Santander, February 19th-22nd 2008 - Aranzadi

More documents

Recommendations

Info

220 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Category of object Type of object Species Number of pieces Contexts Pendants Complete Oliva porphyria 50 Sector G, Plumed Serpents´ Pyramid “ ” “ ” 1 Sector E, Structure 2 “ ” “ ” 36 Sector H, Structure C “ ” “ ” 15 Sector H, Structure E “ ” “ ” 6 Sector I, Altar “ ” “ ” 5 Sector Acrópolis, sub-Structure “ ” Oliva incrassata 2 Sector G, Plumed Serpents´ Pyramid “ ” Oliva julieta 1 Sector G, Plumed Serpents´ Pyramid Spireless Oliva julieta 2 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1W “ ” Oliva incrassata 2 Sector G, Element 46 “ ” Oliva splendidula 1 Sector A, Central Zone “ ” “ ” 1 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1W “ ” Oliva sayana 1 Sector B, Courtyard 2 “ ” “ ” 1 Sector I, Altar Half spireless Oliva porphyria 1 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1W Undetermined “ ” 1 Sector B, Element 1 “ ” “ ” 1 Sector B, Element 77 “ ” “ ” 12 Sector Museo, Structure 2 “ ” “ ” 1 Sector H, Structure 7 “ ” Oliva sayana 1 Sector Museo, Structure 2 “ ” Oliva sp. 1 Sector Museo, Structure 2 Inlays Quadrangular Oliva porphyria 2 Sector B, Element 1 “ ” 1 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1E Rectangular “ ” 2 Sector B, Element 1 “ ” “ ” 2 Sector B, Element 77 “ ” “ ” 2 Sector A, Drainage “ ” “ ” 1 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1W Triangular “ ” 2 Sector B, Element 1 “ ” “ ” 3 Sector B, Element 77 Trapezoidal “ ” 1 Sector A, Drainage Tooth “ ” 1 Sector B, Element 1 Band “ ” 1 Sector A, Drainage Undetermined “ ” 1 Sector A, Drainage Recycled pendants Debitage Oliva porphyria 5 Sector Acrópolis, Structure 7 “ ” “ ” 12 Sector A, Drainage “ ” “ ” 23 Sector B, Element 1 “ ” “ ” 20 Sector B, Element 77 “ ” “ ” 3 Sector B, Courtyard 2 “ ” “ ” 26 Sector G, Element 46 “ ” “ ” 1 Sector H, Structure C “ ” “ ” 3 Sector Loma Sur, Structure 1W “ ” “ ” 29 Sector Museo, Structure 2 “ ” Olivas sp. 1 Sector Museo, Structure 2 “ ” “ ” 1 Sector A, Drainage “ ” “ ” 2 Sector G, Element 46 Oliva sayana 3 Sector Museo, Structure 2 Total 290 Table 1. Type, quantity and provenance of the shell objects porphyria was preferentially used for elaborating full pendants in the earliest offerings (AD 650). Furthermore, these pendants were the only ones recycled and re-used for inlays in the later contexts (AD 750-900). Also noticeable is the fact that, in each string there are pendants with different type of holes. In order to distinguish the shape and quality of such perforations, it was necessary to perform a technological analysis through experimental archaeology and manufacturing analysis research. According to the uniformity criteria of the experimental archaeology (Ascher 1961: 807), the production activities are normative in human MUNIBE Suplemento - Gehigarria 31, 2010 S.C. <strong>Aranzadi</strong>. Z.E. Donostia/San Sebastián
Manufacturing techniques of Oliva pendants at Xochicalco (Morelos, México) 221 societies, and artifacts are produced and used following rules that determine what specific features each object has. As a result, the use or production of similar objects, elaborated under the same rulings, should be characterized by identical attributes (Ascher 1961: 793, Velázquez 2007:7). Therefore, standardised attributes indicate the use of a certain tool, made from a determined material, employed in a specific manner and under certain conditions, all of which will leave characteristic and distinguishable traces on the worked materials, in this case, shells (Binford 1991: 22, Velázquez 2007: 7). Since 1997, following this uniformity criteria, the same tools and manners are being reproduced at the Experimental Archaeology Shell Workshop in the Templo Mayor Museum with more than 600 experiments (Fig. 5), with similar tools as those recorded in several historical sources and archaeological contexts, which were supposedly used by the various groups in pre-Hispanic México. Such tools are flakes and blades of obsidian and chert, grindstones made of basalt, andesite, riolite, limestone, sandstone, granite, and slate, among others (Velázquez 2007: 57–58). Figure 5. Experimental archaeology on shell pieces (drawing by Julio Romero). Subsequently, the resulting traces of manufacture were compared with the archaeological material on three levels: macroscopic, stereoscopic microscopy (10X, 30X and 63X), as well as Scanning Electron Microscopy, or SEM (100X, 300X, 600X and 1000X). All of the archaeological pieces (290) were checked macroscopically and stereoscopically and compared with the experimental ones drilled with flakes (obsidian and chert burins) and abrasives (sand, volcanic ash, powder of obsidian, and powder of chert) and reed, obtaining the following results (fig. 6): 1) Seven pendants had conical perforations without visible striations; they are similar to those ones drilled with abrasives. 2) Nineteen pendants had circular striations in the conical perforation, they match with those ones drilled with flakes. 3) Thirty-one pendants showed regular perforated edges with lines, they are similar to those ones drilled with flakes. 4) One-hundred-and-ten pendants had irregular edges with lines, they are similar to those ones drilled with flakes. 5) One-hundred-and-eight pieces (inlays, pendants and recycled pendants) showed parallel striations; they are similar to those ones cut with flakes. For the analysis with the SEM, thirty pendants were chosen based on their good preservation and the representativeness of their modifications, four from each context, except two contexts that had only one piece (Sector A and Sector E). Five patterns were identified (Fig. 7): 1) Five pieces presented walls that were pierced by lines measuring approximately 1.3 µm wide, which united to form greater strokes, similar to the experimental perforations that had been made using sand and reed (Fig. 7a-b). 2) Nine pierced pieces showed fine lines measuring two µm, which resembled perforations made with obsidian flakes (Fig. 7c-d). 3) Nine pendants showed parallel bands of two to four µm, which are similar to drill holes made with chert burins (Fig. 7e-f). 4) Four presented walls that were crossed by fine lines measuring two µm, which resembled channeled perforations produced with obsidian flakes. 5) Three recycled pendants and inlays were also analyzed with Stereoscopic Microscopy and SEM. They revealed well defined parallel lines resulting from cuts made with stone tools; but the MUNIBE Suplemento - Gehigarria 31, 2010 S.C. <strong>Aranzadi</strong>. Z.E. Donostia/San Sebastián
Page 5 and 6:
SUPLEMENTO - GEHIGARRIA 31 Not only
Page 9:
Not only Food. Marine, Terrestrial
Page 12 and 13:
10 ESTEBAN ÁLVAREZ-FERNÁNDEZ, E.
Page 14 and 15:
12 ESTEBAN ÁLVAREZ-FERNÁNDEZ, E.
Page 17 and 18:
Not only Food. Marine, Terrestrial
Page 20 and 21:
Radiocarbon dating of shell carbona
Page 22 and 23:
20 KATERINA DOUKA, THOMAS F. G. HIG
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Marine shell beads from the Gravett
Page 32 and 33:
30 CRISTINA SAN JUAN-FOUCHER & PASC
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Upper Paleolithic ornament seashell
Page 40 and 41:
38 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
Page 53 and 54:
The personal ornaments made from mo
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 60 and 61:
Magdalenian marine shells from El H
Page 62 and 63:
60 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
From the Mediterranean sea to the S
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Archaeomalacological remains from t
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Shell beads in the Pre-Pottery Neol
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 102 and 103:
Lost in the mountains? Marine ornam
Page 104 and 105:
102 JORGE MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, RAFAEL
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
New data on Asturian shell midden s
Page 114 and 115:
112 F. IGOR GUTIÉRREZ & MANUEL GON
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Analysis of malacofauna remains fro
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Shell as a raw material for tools a
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
3100 138-145 000-000 DONOSTIA-SAN S
Page 143 and 144:
The use of marine shell in Cingle V
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Technology, production and use of m
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 158 and 159:
Archaeomalacological Data from the
Page 160 and 161:
158 ALFREDO CARANNANTE The aim of t
Page 162 and 163:
160 ALFREDO CARANNANTE we exclude s
Page 164 and 165:
162 ALFREDO CARANNANTE Other common
Page 166 and 167:
164 ALFREDO CARANNANTE The use of t
Page 168 and 169:
166 ALFREDO CARANNANTE 13. ACKNOWLE
Page 170 and 171:
More than food: beads and shell too
Page 172 and 173: 170 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL ved, s
Page 174 and 175: 172 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL tary s
Page 176 and 177: 174 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL Almiza
Page 178 and 179: Oysters ancient and modern: potenti
Page 180 and 181: 178 GREG CAMPBELL The author assess
Page 182 and 183: 180 GREG CAMPBELL the east Solent (
Page 184 and 185: 182 GREG CAMPBELL range and more ob
Page 186 and 187: 184 GREG CAMPBELL Figure 9. A possi
Page 188 and 189: 186 GREG CAMPBELL Using measurement
Page 190 and 191: A large-scale exploitation of oyste
Page 192 and 193: 190 CATHERINE DUPONT The deposit of
Page 194 and 195: 192 CATHERINE DUPONT Figure 2. Hist
Page 196 and 197: 194 CATHERINE DUPONT hence these pe
Page 198 and 199: 196 CATHERINE DUPONT Figure 6. Open
Page 200: 198 CATHERINE DUPONT CAVOLEAU, J.A.
Page 203 and 204: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
Page 205 and 206: Shells in the Middle Ages: archaeom
Page 207 and 208: Shells in the Middle Ages: archaeom
Page 210 and 211: Indirect detection of changes in Se
Page 212 and 213: 210 ELOÍSA BERNÁLDEZ & ESTEBAN GA
Page 218 and 219: Manufacturing techniques of Oliva p
Page 220 and 221: 218 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Figure 1. Th
Page 224 and 225: 222 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Figure 6. St
Page 226 and 227: 224 EMILIANO R. MELGAR In addition,
Page 228 and 229: The Maya nacreous shell garment of
Page 230 and 231: 228 HORTENSIA DE VEGA, EMILIANO R.
Page 238 and 239: Malacological Material from Pezuapa
Page 240 and 241: 238 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
Page 242 and 243: 240 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
Page 244: 242 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
Page 249 and 250: Specialized Shell Object Production
Page 257 and 258: What about shells? Analysis of shel
Page 267 and 268: Malacological artifacts in Argentin
Page 274 and 275:
Of Shell and Sand: Coastal Habitat
Page 276 and 277:
274 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO the an
Page 278 and 279:
276 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO Figure
Page 280 and 281:
278 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO BIVALV
Page 282 and 283:
280 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO GASTRO
Page 284 and 285:
282 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO clypea
Page 286:
284 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO RODRIG
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Archaeological shell middens and sh
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Molluscs as sedimentary components.
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
The U.S. Freshwater Shell Button In
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311:
show all

Santander, February 19th-22nd 2008 - Aranzadi

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?