DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of Taphonomy VOLUME 8 (ISSUE 1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of Taphonomy VOLUME 8 (ISSUE 1) PROMETHEUS PRESS/PALAEONTOLOGICAL NETWORK FOUNDATION (TERUEL) Available online at www.journaltaphonomy.com 2010 Lyman Journal of Taphonomy VOLUME 8 (ISSUE 1) What Taphonomy Is, What it Isn’t, and Why Taphonomists Should Care about the Difference R. Lee Lyman* Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211 USA Journal of Taphonomy 8 (1) (2010), 1-16. Manuscript received 13 May 2009, revised manuscript accepted 28 July 2009. The term “taphonomy” was originally defined by paleontologist I.A. Efremov in 1940 as “the study of the transition (in all its details) of animal remains from the biosphere into the lithosphere”. The term evolved to include plant remains because Efremov also indicated that taphonomy concerned the “transition from the biosphere to the lithosphere”. The concept and the term were both adopted by zooarchaeologists who were interested in whether modified bones represented prehistoric tools or were concerned about the fidelity of the paleoecological signal of a collection of faunal remains. Until the middle 1970s, the term still meant what Efremov originally intended. When some archaeologists adopted the term to signify the formation and disturbance of the archaeological record and natural modification of artifacts, they caused the term to take on meanings different than those originally specified by Efremov. Taphonomy concerns once living material whereas archaeological formation processes concern both once living and never living material; taphonomy concerns the transition from living to non-living and geological, so includes both natural and cultural formation processes as either biasing or information laden and of research interest whereas archaeological formation concerns the transition from a living system to a non-living geological one but natural processes are biasing whereas cultural formation processes are of research interest. Taphonomists should quietly inform archaeologists who misuse the term that in so doing they exacerbate confusion and misunderstanding. Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGY, DEFINITIONS, EFREMOV, PALEONTOLOGY, TERMINOLOGY Introduction whatever- includes more or less unique terminology about the subject phenomena. Every form of inquiry about a kind of The purpose of the terms is to provide phenomena -literature, organisms, celestial shorthand labels for unique properties of the bodies, chemical elements, geological deposits, subject phenomena so that they might be Article JTa94. All rights reserved. *E-mail: [email protected] 1 What Taphonomy Is distinguished from other phenomena and to originally intended. Use of the term by enhance communication efficiency during archaeologists has occasionally provided a the course of research and teaching (e.g., unique way to view the history of the Pushkin, 1997; Slisko & Dykstra, 1997). formation of the archaeological record, and But terms are words we choose as labels, that is good; however, taphonomy has also and they have meanings that we assign to been used as a label for phenomena that are them rather than having some inherent arguably not what the term actually signifies. meaning that originates in the phonemes The latter can hinder communication, reduce and morphemes of which they are made. understanding, and exacerbate confusion. The critical issue therefore is that we must Given the history of terminological confusion agree on what terms mean else we are in archaeology (e.g., Lyman et al., 1998) merely jabbering at one another rather than and zooarchaeology (e.g., Lyman, 1994a) and communicating. If we do not agree on the the misunderstanding and confusion that has meanings of terms, then we may think two resulted, it behooves taphonomists to educate individuals are talking about the same thing their colleagues in archaeology as to proper (and when they say “cup” when in fact they are not, improper) use of the term that delineates a or we may think two individuals are talking very particular subject matter. This paper is about different things when one says “spoon” meant to be a warrant for that educational and the other says “ladle” when in fact they are endeavor. The history indicates that misuse of not. The implications of obscure terminology the term was likely initiated and perpetuated or terms without agreed upon and generally with good intentions, and that such misuse understood meaning should be clear. The is growing in pervasiveness. The history also clarity and explicitness of scientific terminology indicates that the misuse was unnecessary are particularly important given that the and can be discontinued with minimal effort sciences depend on replicability (repeatability) on the part of taphonomists. and independent empirical confirmation of knowledge claims. In this paper, I briefly review the What “taphonomy” is origin and history of the term “taphonomy” in its parental discipline of paleontology. Russian paleontologist I.A. Efremov (1940:85) This history establishes what the term was coined the term “taphonomy” as a label for originally intended to mean and how that the science of the laws of embedding, or meaning evolved to keep pace with the “the study of the transition (in all its details) evolution of paleobiology from paleontology of animal remains from the biosphere into the (Sepkoski & Crane, 1985). Then a sketch of lithosphere”. First, note that as originally the history of the use of the term in North defined, only animal remains were included; American archaeology is presented to illustrate I return to this point later. Second, note that how the term was sometimes adopted by the etymology of the term resides in the that discipline without clear understanding Greek words taphos for burial and nomos of what the term was originally intended to for laws (Cadée, 1991); Efremov (1940:85) mean, and how other times the term was denoted this “new branch of paleontology” adopted by archaeologists to label a related as all those efforts focusing on “analyzing but different sort of phenomena than that the processes of embedding”. Taphonomy as 2 Lyman a term designating a particular field of research the paleontological record, they also added originated and evolved in paleontology where potentially important information such as it originally was conceived as involving two predation marks (e.g., predatory bore holes stages, the first occurring between an organism’s in mollusks). death and its final burial (recognizing that it More recently, Behrensmeyer et al. could be buried, exposed, and reburied more (2000:103) indicated that taphonomy “seeks than once), or biostratinomy, and the second to understand processes [that have influenced stage occurring from final burial to recovery organic remains] so that data from the fossil by the paleontologist, or diagenesis. The record can be evaluated correctly and applied distinction was made in order to distinguish to paleobiological and paleoecological and keep separate those largely preburial and questions”. Other commentators at this time mostly biological (biostratinomic) processes agreed (e.g., Martin, 1999), reflecting a that influenced remains and those mostly growing sophistication in conception of postburial geological and chemical (diagenetic) precisely what taphonomy is all about. The processes that influenced remains (Lawrence, consensus likely marks a natural evolution 1979a, 1979b, 1979c). of the term from denoting only processes Taphonomy had become a household that somehow bias a collection of remains word by the middle 1980s when paleobiologists of organisms, to acknowledging that some Anna Behrensmeyer and Susan Kidwell of those processes may be of interest in their (1985:105) indicated that taphonomic research own right. The consensus does not change involved “the study of processes of preservation the connotation or denotation of the term’s and how they affect information in the fossil original definition because the term had record”. They underscored how historically always concerned what happened to the the research focus of taphonomists had been remains of organisms after death and prior on bias in, and information loss from, the to recovery - it is about the transition of fossil record, but that it was increasingly organic remains from the biosphere to the understood that taphonomic processes not lithosphere, not just the loss of those only removed information they also added remains. In short, other than the obvious information, such as gnawing marks on bones difference between a live organism and suggesting predator identity. Efremov (1958:85), dead one, since its inception taphonomy has for example, noted that a “significant regularity always concerned the differences between of taphonomy is the absence in geological the carcass of an organism that simply is chronicle of any remains of land animals dead and its mortal remains some centuries conserved in their life conditions”. Historically or millennia after it died. Why were the early taphonomic research therefore focused latter (often, but not always) an incomplete on “stripping away the taphonomic overprint” representation of the former? Why were the (Lawrence, 1968:1316, 1971:593); the historically latter articulated or not, scattered or not, later phase had the additional focus of fossilized or not, broken or not? And on and deciphering the paleoecological significance of on. That the term was, in the early days, taphonomic attributes displayed by the remains often taken to mean information loss reflects of organisms (Wilson, 1988). Taphonomic the narrow view of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Experimental Taphonomy Shows the Feasibility of Fossil Embryos
    Experimental taphonomy shows the feasibility of fossil embryos Elizabeth C. Raff*, Jeffrey T. Villinski*, F. Rudolf Turner*, Philip C. J. Donoghue†, and Rudolf A. Raff*‡ *Department of Biology and Indiana Molecular Biology Institute, Indiana University, Myers Hall 150, 915 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405; and †Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom Communicated by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA, February 23, 2006 (received for review November 9, 2005) The recent discovery of apparent fossils of embryos contempora- external egg envelope within 15–36 days, but no preservation or neous with the earliest animal remains may provide vital insights mineralization of the embryos within was observed (18). into the metazoan radiation. However, although the putative fossil Anyone who works with marine embryos would consider remains are similar to modern marine animal embryos or larvae, preservation for sufficient time for mineralization via phospha- their simple geometric forms also resemble other organic and tization unlikely, given the seeming fragility of such embryos. inorganic structures. The potential for fossilization of animals at Freshly killed marine embryos in normal seawater decompose such developmental stages and the taphonomic processes that within a few hours. We carried out taphonomy experiments might affect preservation before mineralization have not been designed to uncover the impact of the mode of death and examined. Here, we report experimental taphonomy of marine postdeath environment on the preservational potential of ma- embryos and larvae similar in size and inferred cleavage mode to rine embryos and larvae. presumptive fossil embryos.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytoarkive Project General Report: Phytolith Assessment of Samples from 16-22 Coppergate and 22 Piccadilly (ABC Cinema), York
    PhytoArkive Project General Report: Phytolith Assessment of Samples from 16-22 Coppergate and 22 Piccadilly (ABC Cinema), York An Insight Report By Hayley McParland, University of York ©H. McParland 2016 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3 A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF PHYTOLITH STUDIES IN THE UK................................................................................ 4 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 6 3. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND POTENTIAL .......................................................................................... 7 2 1. Introduction This pilot study builds on an initial assessment of phytolith preservation in samples from Coppergate and 22 Picadilly (ABC Cinema) which demonstrated adequate to excellent preservation of phytoliths1. At that time, phytolith studies were in their infancy and their true potential for the interpretation of archaeological contexts was unknown. Phytoliths are plant silica microfossils, ranging from 0.01mm to 0.1mm in size and visible only through a high powered microscope. Phytoliths, literally ‘plant rocks’12, are formed from solidified monosilicic acid, which is absorbed by the plant in the groundwater. It is deposited as
    [Show full text]
  • The Preservation of Archaeological Records and Photographs
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Anthropology Department Theses and Dissertations Anthropology, Department of 12-2010 The Preservation of Archaeological Records and Photographs Kelli Bacon University of Nebraska at Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthrotheses Part of the Anthropology Commons Bacon, Kelli, "The Preservation of Archaeological Records and Photographs" (2010). Anthropology Department Theses and Dissertations. 9. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthrotheses/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Department Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. THE PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS By Kelli Bacon A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College of the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts Major: Anthropology Under the Supervision of Professor LuAnn Wandsnider Lincoln, Nebraska December 2010 THE PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Kelli Bacon, M.A. University of Nebraska, 2010 Advisor: LuAnn Wandsnider Substantive and organized research about archaeological records and photograph preservation, especially those written by and for archaeologists, are few. Although the Society for American Archaeology has a code of ethics regarding archaeological records preservation, and the federal government has regulations regarding the care and preservation of federally owned archaeological collections, there is a lack of resources. This is detrimental to archaeology because not all archaeologists, given the maturity of the discipline, understand how important it is to preserve archaeological records and photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeological Study of Culture Change And
    THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF CULTURE CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN MULTIETHNIC COMMUNITIES If K) il. Kent G. Lightfoot Archaeological Research Facility Department of Anthropology University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 ABSTRACT California is ideally suited to the study of the emergence, growth, and consequences of multiethnic colonial communities. Research on how native peoples responded to Spanish, Mexican, Russian, and Anglo-American exploration and colonialism can provide important insights into the roots of contemporary pluralistic Californian populations. An ongoing study ofthe Russian colony of Fort Ross is examining the cultural landscapes of diverse ethnic groups in a long-term temporal framework. This study questions the growing practice ofsplitting "prehistoric" and "historical" archaeology into separate subfields, shifts the emphasis from artifact analyses to the study of spatial contexts, and employs ethnohistorical and ethnographic data as end sequences oflong-term developments in native societies. INTRODUCTION dating of archaeological deposits. As little as ten years ago, many sites _. especially lithic scatters An important focus of social theory and recorded in swface surveys -- were difficult to studies of cultural change in anthropology today is date. With recent chronological advances, espe­ understanding how indigenous peoples responded cially obsidian hydration research, archaeological to European contact and colonialism, and how the deposits in many regions of California can now be outcomes of these encounters contributed to the dated along an ordinal scale that spans prehistoric, pluralistic populations of contemporary America protohistoric, and historic times. The rich archival (Biersack 1991; Deagan 1990; Ohnuki-Tierney data base and more refmed chronologies provide 1990; Sahlins 1992; Simmons 1988; Wolf 1982). an ideal combination for examining long-tenn Archaeologists in California are ideally situated to developments in the hunter-gatherer societies of make important contributions to the study of long­ California.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Evaluation Report and Recommendation for the Irvine Business Complex, City of Irvine, California
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE UPTOWN NEWPORT VILLAGE PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: The Planning Center|DC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Authors: Molly Valasik, Sherri Gust and Courtney Richards Principal Investigator: Sherri Gust, Orange County Certified Professional Paleontologist and Archaeologist January 2012 Cogstone Project Number: 2265 Type of Study: Cultural resources assessment Fossil Localities: none Archaeological Sites: none USGS Quadrangle: Tustin 7.5’ photorevised 1981 Area: 25-acres Key Words: Gabrielino, Tongva, Quaternary Older Paralic Deposits 1518 West Taft Avenue Branch Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 West Sacramento - Morro Bay - Inland Empire – San Diego Office (714) 974-8300 Toll free (888) 497-0700 Uptown Newport Village TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Visualization and Collaborative Practice in Paleoethnobotany
    ARTICLE VISUALIZATION AND COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE IN PALEOETHNOBOTANY Jessica M. Herlich and Shanti Morell-Hart Jessica M. Herlich is a Ph.D. candidate at the College of William and Mary and Shanti Morell-Hart is Assistant Professor at McMaster University. aleoethnobotany lends unique insight into past lived Methodologies, Practices, and Multi-Proxy Understandings experiences, landscape reconstruction, and ethnoecolog- There are many methodologies within paleoethnobotany that ical connections. A wide array of paleoethnobotanical P lead to distinct yet complementary pieces of information, methodologies equips us to negotiate complementary under- whether due to scale of residue (chemical to architectural) or the standings of the human past. From entire wood sea vessels to technology available (hand loupes to full laboratory facilities). individual plant cells, all sizes of botanical remains can be The limits of archaeobotanical analysis are constantly expand- addressed through the tools available to an archaeobotanist. As ing as the accessibility and capabilities of technology improve. paleoethnobotanical interpretation is interwoven with other This is true for microscopes and software, which make it possi- threads of information, an enriched vision of the relationships ble for a paleoethnobotanist to capture and enhance the small- between landscape and people develops. est of cellular structures, and for telecommunications and digi- tal records, which are expanding the possibilities for decipher- Collaboration is a necessary component for archaeobotanical ing archaeobotanical material and for collaborating with distant analysis and interpretation. Through collaboration we make stakeholders. Improvements in technology are an integral part the invisible visible, the unintelligible intelligible, the unknow- of the exciting future of paleoethnobotany, which includes col- able knowable.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Archaeology - D.L
    ARCHAEOLOGY – Vol. I - Foundations of Archaeology - D.L. Hardesty FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY D.L. Hardesty Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, USA Keywords: Analogy, Archaeology, Behavior, Classification, Concept, Culture, Dating, Deposit, Ecology, Evolution, Excavation, Fieldwork, Hermeneutics, Household, Landscape, Method, Region, Settlement Contents 1. Conceptual Foundations 1.1 Structures of Inquiry 1.2 Constructing Archaeological Data 2. Methodological Foundations of Archaeology 2.1 Archaeological Fieldwork 2.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Data Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The foundations of archaeology are both conceptual and methodological. Key concepts are associated with several “structures of inquiry” and with constructions used to define and organize archaeological data. The methodological foundations of archaeology are found in fieldwork and other ways of gathering archaeological data and in the approaches used to analyze and interpret archaeological data in the laboratory and elsewhere. Such methods include the use of analogy such as ethnoarchaeology and experimentation, classification, dating, materials analysis, bioarchaeology, and the analysis and interpretation of past environments. 1. Conceptual Foundations The fundamentalUNESCO concepts of archaeology are– linked EOLSS to several structures of inquiry and ways of constructing archaeological data. Archaeological structures of inquiry include culture history, processual structures, hermeneutics, and Marxism. The
    [Show full text]
  • SAA Archaeological Record Anna Marie Prentiss (ISSN 1532-7299) Is Published five Times a Year and Is Edited by Anna Marie Prentiss
    Archaeological Practice on Reality Television SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY the SAAarchaeologicalrecord The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 15, No. 2 March 2015 Editor’s Corner 2 Anna Marie Prentiss From the President 3 Jeffrey H. Altschul, RPA SAA and Open Access—The Financial Implications 4 Jim Bruseth Exploring Open Access for SAA Publications 5 Sarah Whitcher Kansa and Carrie Dennett Volunteer Profile : Kirk French 9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE ON REALITY TELEVISION Reality Television and the Portrayal of Archaeological 10 Sarah A. Herr Practice: Challenges and Opportunities Digging for Ratings Gold: American Digger and the 12 Eduardo Pagán Challenge of Sustainability for Cable TV Interview with John Francis on National Geographic 18 Sarah A. Herr and Archaeology Programming Time Team America: Archaeology as a Gateway 21 Meg Watters to Science : Engaging and Educating the Publi c Beyond “Nectar” and “Juice” : Creating a Preservation 26 Jeffery Hanson Ethic through Reality TV Reality Television and Metal Detecting : Let’s Be Part of 30 Giovanna M. Peebles the Solution and Not Add to the Problem Metal Detecting as a Preservation and Community 35 Matthew Reeves Building Tool : Montpelier’s Metal Detecting Programs Going Around (or Beyond) Major TV : Other Media 38 Richard Pettigrew Options to Reach the Public Erratum In the Acknowledgements section of “Ho’eexokre ‘Eyookuuka’ro ‘We’re Working with Each Other”: The Pimu Catalina Island Proj - ect” Vol. 15(1):28, an important supporter was left out and should be disclosed. On the cover: Time Team America camera - Acknowledgments. The 2012 Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology man filming excavations for the episode "The Field School was also supported by the Institute for Field Research Search for Josiah Henson." Image courtesy of (IFR).
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Opment, but I Think It Worth Trying Minimize
    SPECIAL ISSUE: INTERNATIONAL CURATION STANDARDS the archaeol ogica l reco rd SAA MARCH 2009 • V OLUME 9 • N UMBER 2 SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLO GY EXPERIENCE THE NEW SAAWEB WWW.SAA.ORG SAAWEB call for Member Photos The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) invites its members to submit their archaeological photos for the homepage of the new SAAweb. SAA hopes to receive a range of submissions reflecting the diversity of experiences worldwide throughout the membership. If you would like to submit an image for consideration on the SAAweb homepage, please contact Meghan Tyler, SAA's Coordinator, Membership and Marketing, at +1-202-789-8200 or [email protected]. Please be sure your image meets the following specifica - tions: Format: JPEG Resolution: 300 dpi (minimum) Size: 487 pixels (width) x 290 pixels (height) Layout: Horizontal Photos should be submitted along with a caption of 20 words or less on the photo or 50 words or less accompanying the photo. The photographer’s name and written permission from the copyright holder must also be included to be eligible for consideration. Sub - mission of photo(s) does not guarantee placement. the SAAarchaeologicalrecord The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 9, No. 2 March 2009 Editor’s Corner 2 Andrew Duff In Brief 3 Tobi Brimsek An Open Letter to the SAA Membership: Ethics 4 The Recent Past: Why I gave Away My American 6 Mark Warner Antiquity : Some Thoughts on the Relationship Between Historical Archaeologists and American Antiquity special issue: international curation standards Edited by Jessica S. Johnson Finds sorted and labeled, ready for International Curation Standards: Sharing Ideas for 8 Jessica S.
    [Show full text]
  • Taphonomy of Fossilized Resins: Determining the Biostratinomy of Amber
    Viewmetadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk broughtto you by CORE providedby Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert ACTA GEOLOGICA HISPANICA, v. 35 (2000), nº 1-2, p. 171-182 Taphonomy of fossilized resins: determining the biostratinomy of amber G.O. POINAR, Jr.(1) and M. MASTALERZ(2) (1) Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis,OR 97330. E-mail: [email protected] (2) Indiana Geological Survey, Indiana University, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405-2208. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Comparing the maturity of fossilized resins with that of their enclosing bedrock can provide information on the maturity, relative age and biostratinomy of amber and copal. A method to determine this is presented here with examples of amber and copal from the Dominican Republic. Maturity of the bedrock was determined by vitrinite reflection and that of the fossilized resin by FTIR analys i s . Vitrinite oxidation values showed maturity states corresponding to lignite and sub-bituminous coal ranks. While the samples from some mines demonstrated that the maturities of the rock and fossilized resin were syngenetic, other samples indicated that recycling of the amber may have occurred. Darkening of the amber (from yel l o w to red) was correlated with increased oxi d a t i o n / w eathering. Th i s method can be a useful tool for understanding the biostratinomy of fossilized resins. Keywo rd s : Am b e r . Copal. Tap h o n o m y. Maturity. Relative age. Dominican Republi c . IN T RO D U C T I O N to the 30-45 million year dates obtained earlier by Cepek (Schlee, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • SAA Archaeological Record • September 2015 ARTICLE
    ARTICLE HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS MAKE BETTER ARGUMENTS? Michael E. Smith Michael E. Smith ([email protected]) is Professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University. The fundamental question of all serious fields of scholar - are exposed to challenge; findings should be internally coher - ly inquiry [is]: How would you know if you are wrong? ent; and arguments should be judged on the basis of explanato - [Haber 1999:312] ry power, generality, simplicity, and replicability (Gerring 2012; Wylie 2000). Given the constraints of this paper, I can cite only Thanks to advances in methods and fieldwork, archaeology a small number of relevant sources; I focus on the most impor - today seems poised to make major contributions to knowledge tant references, and these can be checked for further citations. that extend beyond traditional archaeological and anthropologi - cal concerns. The recent identification of a series of “grand chal - lenges for archaeology” (Kintigh et al. 2014) illustrates the appli - The Structure of Arguments cability of our data and findings to major research questions Lewis Binford and other archaeologists affiliated with the New across the human and natural sciences. But at the same time, Archaeology movement gave a fair amount of attention to the standards of argumentation have declined, particularly in the structure of archaeological arguments and the nature of expla - anthropological archaeology of complex societies. As a result, nation. Unfortunately, many of their formal arguments were increasing numbers of our published interpretations and expla - unsuccessful because they accepted a faulty view of explanation, nations are weak and unreliable, and our empirical data fail to the “covering law model” of the logical positivists.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Time and Taphonomy: Preservation in the Ediacaran
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273127997 Of time and taphonomy: preservation in the Ediacaran CHAPTER · JANUARY 2014 READS 36 2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING: Charlotte Kenchington University of Cambridge 5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Charlotte Kenchington Retrieved on: 02 October 2015 ! OF TIME AND TAPHONOMY: PRESERVATION IN THE EDIACARAN CHARLOTTE G. KENCHINGTON! 1,2 AND PHILIP R. WILBY2 1Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, UK <[email protected]! > 2British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, UK ABSTRACT.—The late Neoproterozoic witnessed a revolution in the history of life: the transition from a microbial world to the one known today. The enigmatic organisms of the Ediacaran hold the key to understanding the early evolution of metazoans and their ecology, and thus the basis of Phanerozoic life. Crucial to interpreting the information they divulge is a thorough understanding of their taphonomy: what is preserved, how it is preserved, and also what is not preserved. Fortunately, this Period is also recognized for its abundance of soft-tissue preservation, which is viewed through a wide variety of taphonomic windows. Some of these, such as pyritization and carbonaceous compression, are also present throughout the Phanerozoic, but the abundance and variety of moldic preservation of body fossils in siliciclastic settings is unique to the Ediacaran. In rare cases, one organism is preserved in several preservational styles which, in conjunction with an increased understanding of the taphonomic processes involved in each style, allow confident interpretations of aspects of the biology and ecology of the organisms preserved.
    [Show full text]