Source:Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 51
Author(s): Lauren E.Y. Norman
Archaeologists endeavour to reconstruct technological, environmental, social, cultural, and even ideological aspects of past groups and individuals using the fragmented material past. Many, if not all, of these analyses rely on analogy. Archaeologists have used the direct historical approach extensively in the Arctic to develop more nuanced understandings of the prehistoric Inuit. In many cases, the direct historical approach is not truly direct; archaeologists often assume that secondary activities, such as those that occur contemporaneously with initial deposition but that are not described in the ethnographic record such as cleaning and post-depositional processes such as weathering, alter the archaeological patterns and inhibit direct comparison to ethnohistoric sources. In this study, I analyse the relationship between the archaeological record and documentary sources to establish which patterns and activities are visible in the archaeofaunal record. I test expectations based on the documentary record, ethnoarchaeological studies, and taphonomic processes against the faunal assemblage from an early Thule Inuit semi-subterranean dwelling at Cape Espenberg, Alaska. Despite expected disturbances from contemporary activities and post-depositional processes, the faunal assemblage closely resembles expectations of primary household activities described in ethnohistoric accounts relating to consumption, preparation, and storage of subsistence resources. Only a few expectations based on secondary activities are supported. Further work is needed to test these results throughout the Arctic and across time. However, these results suggest that archaeologists can use the direct historical approach, and related ethnographic analogies, directly to interpret archaeofaunal patterning in Thule semi-subterranean houses and middens.
https://ift.tt/2s1d1gO
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου