重新评估人种学藏品对早期狩猎技术的解释潜力

IF 3.2 1区 历史学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Annemieke Milks, Christian Hoggard, Matt Pope
{"title":"重新评估人种学藏品对早期狩猎技术的解释潜力","authors":"Annemieke Milks, Christian Hoggard, Matt Pope","doi":"10.1007/s10816-023-09635-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Archaeological studies of early weaponry have relied for decades on ethnographic parallels—whether from ethnohistorical accounts, ethnographic literature, or from objects studied in museum collections. While such accounts and collected objects provided key data in the past, including of morphometrics and functionality, few studies have explored the quality of such data. In this paper, we critically assess a dominant theoretical paradigm, namely the utility of ethnographic collections to assess Pleistocene archaeological material. Our focus is how ethnographic spear morphometrics are used to propose delivery methods of archaeological weapons. We discuss the archaeological significance of early spears, and the role that ethnography has played in interpreting them. We provide new morphometric data of ethnographic wooden spears, which have been used analogically to assess the earliest archaeological hunting tools. We systematically collected data from ethnographic collections of wooden spears in five museums in the UK and Australia including mass, length, diameters and point of balance, alongside any recorded information on provenance and use. Older datasets, as well as the data in this paper, are limited due to collection bias and a lack of detailed museum records. By subjecting the new data to statistical analyses, we find that with a few exceptions morphometrics are not reliable predictors of delivery as thrusting or hand-thrown spears (javelins). Prevalent hypotheses linking variables such as mass, tip design, or maximum diameter with delivery are unsupported by our results. However, the descriptive statistics provided may remain useful as a means of comparative data for archaeological material. We conclude that using simple morphometrics to parse weapon delivery has had a drag effect on forming new and interesting hypotheses about early weapons.</p>","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reassessing the Interpretative Potential of Ethnographic Collections for Early Hunting Technologies\",\"authors\":\"Annemieke Milks, Christian Hoggard, Matt Pope\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10816-023-09635-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Archaeological studies of early weaponry have relied for decades on ethnographic parallels—whether from ethnohistorical accounts, ethnographic literature, or from objects studied in museum collections. While such accounts and collected objects provided key data in the past, including of morphometrics and functionality, few studies have explored the quality of such data. In this paper, we critically assess a dominant theoretical paradigm, namely the utility of ethnographic collections to assess Pleistocene archaeological material. Our focus is how ethnographic spear morphometrics are used to propose delivery methods of archaeological weapons. We discuss the archaeological significance of early spears, and the role that ethnography has played in interpreting them. We provide new morphometric data of ethnographic wooden spears, which have been used analogically to assess the earliest archaeological hunting tools. We systematically collected data from ethnographic collections of wooden spears in five museums in the UK and Australia including mass, length, diameters and point of balance, alongside any recorded information on provenance and use. Older datasets, as well as the data in this paper, are limited due to collection bias and a lack of detailed museum records. By subjecting the new data to statistical analyses, we find that with a few exceptions morphometrics are not reliable predictors of delivery as thrusting or hand-thrown spears (javelins). Prevalent hypotheses linking variables such as mass, tip design, or maximum diameter with delivery are unsupported by our results. However, the descriptive statistics provided may remain useful as a means of comparative data for archaeological material. We conclude that using simple morphometrics to parse weapon delivery has had a drag effect on forming new and interesting hypotheses about early weapons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09635-4\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09635-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,对早期武器的考古研究一直依赖于人种学方面的相似资料--无论是来自人种历史记载、人种学文献,还是来自博物馆收藏的研究对象。虽然这些记载和收藏的物品在过去提供了关键数据,包括形态计量学和功能方面的数据,但很少有研究对这些数据的质量进行探讨。在本文中,我们对一种主流理论范式进行了批判性评估,即人种学藏品对评估更新世考古材料的作用。我们的重点是人种学长矛形态计量学如何用于提出考古武器的运送方法。我们讨论了早期长矛的考古学意义,以及人种学在解释这些长矛方面发挥的作用。我们提供了人种学木矛的新形态测量数据,这些数据被用来类比评估最早的考古狩猎工具。我们系统地收集了英国和澳大利亚五家博物馆收藏的人种学木矛的数据,包括质量、长度、直径和平衡点,以及所有关于来源和使用的记录信息。由于收集偏差和缺乏详细的博物馆记录,旧数据集和本文中的数据都很有限。通过对新数据进行统计分析,我们发现除少数例外情况外,形态计量学并不能可靠地预测投掷矛(标枪)或手掷矛(标枪)的情况。将质量、矛尖设计或最大直径等变量与投掷量联系起来的普遍假设没有得到我们结果的支持。不过,我们提供的描述性统计数字仍可作为考古材料比较数据的一种有用手段。我们的结论是,使用简单的形态计量学方法来分析武器的投掷情况,对形成有关早期武器的新的有趣的假说有拖累作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reassessing the Interpretative Potential of Ethnographic Collections for Early Hunting Technologies

Reassessing the Interpretative Potential of Ethnographic Collections for Early Hunting Technologies

Archaeological studies of early weaponry have relied for decades on ethnographic parallels—whether from ethnohistorical accounts, ethnographic literature, or from objects studied in museum collections. While such accounts and collected objects provided key data in the past, including of morphometrics and functionality, few studies have explored the quality of such data. In this paper, we critically assess a dominant theoretical paradigm, namely the utility of ethnographic collections to assess Pleistocene archaeological material. Our focus is how ethnographic spear morphometrics are used to propose delivery methods of archaeological weapons. We discuss the archaeological significance of early spears, and the role that ethnography has played in interpreting them. We provide new morphometric data of ethnographic wooden spears, which have been used analogically to assess the earliest archaeological hunting tools. We systematically collected data from ethnographic collections of wooden spears in five museums in the UK and Australia including mass, length, diameters and point of balance, alongside any recorded information on provenance and use. Older datasets, as well as the data in this paper, are limited due to collection bias and a lack of detailed museum records. By subjecting the new data to statistical analyses, we find that with a few exceptions morphometrics are not reliable predictors of delivery as thrusting or hand-thrown spears (javelins). Prevalent hypotheses linking variables such as mass, tip design, or maximum diameter with delivery are unsupported by our results. However, the descriptive statistics provided may remain useful as a means of comparative data for archaeological material. We conclude that using simple morphometrics to parse weapon delivery has had a drag effect on forming new and interesting hypotheses about early weapons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field,  presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline.   The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology.    Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines.  Specific topics covered in recent issues include:  the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology,  new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing.  The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues.  Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List.  For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信