{"title":"在旁观者的眼中","authors":"Matilda I. Siebrecht, Sean P. A. Desjardins","doi":"10.3368/aa.59.1.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> How archaeologists classify and categorize artifacts has the potential to direct and bias interpretations before analysis has taken place. A clear example of this phenomenon in arctic archaeology is the analysis of material culture classified as “art” attributed to premodern Tuniit peoples (Late Dorset Paleo-Inuit, ca. AD 500–1300). Often, analyses of Tuniit art pieces are restricted by the use of customary typologies that can impose modern assumptions of how Tuniit groups would have perceived their material culture. In this study, we address this problem by focusing not on the meaning embodied in the finished objects but on the identification of decision-making patterns of the object carvers and users as reflected through microscopic traces of manufacture and use. We argue that through such trace-focused observation, certain newly observed patterns may suggest greater diversity in decision-making processes (with regard to manufacture and use) than would be suggested by traditional typological grouping alone. This work has wide-ranging implications for how arctic archaeologists approach artifact classification and typological organization.","PeriodicalId":45997,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Anthropology","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Eye of the Beholder\",\"authors\":\"Matilda I. Siebrecht, Sean P. A. Desjardins\",\"doi\":\"10.3368/aa.59.1.39\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> How archaeologists classify and categorize artifacts has the potential to direct and bias interpretations before analysis has taken place. A clear example of this phenomenon in arctic archaeology is the analysis of material culture classified as “art” attributed to premodern Tuniit peoples (Late Dorset Paleo-Inuit, ca. AD 500–1300). Often, analyses of Tuniit art pieces are restricted by the use of customary typologies that can impose modern assumptions of how Tuniit groups would have perceived their material culture. In this study, we address this problem by focusing not on the meaning embodied in the finished objects but on the identification of decision-making patterns of the object carvers and users as reflected through microscopic traces of manufacture and use. We argue that through such trace-focused observation, certain newly observed patterns may suggest greater diversity in decision-making processes (with regard to manufacture and use) than would be suggested by traditional typological grouping alone. This work has wide-ranging implications for how arctic archaeologists approach artifact classification and typological organization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arctic Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arctic Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3368/aa.59.1.39\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arctic Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3368/aa.59.1.39","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
考古学家如何对文物进行分类和分类有可能在分析发生之前指导和偏见解释。在北极考古学中,这种现象的一个明显例子是对归类为“艺术”的物质文化的分析,这些文化归因于前现代的图unit人(Dorset Late Paleo-Inuit,约公元500-1300年)。通常,对图尼特艺术品的分析受到习惯类型学使用的限制,这些类型学可以强加对图尼特群体如何感知其物质文化的现代假设。在这项研究中,我们解决这个问题的方法不是关注成品所体现的意义,而是通过制造和使用的微观痕迹来识别物体雕刻者和用户的决策模式。我们认为,通过这种以追踪为重点的观察,某些新观察到的模式可能表明,在决策过程中(关于制造和使用)比传统的类型学分组所暗示的更大的多样性。这项工作对北极考古学家如何接近人工制品分类和类型学组织具有广泛的影响。
How archaeologists classify and categorize artifacts has the potential to direct and bias interpretations before analysis has taken place. A clear example of this phenomenon in arctic archaeology is the analysis of material culture classified as “art” attributed to premodern Tuniit peoples (Late Dorset Paleo-Inuit, ca. AD 500–1300). Often, analyses of Tuniit art pieces are restricted by the use of customary typologies that can impose modern assumptions of how Tuniit groups would have perceived their material culture. In this study, we address this problem by focusing not on the meaning embodied in the finished objects but on the identification of decision-making patterns of the object carvers and users as reflected through microscopic traces of manufacture and use. We argue that through such trace-focused observation, certain newly observed patterns may suggest greater diversity in decision-making processes (with regard to manufacture and use) than would be suggested by traditional typological grouping alone. This work has wide-ranging implications for how arctic archaeologists approach artifact classification and typological organization.
期刊介绍:
Arctic Anthropology, founded in 1962 by Chester S. Chard, is an international journal devoted to the study of Old and New World northern cultures and peoples. Archaeology, ethnology, physical anthropology, and related disciplines are represented, with emphasis on: studies of specific cultures of the arctic, subarctic and contiguous regions of the world; the peopling of the New World; relationships between New World and Eurasian cultures of the circumpolar zone; contemporary problems and culture change among northern peoples; and new directions in interdisciplinary northern research.