Data from excavations at the site from between 2004 and 2007 was used, bth large-scale and micromorphological. Te large-scale results were used to indicate the underlying architecture of the village, a well as the architecture of the individual structures and their layout. Ecavation also found paved grain silos from the village. Mcromorphology samples were taken from the buildings identified from the excavation. Tese samples were analysed using polarising petrographic microscopes at both the University of Reading, U and the University of Toronto, Cnada. Te main argument of the that the micromorphology of the site accounts for the differences in architecture found between the buildings.
Istead of assuming that these differences provide evidence of different living styles (for example, btween socio-economic classes) the micromorphology provides evidence of ‘dung spherulites and some scattered reed phytoliths’ (p1128), cmmonly associated with animal usage of an area. Frthermore, te evidence suggests that the differences in size and shape between the major courtyards appears to be linked to differences in function of the rooms, athough there is less data given to suggest this the human accommodation buildings.
Te paper also draws upon other findings to hypothesize that the animals kept in these round structures may have been kept for milk and cheese. T gain milk and cheese from the animals, i is necessary to limit the suckling, s the presence of multiple structures may indicate that this indeed was the case. Aditionally, te presence of a separate enclosed area may represent a milking facility through which to provide these substances to the community. Mcromorphology also identified that the majority of animals on site were sheep and goats, wich historical evidence supports the use of for milk and secondary products.
Tere are elements of post-processual archaeology behind this work in that it advocates a rigorous use of scientific method to identify the use of the various types of architecture identified, bt it does suggest that there may be some subjectivity in the interpretation. Fr example, cmparisons are made by the site at Tel Tsaf and ‘well-excavated, pblished sites from northern Syria and Mesopotamia’ (p1125) but the use of such comparisons cautioned because are differences between the sites.
Hbbard (2010) does make interpretations. ..
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples