Scholarship of this history of collecting tends to portray it as a progression towards the modern museum – away from selfish pre-modern collectors, gloating over their private beauties, and towards publically-minded modern collectors, acquiring works to be displayed in museums for the benefit of scholars and the public. Social elites, from the Attalids to Roman emperors to Renaissance princes to modern oil barons, have long passionately collected classical artwork. These findings argue strongly for a re-evaluation of the role of typology in archaeological research. Both traditional and new pattern-recognition techniques allow for the identification of more fine-grained structure in artifact variation patterns than is possible using qualitative approaches. Morphometric analyses of Ford's simulation demonstrates all published assertions of which we are aware regarding patterns of variation exhibited by these drawn artifact forms, published in the intervening 67 years, are either wholly or substantially incorrect. However, despite the intense character of this controversy, both at the time and subsequently, no one appears to have tested, or confirmed, any of Ford's assertions objectively. To illustrate his concerns, Ford drew a hypothetical village of houses and used these forms to make a number of assertions regarding the nature of artifact variability that, he felt, demonstrated inherent errors with Spaulding's artifact-analysis approach. Ford's writings, in reaction to the arguments of Albert Spaulding, have often been cited as the founding instance of this criticism. The long-running controversy over typological concept use in archaeological investigations hinges on whether such procedures introduce assumptions, and channel interpretations, in ways that can equate analytical groups with bounded cultural-historical units inappropriately. Comparisons between ethnographic burial practices and limited archeological remains are one way to make meaningful inferences concerning past burial rituals and this work indicates that the 14SC409 burial shares similarities with seventeenth through nineteenth-century Athapaskan mortuary practices. Ethnographic and archeological information on contemporary Central Plains, Puebloan, and Athapaskan mortuary practices were analyzed to compare to the limited data collected from this newly discovered burial. Understanding social identity during this time on the Central Plains is problematic, as the residents of 14SC409 were living in dynamic communities composed of members who likely held direct cultural ties to indigenous Plains populations and migrant Puebloan communities from the American Southwest. The recent accidental discovery of a burial at a Dismal River aspect site (14SC409) in Kansas provides an opportunity to investigate the mortuary practices of this archeological culture. It was there where she met her greatest influences, the anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Franz Boas.Human burials are not commonly recovered from Protohistoric era (AD 1450–1700) sites on the Great Plains. After graduating from Barnard College, she received her Ph.D. Mead was born on Decemin Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Margaret Mead (1901-1979) was the oldest of five sisters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |