A tale of two sites: Functional site differentiation and lithic technology during the Late Pithouse period in the Mimbres area of Southwestern New Mexico

Schriever, Bernard A.; Taliaferro, J. Matthew; Roth, Barbara J.

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interpreting past landscapes and human–environment relationships is no less difficult to ascertain in societies with asymmetrical power relations. Careful analysis of provenance and resource utilization can lend itself to site differentiation (Schriever, et al 2011). In Anguilla, John Crock and Nanny Carder (2011) track the emergence of status differentiation through a combined analysis of status related artifacts.…”

Section: Environment: Longstanding Questions New Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Messy Data, Ordered Questions

Hauser

2012

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lively debate was witnessed in 2011 about the role of deductive and interpretive approaches in the production of anthropological knowledge, especially as it relates to archaeology. Scholarly output in archaeology thisyear reflects this concern. First, there is a trend toward furthering our archaeological imagination-finding new ways of asking questions that link the most empirical of research projects with innovative social theory. Second, there is an embracement of the messiness of archaeological data and the conclusions we can reach from it. By looking at the messiness of archaeological data and the limits of knowledge, archaeology asserts itself as an open frontier for anthropological inquiry. [anthropological archaeology, historical archaeology, environment, identity, power]

show abstract

Section: Environment: Longstanding Questions New Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Messy Data, Ordered Questions

Hauser

2012

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fossils from the outcrops at Cookes Peak may have been collected as mementos of participation in the ceremonies and brought back to the Harris Site (Falvey & McLaurin, 2012). The fossils must have had great value as only 1-3% of Late Pithouse period Mimbres Mogollon lithic artifacts come from a >20 km radius (Schriever, Taliaferro, & Roth, 2011).…”

Section: Fossil Bryozoans As Intentionally Collected Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Fossil Bryozoans in Sourcing Lithic Artifacts

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews the occurrence and potential of bryozoans within lithic artifacts and also sets out a methodology for their use in sourcing and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. We present case studies from our own research and from the literature on using bryozoans in sourcing archaeological lithic artifacts. Fossil bryozoans of different ages and clades can be effectively used to determine the material source of lithic artifacts from a variety of prehistoric ages. The case studies included in this report span the stratigraphic range of bryozoans from the Ordovician to the Neogene. The bryozoans came from four different orders: trepostome, fenestrate, cyclostome, and cheilostome. The use of these lithic artifacts ranged back to 25 ka. Although the majority of the fossil bryozoans were incidental in the artifacts, the bryozoans were still useful for determining their original source rock. The improved searchable online paleontologic databases allow for more efficient use of fossil bryozoans to constrain the stratigraphic and paleogeographic distribution of source outcrops. Although generally underutilized in sourcing prehistoric lithic artifacts, it is clear that by analyzing bryozoans, an increased understanding of the lithologic nature of these materials could be gained by the archaeological community. C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract