Artifact (archaeology): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m →top: replaced: humans. → humans, cultural artifacts → cultural artifacts |
||
| (455 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Objects created and used by humans}} |
|||
What is Artifact? |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2014}} |
|||
{{Use American English|date=July 2020}} |
|||
[[File:Mycenaean stirrup vase Louvre AO19201.jpg|thumb|[[Mycenaean Greece|Mycenaean]] stirrup jar from Ras Shamra ([[Ugarit]]) [[Syria]], 1400–1300 BC|alt=]] |
|||
An '''artifact'''{{efn|From [[Latin]] phrase ''arte factum''~''ars'' ''facere'' to make}} or '''artefact''' ([[British English]]) is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest.<ref>{{cite web|title=artefact. (n.d.)|work=Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition|access-date=2 August 2012|via=CollinsDictionary.com |url=http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/artefact}}</ref> In [[archaeology]], the word has become a term of particular nuance; it is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, including [[cultural artifact]]s (of [[archaeological culture|cultural]] interest). |
|||
"Artifact" is the general term used in archaeology, while in museums the equivalent general term is normally "object", and in [[art history]] perhaps [[artwork]] or a more specific term such as "carving". The same item may be called all or any of these in different contexts, and more specific terms will be used when talking about individual objects, or groups of similar ones. |
|||
In [[archaeology]], an '''artifact''' or '''artefact''' is any [[Objects from The Lost Room|object]] made or modified by a human [[archaeological culture|culture]], and often one later recovered by some archaeological endeavor. Examples include [[stone tool]]s such as [[projectile point]]s, [[pottery]] vessels, metal objects such as buttons or guns, and items of personal adornment such as [[jewellery]] and clothing. Other examples include [[bone]] that show signs of human modification, fire cracked rocks from a [[hearth]] or plant material used for food. |
|||
Artifacts exist in many different forms and can sometimes be confused with [[Biofact (archaeology)|ecofacts]] and [[Feature (archaeology)|features]]; all three of these can sometimes be found together at archaeological sites. They can also exist in different types of context depending on the processes that have acted on them over time. A wide variety of analyses take place to analyze artifacts and provide information on them. However, the process of analyzing artifacts through scientific archaeology can be hindered by the [[Archaeological looting|looting]] and [[collecting]] of artifacts, which sparks ethical debate. |
|||
The study of these objects is an important part of the field of archaeology, although the degree to which they represent the social groupings that created them is a subject over which archaeological theoreticians argue. Focusing on the artifact alone can produce very intensive and enlightening work on the object itself but can ignore surrounding factors which may shed further light on the manufacturing society. Traditional [[museum]]s are often criticised for being too artifact-led, that is by displaying items without any contextual information about their purpose or the people who made them. |
|||
[[File:Samartian-Persian necklace and amulet.png|thumb|A 2nd century AD Sarmatian-Parthian gold necklace and [[amulet]] from the [[Black Sea Region|Black Sea region]].]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==History== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
From the emergence of the Hominids in the [[Stone Age]], humanity has developed a handful of artifacts through time and place. There are archaeological sites and museums that obtain artifacts for physical evidence through past traces of civilizations, as well as norms and rituals, where objects attested a part of [[material culture]]. |
|||
==Context== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
* From any [[Feature (archaeology)|feature]] such as a [[midden]] or other domestic setting |
* From any [[Feature (archaeology)|feature]] such as a [[midden]] or other domestic setting |
||
* [[Hoard]]s |
|||
* [[Votive offering]]s |
* [[Votive offering]]s |
||
* [[Hoard]]s, such as in [[aquifer|wells]] |
|||
Examples include [[stone tool]]s, [[pottery]] vessels, metal objects such as weapons and items of personal adornment such as [[buttons]], [[jewellery|jewelry]] and clothing. [[Bone]]s that show signs of human modification are also examples. Natural objects, such as fire cracked rocks from a [[hearth]] or plant material used for food, are classified by archaeologists as [[ecofacts]] rather than as artifacts. |
|||
[[File:Birckala 1017 spoon.jpg|thumb|A [[Crusade|Crusading Period]] spoon from 1017 that was found on archaeological excavation of [[Tursiannotko]] in [[Pirkkala]], [[Finland]].]] |
|||
Artifacts exist as a result of [[Behavior|behavioral]] and transformational processes. A behavioral process involves acquiring [[raw material]]s, manufacturing these for a specific purpose and then discarding after use. Transformational processes begin at the end of behavioral processes; this is when the artifact is changed by nature and/or humans after it has been deposited. Both of these processes are significant factors in evaluating the [[Archaeological context|context]] of an artifact.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Ashmore|first=Wendy|title=Archaeology: Discovering Our Past|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|year=2003|isbn=978-0767427272|location=Boston|pages=60–75}}</ref> |
|||
The context of an artifact can be broken into two categories: primary context and secondary context. A [[Matrix (archaeology)|matrix]] is a physical setting within which an artifact exists, and a provenience refers to a specific location within a matrix. When an artifact is found in the realm of primary context, the matrix and provenience have not been changed by transformational processes. However, the matrix and provenience are changed by transformational processes when referring to secondary context. Artifacts exist in both contexts, and this is taken into account during the analysis of them.<ref name=":0" /> Another important type of context for archeologists, particularly from an art history perspective, is the term [[provenance]], or the more general history of an artifact's ownership, location, and importance. |
|||
| ⚫ | Artifacts are distinguished from stratigraphic features and ecofacts. [[Stratification (archaeology)|Stratigraphic]] [[Feature (archaeology)|features]] are non-portable remains of human activity that include [[hearth]]s, [[road]]s, deposits, trenches and similar remains. [[Biofact (archaeology)|Ecofacts]], also referred to as biofacts, are objects of archaeological interest made by other organisms, such as [[seed]]s or [[animal]] [[bone]].<ref name=":0" /> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[File:The Curmsun Disc - Obverse.png|thumb|[[Curmsun Disc]] - Obverse, Jomsborg, 980s, Burial site of king [[Harald Bluetooth]] ]] |
|||
These distinctions are often blurred; a bone removed from an animal carcass is a biofact but a bone carved into a useful implement is an artifact. Similarly there can be debate over early stone objects that could be either crude artifact or naturally occurring and happen to resemble early objects made by [[early humans]] or ''[[Homo sapiens]]''. It can be difficult to distinguish the differences between actual human-made [[Stone tool|lithic]] artifact and [[geofacts]] – naturally occurring lithics <!-- unlink, as overlink, but note that source uses this language, which seems to contrary to the usual sense that "lithic" implies artifact --> that resemble human-made tools. It is possible to authenticate artifacts by examining the general characteristics attributed to human-made tools and local characteristics of the site.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Peacock|first1=Evan|title=Distinguishing between Artefacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England|journal=Journal of Field Archaeology|date=January 1, 1991|volume=18|issue=3|pages=345–361|doi=10.1179/009346991791548645}}</ref> |
|||
Artifacts, features and ecofacts can all be located together at sites. Sites may include different arrangements of the three; some might include all of them while others might only include one or two. Sites can have clear boundaries in the form of walls and [[moat]]s, but this is not always the case. Sites can be distinguished through categories, such as location and past functions. How artifacts exist at these sites can provide archaeological insight. An example of this would be utilizing the position and depth of buried artifacts to determine a chronological timeline for past occurrences at the site.<ref name=":0"/> |
|||
Modern archaeologists take care to distinguish [[material culture]] from [[ethnicity]], which is often more complex, as expressed by [[Carol Kramer]] in the dictum "pots are not people."<ref>Carol Kramer, "Pots and Peoples" in; Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young (eds.), ''Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia''; Malibu, Undena, 1977; cited in Serge Cleuziou, "Introductions", [https://books.google.com/books?id=ag0F80okf-QC&pg=PA17 ''Objets et symboles: de la culture matérielle à l'espace culturel : actes de la 1re Journée doctorale d'archéologie, Paris, 20 mai 2006''], Ed. Laurent Dhennequin, Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud, Paris: Sorbonne, 2009, {{ISBN|9782859446222}}. {{in lang|fr}}.</ref> |
|||
== Analysis == |
|||
Artifact analysis is determined by what type of artifact is being examined, the best. |
|||
[[Lithic analysis]] refers to analyzing artifacts that are created with stones and are often in the form of tools. Stone artifacts occur often throughout prehistoric times and are, therefore, a crucial aspect in answering archaeological questions about the past. On the surface, [[Stone tool|lithic]] artifacts can help archaeologists study how technology has developed throughout history by showing a variety of tools and manufacturing techniques from different periods of time. However, even deeper questions can be answered through this type of analysis; these questions can revolve around topics that include how societies were organized and structured in terms of socialization and the distribution of goods. The following lab techniques all contribute to the process of lithic analysis: [[Petrography|petrographic]] analysis, [[neutron activation]], [[x-ray fluorescence]], [[Particle-induced X-ray emission|particle-induced x-ray emission]], individual [[Lithic flake|flake]] analysis and [[mass]] analysis.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Odell|first=George H.|title=Lithic Analysis|publisher=Springer Science+Business Media|year=2004|isbn=978-0306480683|location=New York|pages=1–37}}</ref> |
|||
Another type of artifact analysis is [[ceramic]] analysis, which is based around the archaeological study of [[pottery]]. This type of analysis can help archaeologists gain information on the raw materials that were used and how they were utilized in the creation of pottery. Laboratory techniques that allow for this are mainly based around [[spectroscopy]]. The different types of spectroscopy used include [[Atomic absorption spectroscopy|atomic absorption]], [[Electrothermal-chemical technology|electrothermal]] atomic absorption, [[Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy|inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission]] and [[x-ray fluorescence]]. Ceramic analysis does more than just provide information on [[raw material]]s and pottery production; it helps provide insight to past societies in terms of their technology, economy and social structure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cariati|first=Franco|date=February 2003|title=A new approach for archaeological ceramics analysis using total reflection X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy|journal=Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy|volume=58|pages=177–184|doi=10.1016/S0584-8547(02)00253-7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Sinopoli|first=Carla M.|title=Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics|publisher=Springer Science+Business Media|year=1991|isbn=978-0306435751|location=New York}}</ref> |
|||
Additionally, [[fauna]]l analysis exists to study artifacts in the form of animal remains. Just as with lithic artifacts, faunal remains are extremely common within the field of archaeology. Faunal analysis provides insight to trade due to animals being exchanged in different markets over time and being traded over long distances. Faunal remains can also provide information on social status, ethnic distinctions and dieting from previous [[Complex society|complex societies]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Crabtree|first=Pam J.|date=1990|title=Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity|journal=Archaeological Method and Theory|volume=2|pages=155–205|jstor=20170207}}</ref> |
|||
Dating artifacts and providing them with a chronological timeline is a crucial part of artifact analysis. The different types of analyses above can all assist in the process of artifact dating. The major types of dating include [[relative dating]], historical dating and [[Typology (archaeology)|typology]]. Relative dating occurs when artifacts are placed in a specific order in relation to one another while historical dating occurs for periods of written evidence; relative dating was the only form of dating for prehistoric periods of time. Typology is the process that groups together artifacts that are similar in material and shape. This strategy is based around the ideas that styles of objects match certain time periods and that these styles change slowly over time.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bahn|first=Paul|title=Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2012|isbn=978-0199657438|pages=17–24}}</ref> |
|||
== Ethics == |
|||
{{See|Archaeological looting}} |
|||
Artifact collecting and looting has sparked heavy debate in the archaeological realm. Looting in archaeological terms is when artifacts are dug up from sites and collected in private or sold before they are able to be excavated and analyzed through formal scientific archaeology. The debate is centered around the difference in beliefs between collectors and archaeologists. Archaeologists are focused on excavation, context and lab work when it comes to artifacts, while collectors are motivated by varying personal desires. This brings many to ask themselves the archaeological question, "Who owns the past?"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chilton|first=Elizabeth S.|s2cid=96472329|date=2015|title=Digging and destruction: artifact collecting as meaningful social practice|journal=International Journal of Heritage Studies|volume=21|issue=4|pages=318–335|doi=10.1080/13527258.2014.934267|url=https://scholarworks.umass.edu/anthro_faculty_pubs/350}}</ref> |
|||
There are also ethical issues over the display of artifacts in museums which have been taken from other countries in questionable circumstances, for example the display of the [[Elgin Marbles|Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles]] by the [[British Museum]].<ref>St Clair, W. (1998). [http://www.openbibart.fr/item/display/10068/971981 ''Lord Elgin and the marbles''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219091817/http://www.openbibart.fr/item/display/10068/971981 |date=19 February 2022 }} (p. 140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> The display of objects belonging to [[indigenous peoples]] of non-European countries by European museums – particularly those taken during the European conquest of Africa – has also raised ethical questions. [[Pan-African]] activists such as [[Mwazulu Diyabanza]] and the ''Front Multi Culturel Anti-Spoliation'' (Multicultural Front Against Pillaging) have taken [[direct action]] against European museums, aiming to restitute items they believe to belong to Africa.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Feiger|date=22 September 2020|first=Leah |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3z77y/a-real-life-killmonger-is-trying-to-decolonize-european-museums|title=Colonizers Stole Africa's Art; This Man Is Taking It Back|work=Vice|access-date=8 February 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Haynes |first1=Suyin |title=A French Court Fined Activists for Attempted Theft of a Museum Artifact. They Say It Belongs to Africans |url=https://time.com/5899808/african-artifact-paris-museum-stolen-case/ |access-date=8 February 2021 |magazine=Time |date=14 October 2020}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Antiquities]] |
|||
* [[Biofact (archaeology)]] |
|||
* [[Chronological dating]] |
|||
* [[Excavation (archaeology)|Excavation]] |
|||
* [[Out-of-place artifact]] |
|||
* [[Seriation (archaeology)|Seriation]] |
|||
* [[Small finds]] |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{notelist}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
| ⚫ | Artifacts are distinguished from |
||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Commons category|Archaeological objects}} |
|||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110715191150/http://www.rmcvirtualmuseum.com/Archaeology/index.html Artifact Collection] at the [[Royal Military College of Canada Museum]] in [[Kingston, Ontario]] |
|||
{{Prehistoric technology}}{{Historiography}}{{Authority control}} |
|||
These distinctions are often blurred; for instance, a bone removed from an animal carcass is a biofact, but a bone carved into a useful implement is an artifact. Similarly there can be debate over early stone objects which may be crude artifacts or which may be naturally occurring phenomena that only appear to have been used by humans. |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Artifact (Archaeology)}} |
|||
Artifacts are often called "finds" when handled during archaeological [[excavation]]. Artifacts are related to the archaeological record by their position defined by the [[Archaeological context]] they are discovered in. This is important for [[Seriation]] and relative dating analysis and is closely related to work post excavation with the use of a [[Harris matrix]] created during excavation. An analysis of finds is often made during excavation for the purpose of spot dating, which is a process of assessing dates of contexts being excavated. It is used as a form of confirmation concerning [[Archaeological phase|phasing]] and highlighting any potential for further discovery on a given site as it progresses. Spot dating tends to rely on pottery typology. This pottery dating analysis was pioneered by 19th century archaeologists such as [[Georg Loeschcke]]. Apart from dating and supporting the process of excavation, artifacts lend themselves to a host of post excavation disciplines. |
|||
[[Category:Archaeological artefact types| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Archaeological artifacts| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Archaeological terminology]] |
|||
[[Category:Historical objects]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:32, 30 November 2024
An artifact[a] or artefact (British English) is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest.[1] In archaeology, the word has become a term of particular nuance; it is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, including cultural artifacts (of cultural interest).
"Artifact" is the general term used in archaeology, while in museums the equivalent general term is normally "object", and in art history perhaps artwork or a more specific term such as "carving". The same item may be called all or any of these in different contexts, and more specific terms will be used when talking about individual objects, or groups of similar ones.
Artifacts exist in many different forms and can sometimes be confused with ecofacts and features; all three of these can sometimes be found together at archaeological sites. They can also exist in different types of context depending on the processes that have acted on them over time. A wide variety of analyses take place to analyze artifacts and provide information on them. However, the process of analyzing artifacts through scientific archaeology can be hindered by the looting and collecting of artifacts, which sparks ethical debate.
History
[edit]From the emergence of the Hominids in the Stone Age, humanity has developed a handful of artifacts through time and place. There are archaeological sites and museums that obtain artifacts for physical evidence through past traces of civilizations, as well as norms and rituals, where objects attested a part of material culture.
Context
[edit]Artifacts can come from any archaeological context or source such as:
- Buried along with a body
- From any feature such as a midden or other domestic setting
- Votive offerings
- Hoards, such as in wells
Examples include stone tools, pottery vessels, metal objects such as weapons and items of personal adornment such as buttons, jewelry and clothing. Bones that show signs of human modification are also examples. Natural objects, such as fire cracked rocks from a hearth or plant material used for food, are classified by archaeologists as ecofacts rather than as artifacts.
Artifacts exist as a result of behavioral and transformational processes. A behavioral process involves acquiring raw materials, manufacturing these for a specific purpose and then discarding after use. Transformational processes begin at the end of behavioral processes; this is when the artifact is changed by nature and/or humans after it has been deposited. Both of these processes are significant factors in evaluating the context of an artifact.[2]
The context of an artifact can be broken into two categories: primary context and secondary context. A matrix is a physical setting within which an artifact exists, and a provenience refers to a specific location within a matrix. When an artifact is found in the realm of primary context, the matrix and provenience have not been changed by transformational processes. However, the matrix and provenience are changed by transformational processes when referring to secondary context. Artifacts exist in both contexts, and this is taken into account during the analysis of them.[2] Another important type of context for archeologists, particularly from an art history perspective, is the term provenance, or the more general history of an artifact's ownership, location, and importance.
Artifacts are distinguished from stratigraphic features and ecofacts. Stratigraphic features are non-portable remains of human activity that include hearths, roads, deposits, trenches and similar remains. Ecofacts, also referred to as biofacts, are objects of archaeological interest made by other organisms, such as seeds or animal bone.[2]
Natural objects that humans have moved but not changed are called manuports. Examples include seashells moved inland or rounded pebbles placed away from the water action that made them.
These distinctions are often blurred; a bone removed from an animal carcass is a biofact but a bone carved into a useful implement is an artifact. Similarly there can be debate over early stone objects that could be either crude artifact or naturally occurring and happen to resemble early objects made by early humans or Homo sapiens. It can be difficult to distinguish the differences between actual human-made lithic artifact and geofacts – naturally occurring lithics that resemble human-made tools. It is possible to authenticate artifacts by examining the general characteristics attributed to human-made tools and local characteristics of the site.[3]
Artifacts, features and ecofacts can all be located together at sites. Sites may include different arrangements of the three; some might include all of them while others might only include one or two. Sites can have clear boundaries in the form of walls and moats, but this is not always the case. Sites can be distinguished through categories, such as location and past functions. How artifacts exist at these sites can provide archaeological insight. An example of this would be utilizing the position and depth of buried artifacts to determine a chronological timeline for past occurrences at the site.[2]
Modern archaeologists take care to distinguish material culture from ethnicity, which is often more complex, as expressed by Carol Kramer in the dictum "pots are not people."[4]
Analysis
[edit]Artifact analysis is determined by what type of artifact is being examined, the best.
Lithic analysis refers to analyzing artifacts that are created with stones and are often in the form of tools. Stone artifacts occur often throughout prehistoric times and are, therefore, a crucial aspect in answering archaeological questions about the past. On the surface, lithic artifacts can help archaeologists study how technology has developed throughout history by showing a variety of tools and manufacturing techniques from different periods of time. However, even deeper questions can be answered through this type of analysis; these questions can revolve around topics that include how societies were organized and structured in terms of socialization and the distribution of goods. The following lab techniques all contribute to the process of lithic analysis: petrographic analysis, neutron activation, x-ray fluorescence, particle-induced x-ray emission, individual flake analysis and mass analysis.[5]
Another type of artifact analysis is ceramic analysis, which is based around the archaeological study of pottery. This type of analysis can help archaeologists gain information on the raw materials that were used and how they were utilized in the creation of pottery. Laboratory techniques that allow for this are mainly based around spectroscopy. The different types of spectroscopy used include atomic absorption, electrothermal atomic absorption, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission and x-ray fluorescence. Ceramic analysis does more than just provide information on raw materials and pottery production; it helps provide insight to past societies in terms of their technology, economy and social structure.[6][7]
Additionally, faunal analysis exists to study artifacts in the form of animal remains. Just as with lithic artifacts, faunal remains are extremely common within the field of archaeology. Faunal analysis provides insight to trade due to animals being exchanged in different markets over time and being traded over long distances. Faunal remains can also provide information on social status, ethnic distinctions and dieting from previous complex societies.[8]
Dating artifacts and providing them with a chronological timeline is a crucial part of artifact analysis. The different types of analyses above can all assist in the process of artifact dating. The major types of dating include relative dating, historical dating and typology. Relative dating occurs when artifacts are placed in a specific order in relation to one another while historical dating occurs for periods of written evidence; relative dating was the only form of dating for prehistoric periods of time. Typology is the process that groups together artifacts that are similar in material and shape. This strategy is based around the ideas that styles of objects match certain time periods and that these styles change slowly over time.[9]
Ethics
[edit]Artifact collecting and looting has sparked heavy debate in the archaeological realm. Looting in archaeological terms is when artifacts are dug up from sites and collected in private or sold before they are able to be excavated and analyzed through formal scientific archaeology. The debate is centered around the difference in beliefs between collectors and archaeologists. Archaeologists are focused on excavation, context and lab work when it comes to artifacts, while collectors are motivated by varying personal desires. This brings many to ask themselves the archaeological question, "Who owns the past?"[10]
There are also ethical issues over the display of artifacts in museums which have been taken from other countries in questionable circumstances, for example the display of the Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles by the British Museum.[11] The display of objects belonging to indigenous peoples of non-European countries by European museums – particularly those taken during the European conquest of Africa – has also raised ethical questions. Pan-African activists such as Mwazulu Diyabanza and the Front Multi Culturel Anti-Spoliation (Multicultural Front Against Pillaging) have taken direct action against European museums, aiming to restitute items they believe to belong to Africa.[12][13]
See also
[edit]- Antiquities
- Biofact (archaeology)
- Chronological dating
- Excavation
- Out-of-place artifact
- Seriation
- Small finds
Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "artefact. (n.d.)". Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition. Retrieved 2 August 2012 – via CollinsDictionary.com.
- ^ a b c d Ashmore, Wendy (2003). Archaeology: Discovering Our Past. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. pp. 60–75. ISBN 978-0767427272.
- ^ Peacock, Evan (1 January 1991). "Distinguishing between Artefacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England". Journal of Field Archaeology. 18 (3): 345–361. doi:10.1179/009346991791548645.
- ^ Carol Kramer, "Pots and Peoples" in; Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young (eds.), Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia; Malibu, Undena, 1977; cited in Serge Cleuziou, "Introductions", Objets et symboles: de la culture matérielle à l'espace culturel : actes de la 1re Journée doctorale d'archéologie, Paris, 20 mai 2006, Ed. Laurent Dhennequin, Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud, Paris: Sorbonne, 2009, ISBN 9782859446222. (in French).
- ^ Odell, George H. (2004). Lithic Analysis. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 1–37. ISBN 978-0306480683.
- ^ Cariati, Franco (February 2003). "A new approach for archaeological ceramics analysis using total reflection X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy". Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 58: 177–184. doi:10.1016/S0584-8547(02)00253-7.
- ^ Sinopoli, Carla M. (1991). Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-0306435751.
- ^ Crabtree, Pam J. (1990). "Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity". Archaeological Method and Theory. 2: 155–205. JSTOR 20170207.
- ^ Bahn, Paul (2012). Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 17–24. ISBN 978-0199657438.
- ^ Chilton, Elizabeth S. (2015). "Digging and destruction: artifact collecting as meaningful social practice". International Journal of Heritage Studies. 21 (4): 318–335. doi:10.1080/13527258.2014.934267. S2CID 96472329.
- ^ St Clair, W. (1998). Lord Elgin and the marbles Archived 19 February 2022 at the Wayback Machine (p. 140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Feiger, Leah (22 September 2020). "Colonizers Stole Africa's Art; This Man Is Taking It Back". Vice. Retrieved 8 February 2021.
- ^ Haynes, Suyin (14 October 2020). "A French Court Fined Activists for Attempted Theft of a Museum Artifact. They Say It Belongs to Africans". Time. Retrieved 8 February 2021.
External links
[edit]
