In this paper, I first provide a typological outline and chronology of this corpus based on morphological characters, followed by functional interpretations using type studies, depositional observations, and surface analysis of eight vessel types. Recent excavations at Senwosret III’s tomb complex at South Abydos has uncovered a pottery assemblage that provides an opportunity for functional analyses of the ceramics and allows for elucidation of funerary cult activity associated with the tomb. There has not yet been a study focusing wholly on material culture to discuss the ritual actions taking place around these monuments. This imperial borderland was never completely incorporated into its powerful neighbors, and technological practices materialized changing relationships of engagement, ambivalence, and resistance.Īrchaeological research on the mortuary monuments of Senwosret III has centered on using architectural cues to determine the king’s final resting place. In contrast, Roman Period ceramics were produced within a uniform stylistic and technological tradition common throughout the Roman east, but half of the pottery was imported from Artashat, the capital of Roman Armenia. Later, Urartian imperial expansion promoted a diversification of style and local material use alongside a significant expansion of multi-directional exchange. In the Early Iron Age, ceramics were locally produced within a regional stylistic tradition. By layering this information, it was possible to document how inhabitants of Naxçivan employed ceramic technology as a means of negotiating changing relationships. In order to reconstruct the ceramic production sequence-including raw material acquisition, forming, decoration, and exchange-samples were analyzed using petrography, neutron activation analysis (NAA), scanning electron microscopy-electron dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), surface treatment analysis, and formal stylistic analysis. Technological production is always embedded in a social context, and new political configurations create new desires, changing methods of identity construction, and shifting market access. The regional center of Og&caron lanqala was one of many locally governed polities in the Early Iron Age (1200–800 BCE), became a vassal on the edge of the Urartian Empire in the Middle Iron Age (800–600 BCE), and finally had to survive on the battlefield between Parthia and Rome in the Classical Period (200 BCE–100 CE). This project examines the dynamic relationship between political context and technological practice by investigating how ceramic production at local centers in Naxçivan, Azerbaijan shifted with the changing political landscape. ![]() Both avenues of investigation belong to the actualist strategy of behavioral archaeology (Reid, Schiffer, and Rathje 1975 Schiffer 1976 Schiffer et al. Although the focus of this chapter and the volume overall is on experimental archaeology, it is impossible to completely separate experimental from ethnoarchaeological research on ceramic use alteration (Skibo 1992b). This chapter summarizes the current state of ceramic use-alteration research, incorporating recent publications, and also points out areas for future experimental work. ![]() Valuable overviews of ceramic use alteration appear in James Skibo (1992a), who describes use-alteration processes, and Michael Schiffer (1989), who compares use-alteration studies between the fields of ceramic analysis and lithic analysis and defines basic terms. Vessel form is another important line of evidence for intended use (Henrickson and McDonald 1983), but alteration develops from actual use and may indicate multiple functions or reuse for other purposes (Schiffer 1989). Alteration patterns may reveal if a vessel was used for cooking, storage, or transport whether it was directly or indirectly heated how it was handled and how heavily and something about the nature of its contents. This chapter addresses the use alteration of ceramic vessels. Because different activities physically and chemically alter tools in different ways, these alterations suggest how the tools were used. What happened here? Archaeologists answer this question in increasingly sophisticated ways, squeezing more and more information about human behavior from used and discarded tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |