Login    |    Register

connect and contribute... Click here for further options




Articles

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Interpretations of the food sharing patterns at the Magdalenian settlement at Pincevent by Mary Lawson
By Steve White @ 8:47 PM :: 7784 Views :: 0 Comments :: General Archaeology
 
Article Pages:
FOOD SHARING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

The variation in the types of food sharing in the appendix causes many difficulties for the interpretation of archaeological sites, as it seems likely that there was a similar or possibly even greater degree of variation in the past as there is today. A further problem with archaeological food sharing is actually identifying it in the first place. Waguespack (2002, 367) states that the lack of visibility of archaeological food sharing means that identifying it is not straightforward. Enloe (2003, 6-7) describes some of the arguments for food sharing archaeologically as not being grounded in the archaeological record. The study of archaeological food sharing has been approached in two very distinct ways; Waguespack (2002) proposes a theoretical approach where the patterns of sharing behaviour are modelled and the model is compared to the archaeological record. While Enloe (2003) and Enloe and David (1992) consider the evidence of interactions between hearths from the spatial patterning of the site without attaching any theoretical model to these interactions. In order to interpret the food sharing practices at Pincevent a combination of these two approaches will be used. Firstly the pure data that Enloe (2003) has provided for food sharing at Pincevent will be compared with the data on the food sharing practices of the Nunamiut provided by Binford (1978). Secondly this data will be compared with Waguespack’s (2002) model for equal and unequal food sharing patterns.

The site at Pincevent in the Paris Basin is almost unique in the degree of preservation of bone, and the meticulous excavation and recording of the spatial distribution of the site (Enloe 2003, 11). It is this level of preservation that allows the identification of interactions between hearths such as the refitting of burnt stones that have been found to match between hearths (Leroi-Gourhan 1972, 225-227; Julien et al 1992), as well as the refitting of reindeer bones that has shown that food sharing actually took place (Enloe and David 1992, 299; Enloe 2003, 11).

Previous Page | Next Page
Comments
Currently, there are no comments. Be the first to post one!
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here

Go to email Go to delicious.com Go to digg Go to technorati Go to reddit Go to stumbleupon Go to facebook Go to newsvine Go to simpy Go to google bookmarks Go to yahoo bookmarks Go to yahoo myweb Go to ask Go to slashdot Go to rawsugar Go to mister-wong Go to backflip Go to diigo Go to tailrank Go to live Go to twitter Go to fark Go to blogmarks Go to linkagogo Go to wink Go to ma.gnolia Go to bluedot Go to netvouz Go to blinklist Go to sphinn
Home · Connect · Contribute
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Online Archaeology   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement