is a choice about what i t is we are studying. Fly ash
primary, secondary or de facto refuse which can deposition from coal-fired generating stations both
suffer a variety of changes due to cultural processes creates (p. 69) and destroys (p. 1 3 5 ) the archaeological
such as conservatory use, lateral cycling, recycling or record, but we are not all equally interested in both
secondary use, and a variety of environmental pro- processes.
cesses. As Schieer points out (p. 98) this book represents Chapters on environmental formation processes
the results of 15 years of ethnoarchaeological research are uneven. Schiffer is excellent on wood, poor on
and model building to provide insights into these bone and skimpy o n seeds. On processes affecting
variables and processes and their interactions. regions, students will find better texts, but some of
The scope is rather narrowly focussed on the these are acknowledged.
United States, with occasional forays as far as Europe Schiffer is at his best on worked examples, ofwhich
but not much further, and the chronological range is there are two chapters (one using Schiffer’s
similarly erratic. This is well illustrated b y two knowledge of wood) with a recycled case each. This is
paragraphs (p. 69) which extend the ‘Schlepp effect’ - a disappointment, because in the end I do not believe
a dubious concept when first proposed in an unsub- that Schiffer has developed a theory of formation
stantiated way for Neolithic Anatolian butchery and processes, though he understands them we11 enough
transport - from modern !Kung cooking to pottery- himself. He could now produce a history and prehis-
kiln waste products in southeastern USA. tory of formation processes and the evolution of
388 REVIEWS

human behaviour, since there is abundant evidence Age structure and sex ratios - especially of red and
that these change through time. And thus a theory of roe deer - are determined by reference to large,
rubbish in human behaviour. This might lead us modern populations. The study concentrates on tooth
towards a better understanding of how the story that eruption, tooth wear and selected bone-
we tell is generally determined by those processes measurements, and the results are combined with the
which Schiffer has shown as of particular impor- known ecology and behaviour of the species. Finally
tance. The last chapter discusses the impact of is presented an analysis of the body part represen-
archaeologists i n determining what is seen as the tation among the Star Carr red deer, inspired by- and
archaeological record- interesting, but not, I think, as compared with - Binford’s work on Nunamiut
important as the grander project which this book Eskimo sites i n Alaska (caribou bones!).
could have been but is not. IAIN DAVInWN The authors conclude that Star Carr was a hunting
Department of Archaeology camp to which many short visits were made mainly in
University of New Englond (NSW) the early summer, the season when the hunt was easy,
especially on unexperienced one-year-old roe deer
A.J. Legge & P.A. Rowley-Conwy. Star Carr revisited: and three-year-old red deer (for reasons connected
a re-analysis of the large mammals. viii + 145 puges, with the behaviour of these species).
42 figures, 13 tables. 1988. London: Centre for Extra- An almost even sex ratio found in postcranial
Mural Studies, Birkbeck College, University of elements of the red deer shows that most of the
London; ISBN 0-7187-0876-8 paperback €9.50 (UK) b numerous antlers (259 fragments] were brought from
€10 (overseas) postage inclusive (from Archaeologi- elsewhere, so the seasonal and sexual evidence of the
cal Laboratory, Centre for Extm-Muraf Studies, 26 antlers are ignored. The importance of red deer
Russell Squore, London wcl B SOQ; cheques payable antlers as raw material is supported by the fact that
to ‘Astragalus Publications’). 63% were worked and by the very large number of
antler points found in the lake off the site. None of the
Star Carr revisited is the results of a re-examination of 63 unshed roe deer antlers were worked or
the faunal material from the locus classicus of the
British Mesolithic. In the introduction Legge & Star Can: Revisited:
Rowley-Conwy state that no other site of its type has
been discussed, reviewed and re-interpreted as much a Re-analysis of the Large Mammals
as Star Carr, and in the final lines add, ‘the very fact
By:
that Star Carr can be put through such reconsider-
ations and can continue to yield new information, is A. J. Legge and P. A. Rawley-Conwy
surely the greatest testimony to the quality of the
original investigation.’
The merits of Legge & Rowley-Conwy lie not so
much in the application of new epoch-making
methods, but rather in realizing that the time had
come for a new, thorough examination of the entirc
faunal material -bone by bone.
Unfortunately they concentrate on 1 he large mam-
mals and leave the smaller mammals and the birds to
others (orto a later study?).Quantitatively the bones of A complete re-analysis has been made of the large mammals and
the large mammals predominate, but qualitatively new interpretations of the site are presented. The representation of
those of smaller mammals and birds are of equal themain species is revisedandthe seasonof occupation ismodified
importance, for Star Carr also plays a major r61e in our on the basis of tooth eruption and dental crown height studies. A
endeavours to write the faunal history of Britain and consideration of the age structure of the cull in two deer species and
northern Europe. Precisely because the fauna of the the body parts represented suggest that the site was not a base camp.
pre-boreal chronozone is poorly documented, so it The identified bones, tooth eruption-wear patterns and measure-
would have been worth while examiningall the bones. ments are tabulated for both the archaeological and modem com-
The analysis of the large mammals comprises the parative specimens.
five main food animals, aurochs, elk, red deer, roe deer
and wild boar; i t includes all the bones kept in the
BM(NH), in Cambridge and in Scarborough. The
identifications change, with a few bones, previously
identified as beaver and wild boar, changed to those of
roe deer and of bear, but the most marked change is the Order from: Archaeological Laboratory, Centre for Extra-Mural
transformation of the smaller Star Carr ‘aurochs’ into Studies, Birkbeck College, 26 Russell Square, London WClB
elks, which makes the size range of the remaining true 5DQ. Payment orders to ASTRAGALUS PUBLICATIONS
aurochs comparable to the rest of the European stock. please.

View publication stats