Analytical Archaeology

Land use for animal production in global change studies: Defining and characterizing a framework

“…Faunal remains (animal bones) provide one of the best evidences for animal production, and although there are some complications inherent in interpreting assemblages (Brochier, 2013;Chang & Koster, 1986), distinctions between production systems need to be explored with regional or continental databases (see, e.g., Manning et al, 2013). There is also a need for incorporating cross-disciplinary evidence and methods in order to make reconstructions more robust, for example, combining archeological and paleoecological evidence, and/or using modern analogues to infer past land use (Biagetti, Alcaina-Mateos, & Crema, 2016;Clarke, 2015;Dunne et al, 2012;Ejarque, Miras, & Riera, 2011;Evershed, 2008;Gaillard, Birks, Emanuelsson, & Berglund, 1992;Gifford-Gonzalez, 1991;Graf & Chmura, 2006 Studies of vegetation dynamics are also useful in understanding past land use (Foster, 1992;Foster et al, 2003;Verheyen, Honnay, Motzkin, Hermy, & Foster, 2003), either as a direct indicator of land use (e.g., forest biodiversity: Dupouey, Dambrine, Laffite, & Moares, 2002;Vellend, 2004), or in order to understand vegetation response to a particular type of land use, such as the effects of grazing intensity on grassland plants (Mcintyre & Lavorel, 2001;Noy-Meir, Gutman, & Kaplan, 1989). In addition, studies on chemical soil characteristics may provide insight into past land use, and vice versa (Goodale & Aber, 2001;Verheyen et al, 1999).…”

Ancient texts, classical archaeology and representation of the past: the development of a dialogue

“…Seminal to this approach is the work of D.L. Clarke (1937Clarke ( -1976; see, in particular, Clarke 1968;Clarke 1972. 12. See, for a general introduction Hodder 1986, Ch.…”

Basic Tasks of Cultural Semiotics

“…In the second half of the 20th century, an extensive agreement was reached within the latter two disciplines about the central subject areas which are to be investigated and about the most important questions which must be posed within the study of culture (see Singer 1978 and. Based on these subject areas, anthropology can be structured (see Posner 1989: 249ff andHansen 1993) into the subdisciplines: social anthropology (see, among others, Alfred Weber 1920and 1935, Radcliffe-Brown 1940, Evans-Pritchard 1962, and Cohen 1971; material anthropology (see, among others, Thurnwald 1932, Bidney 1953, and Clarke 1978; and cultural anthropology (see, among others, Kroeber 1923, Kluckhohn 1951, and Lévi-Strauss 1949and 1958). Duby 1961, Le Goff 1974, Tellenbach 1974, Hutton 1981, Sellin 1985, Dinzelbacher 1993and Werlen 1998.…”

“…Every society develops its own material and mental culture. But the geographical boundaries between two societies do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries between their respective material cultures and between their respective mental cultures (see Clarke 1978, Posner 1990, and Berry et al 1997:…”