Investigating Animal Remains in Estonia

Abstract

In Estonia, faunal remains have been an important part of archaeological material since the 19th century. During the 20th century, the interest in faunal history was rather volatile, but gained some stability during the 1990s. Since then, zooarchaeology in Estonia has developed substantially, focusing on a variety of topics. Together with methods from traditional zooarchaeology, interdisciplinary methods like the studies of ancient DNA and stable isotopes are increasingly used. However, despite the growing understanding of the importance of faunal remains in archaeological and historical research, there are still problems with collecting animal remains during the fieldwork and documenting and organising them. On the other hand, interest in scientific methods and destructive sampling of the osseous remains have become increasingly popular in science projects and international collaboration. In order to use osteological collections reasonably and ethically, proper systemisation is essential.In Estonia, there are two research centres for zooarchaeology, where scientific collections are administered – Tallinn University and the University of Tartu. Tallinn collections comprise material mostly from the northern part of the country, plus an extensive reference collection for fish has been developed there. In Tartu, mostly material from southern Estonia is managed, together with continuously expanding reference collection of mammals and birds. To improve the gathering and management of the osteological material in Estonia and reduce the shortage for storage space, a new central repository for osteological collections (both human and animal) was established in 2019. Concurrently, a new central database for the osteological data was created.In this paper, we introduce the zooarchaeological collections and some of the latest research topics in Estonia with an aim to broaden the understanding and potential of zooarchaeology in the Baltic region.

Zooarchaeology in Lithuania

“…They were subsequently continued by other German scholars in the second half of the 19 th c. and in early 20 th c. Because Nida as well as a portion of present-day western Lithuania were part of the Kingdom of Prussia until the end of the First World War, both the archaeological excavations and the analyses of plant and faunal remains discovered there were conducted by German scientists. The first studies of animal bones in other East Baltic countries -Estonia and Latvia -were also carried out by German researchers (Lõugas, Rannamäe, 2020;Brinker et al, 2020;Bērziņš et al, 2014). The first results of the analyses of faunal remains from Nida were published in 1895; according to them not only the bones of wild but also of domestic animals as well as of freshwater fish were found and analysed (Hollack, 1895).…”

“…The study of bird bones was problematic for a long time not just in Lithuania, but also in Estonia, where a much more substantial tradition of zooarchaeological research has developed (Lõugas, Rannamäe, 2020); Ehrlich et al, 2020). The birds from the large Lithuanian zooarchaeological collection have not been studied yet.…”

“…Regardless of the intensified research, we also have to deal with many issues which were mentioned by the Estonian colleagues in their paper (Lõugas, Rannamäe, 2020). There is much work that has to be done in order to fully utilise the potential of the zooarchaeological collections.…”

“…Todėl jau dabar reikia ieškoti ilgalaikio sprendimo, kur ir kaip ateityje saugoti vertingą archeologinį / zoologinį mūsų krašto paveldą. Geriausias šioje situacijoje galėtų būti Estijos pavyzdys: Estijoje įkurta specializuota bendra zooarcheologinės ir antropologinės medžiagos saugykla, kurios išlaikymu rūpinasi Švietimo ir mokslo ministerija (plačiau - Lõugas, Rannamäe, 2020). Deja, reikia pripažinti, kad bent kol kas Lietuvoje tai vis dar sunkiai įsivaizduojama.…”

“…At least two articles contained in this publication discuss the evolution of zooarchaeological research and the questions related to faunal remains as well as the problems and tendencies of their research. Therefore, in this article we would not like to repeat the ideas put forth earlier by the colleagues on the interdisciplinary nature of zooarchaeology, the increasing number of studies and the growing activity of the researchers, the appearance of more developed scientific research methods or the well-known but persistent challenges which regard the collection of zooarchaeological finds and their documentation (Bartoszewicz, 2020;Lõugas, Rannamäe, 2020). We can only make an observation that most of these issues are already somewhat forgotten on the western shore of the Baltic Sea while they are still relevant on the eastern one.…”