2/27/2023 0 Comments Zotz strain![]() Function and use of roman pottery: a quantitative method for assessing use-wear. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.īanducci, L. The Maya world of communicating objects: quadripartite crosses, trees, and stones. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Īstor-Aguilera, M. Pugh (Eds.), Maya worldviews at conquest (pp. Mesoamerican communicating objects: Mayan worldviews before, during, and after Spanish contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Īstor-Aguilera, M. Gubler (Ed.), Land of the turkey and the deer (pp. Palace termination rituals at Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University.Īrdren, T. Warfare and destruction in the Maya lowlands: pattern and process in the archaeological record of Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov: Volume II. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press.Īlperson-Afil, N., & Goren-Inbar, N. ![]() Protecting sacred space: Rosalila’s eccentric chert cache at Copan and eccentrics among the Classic Maya. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.Īgurcia Fasquelle, R., Sheets, P., & Taube, K. In Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Christine S. ![]() New perspectives on ancient religion: Katsina ritual and the archaeological record. New York: Cambridge University Press.Īdams, E. Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Reflexively reconsidering archaeological labels not only prevents archaeologists from seeing the past as a mirror of the present, effectively explained by the categories and concepts we generate, but also raises new possibilities for rethinking traditional interpretations and long-held assumptions.Īdams, W. Drawing on a case study from the ancient Maya site of El Zotz, Guatemala, I show that attention to the specific ways that people in the past manipulated, collected, and buried the components of an assemblage can yield more nuanced interpretations of ancient practices than those provided by an a priori label like “termination.” Extending indicators of pre- and post-depositional processes commonly employed in osteological analyses ( e.g., visible burning, breakage, and surface modification patterns) to other types of artifacts (including lithics and ceramics) not only reveals the curation and ritual reuse of refuse by the ancient Maya of El Zotz, but also troubles the stability of the category of “termination.” More broadly, I call attention to the fact that employing reified archaeological categories may actively impede the identification of differences among ancient activities. This article critically examines the history, usage, and limits of “termination” as a cultural concept, an archaeological category, and a hermeneutic tool. Over time, the term has become so capacious as to not only describe quite varied archaeological assemblages, but also explain how they came to be formed and why they exist. The “termination” label is widely accepted, but ambiguous. To illustrate this point, I provide a common example from Mesoamerican archaeology, where one particular archaeological category-“termination”-is applied to a diverse array of complex assemblages of fragmented materials. It highlights the ways in which labels created to interpret archaeological phenomena can, over time, become reified and even appear as archaeological entities themselves. This article questions the limits of archaeological categories.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |