When I started my studies of vertebrate faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites over twenty years ago, I had no idea what taphonomy was nor was I particularly concerned about what are today typically asked questions concerning the preservation and formation of the archaeofaunal record. But as I read the zooarchaeological literature while completing my doctoral dissertation in the mid-1970s, I found an increasing number of papers dealing with taphonomic issues. The fact that since then it has become increasingly difficult to keep up with the ever growing literature on taphonomy is something of a mixed blessing. It is a mixed blessing because (a) we are constantly realigning the relation between what we want to learn and what we think we can learn from the vertebrate faunal remains we recover from archaeological sites, and thus our conclusions tend to be much more strongly founded than even a decade ago (this is good), and (b) it is nearly impossible for any one analyst to conceive of all of the logically possible taphonomic problems that a single reasonably sized assemblage of vertebrate remains might present. The latter is not bad; it just means a taphonomist's and zooarchaeologist's (and thus my) job is much more difficult now than it was a mere decade ago. Simply put, the analysis of zooarchaeological remains is no longer the simple, straightforward task that it was in the 1960s or 1970s. Taphonomic research has found a home in zooarchaeology, and it is here to stay.