Jeffers petroglyphs: examining socioeconomic and cultural differences between late archaic and late prehistoric periods introduction
Archaic Period (3000 BC – 500 BC)
Yüklə 306,02 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
| Archaic Period (3000 BC – 500 BC)
Late Prehistoric Period (900 AD – 1750 AD) Archaeology Rock art motifs Archaeology Rock art motifs Projectile points Projectile points Horticulture Thunderbird Small
mobile groups
Atlatl Villages, seasonal campsites Animals with attached bison horns Bison hunting Bison, spear or atlatl attached bison Hunting Bison and other animals gathering
Warfare Stickmen with
arrows embedded in the bodies
social structure, chiefs, religious leaders Human wearing a bison-horn headdress INTERPRETATION OF MOTIFS BY ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA Archaic Period Although the specific function of rock art is unclear, it is one of the most valuable archaeological relics from which we can learn about the material and spiritual culture and the worldview of ancient communities. Some of the hypotheses for depictions include territory marks, clan symbols, archaeoastronomical records, hunting magic, vision quest, recording of events and myth, aesthetic, and ritual (Dudzik 1995:106-107). Rock art is one of the few types of art known to us for a long archaeological period. The role and meaning of rock art, which reflects various aspects of life, have changed as human societies' ways of living, economy, social structure, beliefs, and worldviews have changed. Originally produced for a specific reason, rock art could be interpreted differently by future generations, and new images could be formed in a new context. As a result, some or all of the offered hypotheses for the function of rock art could be true. To decide which hypothesis is valid for interpreting a specific rock art image or set of images, the archaeological context of the time to which the artwork belongs must be examined. It is vital to expect a chronological and logical sequence while interpreting petroglyphs. Although the importance of ethnographic information in the interpretation of rock art is well known, it must be established that there is an inheritance between archaeological cultures before historical ethnographic evidence can be attributed to the prehistoric period using the direct historical approach (Trigger 1991:3). The interpretation of symbols is derived from human behaviour rather than just what people say. Because the archaeological evidence is a record of human behaviour, there is no reason why meaning cannot be obtained from archaeological analyses (Whitley 2005:80). According to Lothson's petroglyph chronology, the motifs of the Late Archaic period (atlatl and projectile points) are solely hunting tools. The archaeological context of the region suggests that small hunter-gatherer communities hunted primarily small game animals and acquired plant supplies through seasonal travels during the Late Archaic period, to which these images belong. It is well known that hunting magic dominates the belief system of the nomadic hunter-gatherer people. Archaeological excavations in Jeffers revealed no evidence of human settlement (Buhta et al., 2017:35). The monument's location away from the discovered settlements (Lothson 1976:5) suggests that petroglyphs were not part of everyday life. In addition, Archaic period lithic debris sites have been identified on the Little Cottonwood River's terraces, a few hundred meters southeast of the recorded petroglyphs (Lothson 1976:5). The connection of animal representations and common water sources shows that hunting magic was one of the reasons ritual art was created in these normally discreet settings (Turpin 1993:295). The clear relationship between the petroglyphs, water, lithic processing sites, and obscure placements broadens our understanding of the multidimensional function of ritual art in the economic and ideological practices of Archaic hunter-gatherers.
Yüklə 306,02 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|