Inference and Evidence in Archaeology: A Discussion of the Conceptual Problems

Sullivan, Alan P.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-003101-6.50012-3

Cited by 52 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter, however, confronts many problems, for it must be verified that the archaeological materials accumulated purely from hominid activities. Difficulties arise because of problems with archaeological methodology, distortion of activity records by post-occupational, non-hominid related processes, poor resolution in dating and reconstruction of ecological parameters, and non-preservation of data (Efremov, 1940; Schiffer, 1976;Sullivan, 1978;Binford, 1981). Thus, attempts to learn something about early hominid lifestyles from archaeological debris concentrations must adopt multidisciplinary strategies for discerning unequivocable evidence for hominid behavior (Isaac, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedimentary environments at the Mwanganda site, Malawi

Kaufulu

1990

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sedimentary environments a t the Mwanganda site area are reconstructed. Microstratigraphic analyses show that the site was located on the bank of a shallow, braided, paleostream and that bone and artifactual debris were not deposited by paleocurrents, but rather resulted from hominid activity. "his accords with the interpretations of the original excavators of the site. Based on sedimentological studies, it is apparent, however, that the site contents were rearranged by overbank currents that swept across the site at peak discharges. Thus, the distribution pattern of the site contents do not directly reflect hominid meat processing activities that occurred at the site. INTRODUCTIONMost behavioral activities of Plio-Pleistocene hominids are deduced from the study of cultural materials found as debris accumulations within layers of sediments (Clark, 1970;Leakey, 1971;Isaac, 1967). While examination of the attributes of the materials themselves may allow deduction of the motives of the producers of the materials and/or what the uses of the materials were, analyses of the context and distribution patterns of the materials provide clues about the behavior and/or lifestyle of the site occupants. The latter, however, confronts many problems, for it must be verified that the archaeological materials accumulated purely from hominid activities. Difficulties arise because of problems with archaeological methodology, distortion of activity records by post-occupational, non-hominid related processes, poor resolution in dating and reconstruction of ecological parameters, and non-preservation of data (Efremov, 1940; Schiffer, 1976;Sullivan, 1978;Binford, 1981). Thus, attempts to learn something about early hominid lifestyles from archaeological debris concentrations must adopt multidisciplinary strategies for discerning unequivocable evidence for hominid behavior (Isaac, 1984).The major goal of this paper is to describe and reconstruct the sedimentary environments at and around the Mwanganda Site with the aim of making interpretations of the formation and preservation of the site. Data on sediment types, sedimentary structures, and geometry of the sedimentary units are used to determine the types of sedimentary processes that occurred at the site. An effort is made to determine what effect these processes had on the disposition and distribution of bones and artifacts during and after their burial. The described investigations are purely geological and therefore, the interpreta-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedimentary environments at the Mwanganda site, Malawi

Kaufulu

1990

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study of the processes transforming materials to the archaeological record (archaeological site formation processes) was developed early in behavioral archaeology in order to highlight the impact of discard and abandonment behaviors on the formation of archaeological deposits (Schiller, 1972(Schiller, , 1976(Schiller, , 1987Sullivan, 1978). The significant distinction between systemic and archaeological contexts provided a reminder to all archaeologists that artifacts were seldom used in the places where they were found (Schiffer, 1972).…”

Section: Behavioral Archaeology and Ritual Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are the witches of prehistory?

Walker

1998

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why are certain common classes of ritually destroyed objects (persons, artifacts, or architecture), such as persecuted witches, so difficult to identify in the archaeological record? Although a common topic in cultural anthropology, witches seldom receive the attention of archaeologists. The difficulties archaeologists face in the study of religion derive, in part, from the lack of correlates linking ritual activities to the formation of archaeological deposits. This paper defines ritual as a technology and employs an object life history approach that draws upon ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental research to begin building such linkages--including those describing the persecution and deposition of witches, sorcerers, and other victims of ritual violence. These new directions are illustrated through a case study of anomalous deposits of human skeletal remains from the North American Southwest.

show abstract

“…We illustrate this point with two examples, one that relates to what can be called recovery context (see Sullivan, 1978;Schiffer, 1987) and the other to field technique. In the first example, we use data from the northern part of the empire, while in the second we restrict the sample to the city of Vijayanagara and its immediate hinterland (represented by Bellary District).…”

Section: Taking a Closer Look: Does Inscription Context Structure Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Is there a size bias to inscriptional recovery? These are issues of what might be called field technique [discussed as recovery theory by Sullivan (1978) and Schiffer et al (1978)]. We demonstrate below that the association, length, and subject of inscriptions do vary with fieldwork strategy.…”

Section: Disciplinary Traditions Of Analysis: Field Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Inscriptions as artifacts: Precolonial south india and the analysis of texts

Morrison

Lycett

1997

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines one assemblage of texts from southern India, stone inscriptions of the ldjayanagara period, and considers both how these texts have been studied and how that history of research has structured our understanding of the past. We ask how these texts might be interpreted differently, (1) under different conditions of sampling and recovery, with a specific focus on in-field locations of inscriptions, and (2) as sources of information combined with archaeological data. We suggest that traditional source-side criticism of texts might be profitably expanded routinely to include contextual analysis, such as archaeologists apply to studies of artifacts.

show abstract

Inference and Evidence in Archaeology: A Discussion of the Conceptual Problems

Cited by 52 publications

References 91 publications

Sedimentary environments at the Mwanganda site, Malawi

Sedimentary environments at the Mwanganda site, Malawi

Where are the witches of prehistory?

Inscriptions as artifacts: Precolonial south india and the analysis of texts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About