The Notion Site

Dunnell, Robert C.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2450-6_2

Cited by 138 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the use of "site types" has been criticized by a number of authors (e.g. , Bettinger 1979;Dunnell 1992;Nelson 1991), we find that Magne's model serves as a heuristic device that makes explicit connections between patterning in lithic assemblages and human behavior. Too often an inference is made concerning site function or site type with only vague references to the evidence for such inference.…”

Section: Figure 1 Framework For Conducting To Studies (After Nelson mentioning

confidence: 65%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of an organization of technology approach is complicated. Rather than trace specific strands, we examine its paradigm-like nature and connections to skeptical inquiry, as well as discussing the main studies influencing our own work. An examination and modification of a classic diagram of levels of analysis in this approach, especially the addition of a consideration of the life history of lithic artifacts, facilitates application. For such application, the importance and future of experimentation, both flintknapping and simulation, are discussed. Lithic analysts are called to identify a common assemblage which we can use to test our approaches and methods.This special issue is guest edited by Gilbert B. Tostevin (Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota). This is article #3 of 7. Throughout the development of behavioral research with stone tools, there is an interesting interplay of inductive and deductive reasoning, that is; between questions they ask, in the extreme: What can this stone tool tell us about behavior, and;What are the implications of behavior for stone tools? (Magne 1985: 22) I f the date for the opening quote from Martin Magne was not provided, the language would help place it in the heyday of processual archaeology. In the 1980s, processual archaeologists were interested in developing scientific methods to reconstruct human behavior, especially following Binford's (1981) call to link the static archaeological record with dynamic behavior by building middle range theory. Since that time, processual archaeology has undergone significant critique, theory wars have waged, and today there are a number of theoretical perspectives in contemporary archaeology, including "processual plus;" in some cases, individual archaeologists adopt an eclectic theoretical perspective (Hegmon 2003). Despite these changes, we still see much of use in the processual archaeology paradigm with some modifications, such as working to minimize and make explicit bias. While it is difficult to assess the current state of theory building in archaeology to determine if this constitutes a paradigmatic crisis (sensu T. Kuhn 1970), there remains a sense of normal science in the general activities of archaeologists. This makes for an interesting time to consider the epistemology of our approach to lithic analysis. In exploring this topic, we found ourselves best able to describe our personal involvement with the development of an organization of technology approach (referred to here as a "TO" approach following Cobb 2000) and identify directions for future research.Discussions of epistemology tend to simplify its meaning to how we know what we know. In this vein, Lett (1987: 11) defined epistemology as "the study of the nature and source of knowledge." However, these simplifications belie the actual complexity of explaining how we arrive at knowledge. There are numerous volumes outside of archaeology that address this philosophical issue and plenty of books and articles within the discipline tha...

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Framework For Conducting To Studies (After Nelson mentioning

confidence: 65%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Archaeological landscapes are horizontal and vertical palimpsests, often lacking physical discontinuities. The adoption of the notion of "site" (issue i) has proven problematic in North African archaeology (for recent comments, see [1,61]) and in general [62,63]. There are epistemological, methodological, and practical issues around the identification of "sites", especially where landscapes show a wide variety of different types of anthropogenic signatures.…”

Section: Anthropogenic Signatures In the Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

High and Medium Resolution Satellite Imagery to Evaluate Late Holocene Human–Environment Interactions in Arid Lands: A Case Study from the Central Sahara

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present preliminary results of an Earth observation approach for the study of past human occupation and landscape reconstruction in the Central Sahara. This region includes a variety of geomorphological features such as palaeo-oases, dried river beds, alluvial fans and upland plateaux whose geomorphological characteristics, in combination with climate changes, have influenced patterns of human dispersal and sociocultural activities during the late Holocene. In this paper, we discuss the use of medium-and high-resolution remotely sensed data for the mapping of anthropogenic features and paleo-and contemporary hydrology and vegetation. In the absence of field inspection in this inaccessible region, we use different remote sensing methods to first identify and classify archaeological features, and then explore the geomorphological factors that might have influenced their spatial distribution.

show abstract

“…Isso tem implicações importantes para o estudo dos modos de vida dos povos indígenas arqueológicos, pois reconhece que as relações entre as aldeias, as estradas ou os caminhos para deslocamento, as áreas agrícolas, os locais de coletas sazonais, os canais e todas as demais atividades econômicas e sociais são tão relevantes quanto o espaço da aldeia. Sabe-se que a definição do espaço do sítio implica grande dose de arbitrariedade por parte do pesquisador, que diminui quando a escala da pesquisa aumenta, e todo e qualquer vestígio humano é considerado relevante (Dunnell, 1992). A arqueologia passa a se preocupar, portanto, com os ambientes vividos, Anuário Antropológico/2013, Brasília, UnB, 2014, v. 39, n. 2: 13-44 que se encontra sob o solo.…”

Section: Arqueologia Amazônica Pós-meggersunclassified

Arqueologia para etnólogos: colaborações entre arqueologia e antropologia na Amazônia

Schaan¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A etnologia e a arqueologia desenvolveram-se no Brasil no século XX como campos distintos do conhecimento. A institucionalização dessas disciplinas nas universidades, a partir principalmente de modelos europeus, influenciou o modo como se produziu conhecimento sobre as sociedades indígenas brasileiras. Na arqueologia amazônica, a etnologia teve e tem um papel importante na interpretação do registro arqueológico, ao passo que o contrário não é verdadeiro. Este artigo centra-se na relação entre arqueologia e etnologia na Amazônia. É analisado o uso que a abordagem ecológico-cultural na arqueologia faz dos dados etnográficos e as reações contrárias vindas do campo da ecologia histórica, com exemplos de transformações pré-colombianas da paisagem na ilha de Marajó, no Baixo Amazonas e no Acre. Finalmente, argumenta-se que uma colaboração entre etnólogos e arqueólogos poderia favorecer a etnologia com uma perspectiva histórica, assim como a arqueologia tem se beneficiado de diversas perspectivas antropológicas ao longo de sua história.

show abstract

The Notion Site

Cited by 138 publications

References 26 publications

Untitled

Untitled

High and Medium Resolution Satellite Imagery to Evaluate Late Holocene Human–Environment Interactions in Arid Lands: A Case Study from the Central Sahara

Arqueologia para etnólogos: colaborações entre arqueologia e antropologia na Amazônia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About