skip to navigation
ADS Main Website
Help
|
Login
/
Browse by Series
/
Series
/ Journal Issue
J Theoretical Archaeol 1
Title
The title of the publication or report
Title:
J Theoretical Archaeol 1
Series
The series the publication or report is included in
Series:
Journal of Theoretical Archaeology
Volume
Volume number and part
Volume:
1
Publication Type
The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book
Publication Type:
Journal
Year of Publication
The year the book, article or report was published
Year of Publication:
1990
Note
Extra information on the publication or report.
Note:
Date Of Issue From: 1990
Source
Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in.
Source:
BIAB (British Archaeological Abstracts (BAA))
Created Date
The date the record of the pubication was first entered
Created Date:
05 Dec 2008
Please click on an Article link to go to the Article Details.
Article Title
Access Type
Author / Editor
Page
Start/End
Abstract
Method in spite of rhetoric
James A Bell
3 - 12
An unnecessary polarity has developed between processualists and the numerous post-processualist approaches: what counts is whether the problems are worth while and the tools useful, 'not whether they come from a processual or post-processual box'. The 1989 Newcastle Theoretical Archaeology Group conference showed people beginning to cross the divide. Archaeology should not be used as a political power game.
Defining right from wrong
Ross Samson
13 - 29
Conceptual categories defined by archaeologists are too often treated as real groups that can be analysed in opposition to other groups, whereas what counts (as shown by a study of 'the castle' and of 'the broch') is the context in which these structures operated. On the matter of origins, beware the 'deterministic theory of accidental construction': people in the past were quite capable of inventing solutions to problems. But 'the origin of the castle' will always be a circular and semantic argument. The point of the castle, or the broch, or the English country mansion, was to exclude the non-select by means of a wall or exaggerated height, etc, and definitions are meaningless in a contextual vacuum.
A critical review of the interpretation of infant burials in Roman Britain, with particular reference to villas
Eleanor Scott
30 - 46
Androcentric and ethnocentric interpretations of the Roman period still abound and its 'otherness' is scarcely accepted, let alone explored. The view that babies buried in villas were 'surreptitious' and therefore illegitimate is conditioned by highly inappropriate comparisons with Victorian England. By contrast the Copts buried babies under the floor to ensure the mother would bear another more successfully; some burials in RB temples are clearly votive or dedicatory, and similar reasons may apply to villas, especially where an infant cemetery was also in use. The 4th century rise in infant burials in settlements may be more apparent than real, or part of a religious revival (cf Orpheus cult); burials in malting kilns could be to ensure fertility of crops for beer, etc.
Dirt theory, or archaeological sites seen as rubbish heaps
Ulrike Sommer
47 - 60
Terms to describe assemblage formation can usefully be borrowed from palaeontology: biocoenosis, thanatocoenosis, taphocoenosis, and oryctocoenosis are progressions from the original assemblage to our recovery of the remnants, and each stage acts as a filter. The transition from second to third stage is the focus here. What we see as 'refuse' is best classified by size (eg big refuse needed effort to deal with), by value (recyclable?), by dirtiness (eg messy to handle), and by danger (eg sharp edges). These categories are applied to bone and ceramics, and considered in relation to activity areas of the whole site. Refuse patterning is some of the best behavioural evidence we can retrieve.