Scholarlink

<p>Archaeological sites and their materials recovered through excavation represent only a fragment of their original content. Paleontologists and archaeologists alike have long recognized this and often looked to taphonomy as a worthwhile means of explaining what happens to living organisms and inorganic materials between deposition and discovery. As the introduction to this special issue on taphonomy, we begin by tracing the theoretical origins of taphonomy from the field of paleontology and examine how archaeologists have adopted taphonomy. In doing so, we critically consider how such an adoption was theoretically convenient but problematic in its framing of how archaeological assemblages “come to be.” Much of the archaeological literature has treated taphonomy as solely the “natural” effects (ecological, environmental) that reduce archaeological materials to fragments of their original form. We posit that this framing presents two issues. First, it frames taphonomy as solely a reductive process and thus fails to recognize the additive information that accompanies degradation, loss, and damage. Second, it elevates culture and behavior as the primary area of inquiry, with anything interfering with the original cultural deposition as “distortive” or “biasing.” Indeed, twentieth century debates in American archaeology tried to weigh just how distorted the archaeological record is due to both cultural (“C-transforms”) and natural (“N-transforms”) modifications. Following critical insights from taphonomists and biocultural approaches to the human body, we problematize the neat separation of nature and culture in relation to the bioarchaeological record, to highlight how the preservation of human remains is a product of environmental and culturally informed funerary practices acting often synergistically. We then discuss the contributions to the special issue on “Biocultural Taphonomies” that demonstrate how bioarchaeologists are engaging critically and creatively with taphonomy from a variety of contexts, theoretical paradigms, and techniques. In doing so, these contributions both complicate and expand taphonomy as a nexus for anthropological inquiry.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Theoretical Origins and Biocultural Approaches to Taphonomy in Bioarchaeology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月1日

查看全文
  • Trent M. Trombley,
  • Sabrina C. Agarwal

摘要

Archaeological sites and their materials recovered through excavation represent only a fragment of their original content. Paleontologists and archaeologists alike have long recognized this and often looked to taphonomy as a worthwhile means of explaining what happens to living organisms and inorganic materials between deposition and discovery. As the introduction to this special issue on taphonomy, we begin by tracing the theoretical origins of taphonomy from the field of paleontology and examine how archaeologists have adopted taphonomy. In doing so, we critically consider how such an adoption was theoretically convenient but problematic in its framing of how archaeological assemblages “come to be.” Much of the archaeological literature has treated taphonomy as solely the “natural” effects (ecological, environmental) that reduce archaeological materials to fragments of their original form. We posit that this framing presents two issues. First, it frames taphonomy as solely a reductive process and thus fails to recognize the additive information that accompanies degradation, loss, and damage. Second, it elevates culture and behavior as the primary area of inquiry, with anything interfering with the original cultural deposition as “distortive” or “biasing.” Indeed, twentieth century debates in American archaeology tried to weigh just how distorted the archaeological record is due to both cultural (“C-transforms”) and natural (“N-transforms”) modifications. Following critical insights from taphonomists and biocultural approaches to the human body, we problematize the neat separation of nature and culture in relation to the bioarchaeological record, to highlight how the preservation of human remains is a product of environmental and culturally informed funerary practices acting often synergistically. We then discuss the contributions to the special issue on “Biocultural Taphonomies” that demonstrate how bioarchaeologists are engaging critically and creatively with taphonomy from a variety of contexts, theoretical paradigms, and techniques. In doing so, these contributions both complicate and expand taphonomy as a nexus for anthropological inquiry.