Distinguishing bioturbation and trampling using pottery sherd measures, Tell Fendi, Jordan

Blackham, Mark

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6548(200006)15:5<469::aid-gea4>3.3.co;2-7

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observed variability in artifacts and assemblages can also be structured by postdepositional alteration and other nontransmission processes. Fortunately, archaeologists are fairly adept at studying many of these sources of variation, for example, by use-wear studies and postdepositional alteration (e.g., Blackham 2000;papers in Hayden 1979;McBrearty et al 1998;Olson and Shipman 1988;Schiffer 1987;Skibo 1992). Models have been put forward in archaeology attempting to integrate these different sources of variation into a single model (e.g., Schiffer 1987;Schiffer and Skibo 1997;Schiffer et al 2001), but these are rarely linked to the framework of CT processes (but see Lipo 2001a, b).…”

Section: Explanation Versus Theory Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural transmission (CT) is implicit in many explanations of culture change. Formal CT models were defined by anthropologists 30 years ago and have been a subject of active research in the social sciences in the ensuing years. Although increasing in popularity in recent years, CT has not seen extensive use in archaeological research, despite the quantitative rigor of many CT models and the ability to create testable hypotheses. Part of the reason for the slow adoption, we argue, has been the continuing focus on change in central tendency and mode in archaeology, instead of change in dispersion or variance. Yet archaeological research provides an excellent data source for exploring processes of CT. We review CT research in the anthropological sciences and outline the benefits and drawbacks of this theoretical framework for the study of material culture. We argue that CT can shed much light on our understandings of why material technology changes over time, including explanations of differential rates of change among different technologies. We further argue that transmission processes are greatly affected by the content, context, and mode of transmission and fundamentally structure variation in material culture. Including ideas from CT can provide greater context for explaining and understanding changes in the variation of artifacts over time. Finally, we outline what we feel should be the goals of CT research in archaeology in the coming years.

show abstract

Section: Explanation Versus Theory Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the presence of multimodality in some vertical artifact profiles charcoal radiocarbon age post-dating the Folsom period might support the hypothesis that multiple components are present. Previous studies of disturbance processes and artifact dispersal provide a foundation for developing predictions for distinguishing between the single-and multiple-component hypotheses (Johnson and Hansen, 1974;Johnson et al, 1977;Benedict and Olson, 1978;Van Noten et al, 1980;Villa, 1982;Villa and Courtin, 1983;Bocek, 1986;Hofman, 1986;Jodry, 1987;Schiffer, 1987;Michie, 1990;Bocek, 1992;Hofman, 1992;Blackham, 2000). Three tests incorporate artifact mass, inclinations, and diagnostic counts as a function of vertical dispersal distance.…”

Section: Vertical Artifact Distributions and Occupation Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, physical, chemical, and biological formation processes should, to some extent, operate in a deterministic and predictable fashion. The regularity of vertical artifact-density profiles from many sites and numerous different geologic contexts lends credence to this statement (e.g., Van Noten et al, 1980;Hofman, 1986;Jodry, 1987;Michie, 1990;Blackham, 2000;Mayer, 2002). Although it is not possible to perfectly recreate the starting position of an artifact that has been removed from its primary context, with some notion of the rate and directionality of artifact displacement, it is possible, in theory, to describe an artifact's starting position as a probability distribution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shallow site archaeology: Artifact dispersal, stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dating at the Barger Gulch locality B Folsom Site, Middle Park, Colorado

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shallowly buried archaeological sites are particularly susceptible to surface and subsurface disturbance processes. Yet, because cultural deposition often operates on short time scales relative to geologic deposition, vertical artifact distributions can be used to clarify questions of site formation. In particular, patterns in artifact distributions that cannot be explained by occupation histories must be explained by natural processes that have affected sites. Buried only 10–50 cm beneath the ground surface for 10,450 14C yr, the Folsom component at Barger Gulch Locality B (Middle Park, Colorado) exhibits many signs of post‐depositional disturbance. Through examination of variation in the vertical distribution of the artifact assemblage, we are able to establish that only a Folsom component is present. Using vertical artifact distributions, stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dating, we are able to reconstruct the series of events that have impacted the site. The Folsom occupation (˜10,450 14C yr B.P.) was likely initially buried in a late‐Pleistocene eolian silt loam. Erosion brought the artifacts to rest on a deflation surface at some time prior to 9400 14C yr B.P. A mollic epipedon formed in sediments that accumulated between 9400 and 7000 14C yr B.P. Some time after 5200 14C yr B.P., this soil was partially truncated, and artifacts that had previously dispersed upward created a secondary lag at its upper contact. This surface was buried again and artifact dispersal continued. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Distinguishing bioturbation and trampling using pottery sherd measures, Tell Fendi, Jordan

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture

Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture

Shallow site archaeology: Artifact dispersal, stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dating at the Barger Gulch locality B Folsom Site, Middle Park, Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About