To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Late medieval sources reveal an annual handover of a marine mammal between the council of the small coastal city of Blankenberge and the aldermen of Bruges. The reason for the transfer is not disclosed by the sources, and there is no consensus among historians as to the interpretation of this behaviour. This article explores the role of the presentation and consumption of a porpoise in the relationship between Blankenberge and the nearby medieval metropolis of Bruges. I argue that a porpoise supported the crucial, mutually beneficial ties of solidarity between two communities favouring their position and opportunities in the competitive maritime landscape.
The last decades have seen a renewed interest in the study of argumentation in archaeology, particularly in response to the overproduction of weak and unreliable interpretations and explanations. Concurrently, recent appeals for scientific transparency and efficiency in the management of archaeological information in digital form have stressed the necessity of explicitly showing the processes followed. A growing body of literature has identified inference to the best explanation (IBE) as the most adequate way of interpreting archaeological data, although it has quietly existed for over a century. Despite this, the investigation of IBE-based models for recording archaeological reasoning remains a largely under-researched topic. The author concludes with a novel IBE-based model for recording archaeological argumentation.