Thanks Yoder for your input. That clarified a lot. I have a request for another clarification:
Chris, what I know of the Sinagua tradition is that they are some kind of melding pot of the Snazi, Mogollon and Hohokam, is this true?
Teach us.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Basketmakers = Early Fremont?
(Had to make my own post so I could use the colors as emphasis!)
What essentially defines the Basketmakers is time, space, and some material culture. The material culture part generally includes pithouses (though some above ground structures were also used), atlatl use, use and probably reliance on corn, storage features (including rock shelters, dry caves, slablined cists, and bellshaped pits) no ceramics, and all this taking place around a couple hundred years BC to 400 or 500 AD. Does that sound familiar to anyone? What keeps the early Fremont from being Basketmaker? Location. Early Fremont really look a lot like Basketmaker groups. Rich thinks that early Fremonters ARE Basketmakers who in micro migrations expanded up into the Northern Colorado Plateau and Great Basin where they passed on some traits to the indigenious rabbit chasers before being culturally swallowed up. The Steinaker Gap report lays out Rich’s basic argument:
“There is another option seldom considered: small-scale migration of farmers. In this scenario, Basketmaker II nuclear or extended family groups, experienced in maize agriculture, would have spread northward from the more populous regions of northern Arizona, seeking the best arable land (Talbot 1995b). Such groups would have been minority populations in a sea of hunter-gatherers. Enculturation in these settings very likely was reciprocal, with the immigrant farmers sharing knowledge of agriculture and associated technologies, knowledge that ultimately led to widespread adaptive shifts, but with the people themselves inevitable being swallowed up in the local, larger gene pool.”
He goes on to discuss this more, but that’s the main idea. Although I’ve never talked to Janetski about this specifically, generally I don’t think he buys it. He feels that Basketmaker traits diffused slowly into the Fremont region, not through migration, whether large or micro. Although he does think that early Fremont are very similar to Basketmakers. He says:
“these data suggest that indigenous peoples in the central Utah region adopted and adapted new ideas from surrounding areas, both north and south, and gradually, rather than dramatically, shifted to a Formative strategy.”
And….
“These data also suggest that a Basketmaker II-like strategy was present well to the north of the traditional Anasazi area and preceded the better known Formative (Fremont) adaptation in this region”
Good reading on this includes
Talbot, Richard K., and Lane D. Richens
1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 2. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
2004 Fremont Farming and Mobility on the Northern Colorado Plateau: The Steinaker Lake Project. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 10. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Janetski, Joel C.
1993 The Archaic to Formative Transition North of the Anasazi: A Basketmaker Perspective. In ????(not sure, I’ll find out tonight)
So what’s it all mean? I think that obviously PreFremont or Early Fremont (200 B.C.- 500 A.D.) folks were heavily influenced by Southwesterners. I don’t think that early Fremont and Basketmaker were the same people in the sense of a distinct cultural group, like Americans or Frenchies. Instead they were small groups who shared similar cultural traits, just like Americans and Frenchies live in above ground houses, have a industrialized society, ect. Basketmakers and Early Fremont shared much in subsistence, architecture, and other things, but I don't think archaeologically they should be counted as the same group. In part because early Fremont seems to have been a little later and because they obviously followed different paths in the end. But right now the number of early Fremont sites is very low, so as the database increases this may clear things up considerably. That’s my general view of it all. I think they were very similar, but should be seen and discussed as different groups. Read Rich’s and Janetski’s reports and articles, cause they make their arguments much more clear than I do.
What essentially defines the Basketmakers is time, space, and some material culture. The material culture part generally includes pithouses (though some above ground structures were also used), atlatl use, use and probably reliance on corn, storage features (including rock shelters, dry caves, slablined cists, and bellshaped pits) no ceramics, and all this taking place around a couple hundred years BC to 400 or 500 AD. Does that sound familiar to anyone? What keeps the early Fremont from being Basketmaker? Location. Early Fremont really look a lot like Basketmaker groups. Rich thinks that early Fremonters ARE Basketmakers who in micro migrations expanded up into the Northern Colorado Plateau and Great Basin where they passed on some traits to the indigenious rabbit chasers before being culturally swallowed up. The Steinaker Gap report lays out Rich’s basic argument:
“There is another option seldom considered: small-scale migration of farmers. In this scenario, Basketmaker II nuclear or extended family groups, experienced in maize agriculture, would have spread northward from the more populous regions of northern Arizona, seeking the best arable land (Talbot 1995b). Such groups would have been minority populations in a sea of hunter-gatherers. Enculturation in these settings very likely was reciprocal, with the immigrant farmers sharing knowledge of agriculture and associated technologies, knowledge that ultimately led to widespread adaptive shifts, but with the people themselves inevitable being swallowed up in the local, larger gene pool.”
He goes on to discuss this more, but that’s the main idea. Although I’ve never talked to Janetski about this specifically, generally I don’t think he buys it. He feels that Basketmaker traits diffused slowly into the Fremont region, not through migration, whether large or micro. Although he does think that early Fremont are very similar to Basketmakers. He says:
“these data suggest that indigenous peoples in the central Utah region adopted and adapted new ideas from surrounding areas, both north and south, and gradually, rather than dramatically, shifted to a Formative strategy.”
And….
“These data also suggest that a Basketmaker II-like strategy was present well to the north of the traditional Anasazi area and preceded the better known Formative (Fremont) adaptation in this region”
Good reading on this includes
Talbot, Richard K., and Lane D. Richens
1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 2. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
2004 Fremont Farming and Mobility on the Northern Colorado Plateau: The Steinaker Lake Project. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 10. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Janetski, Joel C.
1993 The Archaic to Formative Transition North of the Anasazi: A Basketmaker Perspective. In ????(not sure, I’ll find out tonight)
So what’s it all mean? I think that obviously PreFremont or Early Fremont (200 B.C.- 500 A.D.) folks were heavily influenced by Southwesterners. I don’t think that early Fremont and Basketmaker were the same people in the sense of a distinct cultural group, like Americans or Frenchies. Instead they were small groups who shared similar cultural traits, just like Americans and Frenchies live in above ground houses, have a industrialized society, ect. Basketmakers and Early Fremont shared much in subsistence, architecture, and other things, but I don't think archaeologically they should be counted as the same group. In part because early Fremont seems to have been a little later and because they obviously followed different paths in the end. But right now the number of early Fremont sites is very low, so as the database increases this may clear things up considerably. That’s my general view of it all. I think they were very similar, but should be seen and discussed as different groups. Read Rich’s and Janetski’s reports and articles, cause they make their arguments much more clear than I do.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Theories!...Theories everywhere!...
Just so all y'all outside the bubble know, Clark is looking to put together a theory/history of archaeology book for 501/510. He's looking for contributors to write the chapters, so here's your free chance to publish, folks!
If it actually happens, it'll be a good opportunity to really attack a theory or two in-depth and to leave a tidge of a legacy for future generations--spare them reading Hawaiki, I hope. I imagine he'll be up for a goodly number of us putting in on this, so I guess stay-tuned, but be thinking about what theories you specifically want to see in it. He's also planning on a section for statehood, origins of agriculture, etc. Basically it'll be a big study guide for the competency.
If it actually happens, it'll be a good opportunity to really attack a theory or two in-depth and to leave a tidge of a legacy for future generations--spare them reading Hawaiki, I hope. I imagine he'll be up for a goodly number of us putting in on this, so I guess stay-tuned, but be thinking about what theories you specifically want to see in it. He's also planning on a section for statehood, origins of agriculture, etc. Basically it'll be a big study guide for the competency.
Northern Periphery on the Mind
I was reading through Carol Riley's "Becoming Aztlan" (2005) and found an interesting tidbit on the inclusion of the Fremont into the Anasazi Basketmaker tradition. It goes like this...
"The Basketmaker phase of Anasazi extended over much of the San Juan Basin, westward to the lower Virgin River of Southern Nevada, although there is not much evidence for Basketmaker occupation in some areas, for example the north rim of the Grand Canyon. If the enigmatic pithouse-dwelling Fremont tradition can be included, much of Utah and parts of Colorado belonged in the Basketmaker-Pueblo world."
If one of the main characteristics of the Basketmakers is pithouse use (and non-ceramic, of course) then couldn't the earlier Fremont be considered part of this group? What draws the line for exclusion? Is it the fact that they didn't evolve into what is considered a Pueblo tradition but continued using pithouse stuctures? Or is their material culture actually totally distinct/different? Can't we all just get along?
"The Basketmaker phase of Anasazi extended over much of the San Juan Basin, westward to the lower Virgin River of Southern Nevada, although there is not much evidence for Basketmaker occupation in some areas, for example the north rim of the Grand Canyon. If the enigmatic pithouse-dwelling Fremont tradition can be included, much of Utah and parts of Colorado belonged in the Basketmaker-Pueblo world."
If one of the main characteristics of the Basketmakers is pithouse use (and non-ceramic, of course) then couldn't the earlier Fremont be considered part of this group? What draws the line for exclusion? Is it the fact that they didn't evolve into what is considered a Pueblo tradition but continued using pithouse stuctures? Or is their material culture actually totally distinct/different? Can't we all just get along?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Click here!
Hello all: I just finished our anthro. graduate student association website. It's no OPA site, but I was pretty happy with how it turned out, considering I had no idea how to construct a website beforehand. Tell me what you think.
www.ou.edu/agsa
www.ou.edu/agsa
Michael Coe Shallit Lecture
The lecture this year, "Dawn of the Maya Civilization", in my opinion, was one of the better Shallit lectures so far. Dr. Coe really made the lecture understandable for everyone in the audience (and for hacks like me it helps to keep it simple and interesting). He used some really cool 3D models of Mayan temples as well as some great satellite imagery. I guess thats the benefit of working at Yale and being one of the premiere Mayan scholars. One point that he made at the beginning of his lecture concerning theory was very interesting to me. He basically said that he doesnt subscribe to all of the theories that are floating around out there and that they all come and go. He said that he considers himself a cultural historian instead. I found this quite refreshing since I have a hard time with all the theories involved with archaeology in the first place. I am the first to admint my limited knowledge here, but in my mind, let the culture speak for itself. What is the point of having theories that you cannot test and prove right or wrong? I understand that we all have our theories, and on a small scale it makes sense, but these large overriding ideas that are imposed in a one-size fits all doesnt make sense to me. Anyway, I thought Dr. Coe's statement about being a Cultural Historian was interesting and a quiet slap in the face to some of the theorists. I will get off my soap box now...
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Sinagua Dissertation
When I began working as an RA for Dave Abbott this semester, I little dreamed that the job might turn into such a cool dissertation. Dave has written me into his latest NSF grant where we will be analyzing and redressing the Sinagua ceramic typology and the Sinagua phenomenon in general. If it goes through, I'll be essentially redefining the Sinagua phenomenon for my dissertation.
In the meantime, I'm working on Patayan - Hohokam interactions. Pretty soon, we'll have every boundary covered.
In the meantime, I'm working on Patayan - Hohokam interactions. Pretty soon, we'll have every boundary covered.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Again with the Symposium
I figure I better hurry and post just in case Holly decides to do something brash and actually post--wouldn't want to be branded as she has been.
That said, all I'm gonna say about you sceptics and your anti-historic attitude is...well...ok, I got nothin', but it's still cool. Pass your rust to me, I'll gladly take it. But don't get me wrong, I'll take a pretty lithic scatter over a pile of cans any day of the week.
Now, to the Symposium...
First of all, even now, days later, I can feel my tailbone. The drive was LONG. I tried keeping the 'hey, we're bonding' perspective and that made it slightly more tolerable. 1776 was really enjoyable even though it came in such large blocks.
The first session was definitely the highlight for me, despite its comparative lack of historic discussion, but when it came down to it, I enjoyed the Pueblo talk a lot more than I did any of the Euro-American junk. Traitor to my own cause.
Christine Ward's discussion of lithic procurement. Definitely interesting stuff--a great way to start the conference. Aaron has already discussed it, so I won't.
Donna Glowacki's was a little soft around the edges, but I enjoyed the basic concepts. She discussed The Social Landscape of Depopulation in the northern San Juan. I resonate with the idea of going beyond what's strictly represented on the ground and really trying to bring in our inherent understanding of humans, but getting too post-processualist can rub me the wrong way. In this case, some good points were made and I'll ignore the rest. Notably she suggested that movements in the region, particularly between the east and west, were caused by social differentiation in addition to drought. The east became more ritualistic than the west and that affected the equilibrium. Lot's of food for thought building from this.
Does anyone know of any positive demonstration of the southwest "ball courts"? I mean, yes, they're big flat community areas with seating around, and yes, they're very similar to what we see in Mesoamerica, but do we have associated gaming artifacts? Just curious. I wonder if we tend to just follow along with traditional terminology and let previous biases (such as the standard south to north movement) cloud our ability to read the ground. Ball courts were mentioned, mostly in passing, in a couple of the presentations.
Wendy Ashmore was the discussant, as Aaron mentioned. Her broad discussion of landscape theory was certainly more useful than anything any of the other discussants shared. Her nine factors to be considered were: (1) use of ethnography, (2) consideration of the spatial scale, (3) physical visibility, (4) time, (5) decision making and strategy use, (6) social relations and interaction, (7) movement/pilgrimages, (8) power, and (9) citation circles/networks. I appreciated her inclusion of no. 9—that we need to acknowledge the work being done on the other side of the Atlantic and the Euros need to do the same.
Well, I’m long-winded. The point is that the conference had a lot of good points. I got to see a few token rusty things, particularly in Carol Griffith’s trash talk. Interesting history bites about waste disposal. Did you know there’s a landfill in Fresno that’s eligible for the Register under A, B, C, & D?! The fire talks were interesting, but I think more could have been done. My particular interest in the fire venue is maybe better saved for a separate post…I’ll probably do that one of these days.
In the meantime, it’s oddly nice to be back to the bubble. *sick*
That said, all I'm gonna say about you sceptics and your anti-historic attitude is...well...ok, I got nothin', but it's still cool. Pass your rust to me, I'll gladly take it. But don't get me wrong, I'll take a pretty lithic scatter over a pile of cans any day of the week.
Now, to the Symposium...
First of all, even now, days later, I can feel my tailbone. The drive was LONG. I tried keeping the 'hey, we're bonding' perspective and that made it slightly more tolerable. 1776 was really enjoyable even though it came in such large blocks.
The first session was definitely the highlight for me, despite its comparative lack of historic discussion, but when it came down to it, I enjoyed the Pueblo talk a lot more than I did any of the Euro-American junk. Traitor to my own cause.
Christine Ward's discussion of lithic procurement. Definitely interesting stuff--a great way to start the conference. Aaron has already discussed it, so I won't.
Donna Glowacki's was a little soft around the edges, but I enjoyed the basic concepts. She discussed The Social Landscape of Depopulation in the northern San Juan. I resonate with the idea of going beyond what's strictly represented on the ground and really trying to bring in our inherent understanding of humans, but getting too post-processualist can rub me the wrong way. In this case, some good points were made and I'll ignore the rest. Notably she suggested that movements in the region, particularly between the east and west, were caused by social differentiation in addition to drought. The east became more ritualistic than the west and that affected the equilibrium. Lot's of food for thought building from this.
Does anyone know of any positive demonstration of the southwest "ball courts"? I mean, yes, they're big flat community areas with seating around, and yes, they're very similar to what we see in Mesoamerica, but do we have associated gaming artifacts? Just curious. I wonder if we tend to just follow along with traditional terminology and let previous biases (such as the standard south to north movement) cloud our ability to read the ground. Ball courts were mentioned, mostly in passing, in a couple of the presentations.
Wendy Ashmore was the discussant, as Aaron mentioned. Her broad discussion of landscape theory was certainly more useful than anything any of the other discussants shared. Her nine factors to be considered were: (1) use of ethnography, (2) consideration of the spatial scale, (3) physical visibility, (4) time, (5) decision making and strategy use, (6) social relations and interaction, (7) movement/pilgrimages, (8) power, and (9) citation circles/networks. I appreciated her inclusion of no. 9—that we need to acknowledge the work being done on the other side of the Atlantic and the Euros need to do the same.
Well, I’m long-winded. The point is that the conference had a lot of good points. I got to see a few token rusty things, particularly in Carol Griffith’s trash talk. Interesting history bites about waste disposal. Did you know there’s a landfill in Fresno that’s eligible for the Register under A, B, C, & D?! The fire talks were interesting, but I think more could have been done. My particular interest in the fire venue is maybe better saved for a separate post…I’ll probably do that one of these days.
In the meantime, it’s oddly nice to be back to the bubble. *sick*
Mike's SW Symposium Likes-Dislikes
Likes:
1. There were tons of opportunities to network with potential employers. I think I have a job in Chihuahua, Mexico for the summer and was offered work at two other locations.
2. Stephen Lekson's "History of Archaeological History in the Southwest." He made a comment that some Mexicans are claiming they should have automatic residency in the US because their ancestors were originally from the American Southwest. This is the concept of "Aztlan" as the motherland. The Aztecs claimed that their ancestors originally lived in Aztlan, a land to the north of Central Mexico. I liked his twist on this concept and he gave props out to Riley who recently wrote a good book called "Becoming Aztlan", if anyone is interested.
3. There were a number of papers that talked about prehistoric and historic trails. This was facinating to me just because these are still around. I guess nothing really grows in the desert to disturb them. The "Camino Real" paper was particularly interseting. The guy talked about a road that stretched from Tenochtitlan all the way to Santa Fe, NM. Parts of this road still exist.
4. Carnitas - these were mentioned in Aaron's comment. They are God's gift to mankind. Small cuts of tender, delicious pork - nuf said.
Dislikes:
1. Although I tend to lean towards post-processual theory and ideas, the subject matter on landscapes was a little too ephemeral. There were a lot of comments based on bad interpretations of data. I'm getting more and more skeptical of archaeologist's interpretations, especially those who resort to narratives. Give me a break people.
2. It was refreshing to see a film at the symposium. It was on structural burning (already mentioned by Aaron). Unfortunately it was shown at lunch time and nobody came. I was dissappointed that the presenters the next day did not use the film in their presentations. I know they are only alloted 15 minutes, but 2 minutes of film would have made a big difference. Also, the presenter from U. of AZ who did the experiment built (in my opinion) a poor representation of a room block house. Not only did she not include plaster on the walls, but the roof, which is where people would typically enter, could not even be walked on. During one of her burnings, the roof collapsed when she didn't expect it to. Well, all I could think was "if you are going to build a shotty roof that can't even be walked on, then what did you expect?" Experimental archaeology can tell us a lot when it somewhat accurately represents prehistoric conditions.
3. Historic archaeology still makes me sleep. Just ask some of my fellow students here at OU. They were about to buy me a neck brace because my head was bobbing pretty violently during some of the historic paper presentations.
Overall, it was a good experience. Good to see the BYUers. Take care all.
1. There were tons of opportunities to network with potential employers. I think I have a job in Chihuahua, Mexico for the summer and was offered work at two other locations.
2. Stephen Lekson's "History of Archaeological History in the Southwest." He made a comment that some Mexicans are claiming they should have automatic residency in the US because their ancestors were originally from the American Southwest. This is the concept of "Aztlan" as the motherland. The Aztecs claimed that their ancestors originally lived in Aztlan, a land to the north of Central Mexico. I liked his twist on this concept and he gave props out to Riley who recently wrote a good book called "Becoming Aztlan", if anyone is interested.
3. There were a number of papers that talked about prehistoric and historic trails. This was facinating to me just because these are still around. I guess nothing really grows in the desert to disturb them. The "Camino Real" paper was particularly interseting. The guy talked about a road that stretched from Tenochtitlan all the way to Santa Fe, NM. Parts of this road still exist.
4. Carnitas - these were mentioned in Aaron's comment. They are God's gift to mankind. Small cuts of tender, delicious pork - nuf said.
Dislikes:
1. Although I tend to lean towards post-processual theory and ideas, the subject matter on landscapes was a little too ephemeral. There were a lot of comments based on bad interpretations of data. I'm getting more and more skeptical of archaeologist's interpretations, especially those who resort to narratives. Give me a break people.
2. It was refreshing to see a film at the symposium. It was on structural burning (already mentioned by Aaron). Unfortunately it was shown at lunch time and nobody came. I was dissappointed that the presenters the next day did not use the film in their presentations. I know they are only alloted 15 minutes, but 2 minutes of film would have made a big difference. Also, the presenter from U. of AZ who did the experiment built (in my opinion) a poor representation of a room block house. Not only did she not include plaster on the walls, but the roof, which is where people would typically enter, could not even be walked on. During one of her burnings, the roof collapsed when she didn't expect it to. Well, all I could think was "if you are going to build a shotty roof that can't even be walked on, then what did you expect?" Experimental archaeology can tell us a lot when it somewhat accurately represents prehistoric conditions.
3. Historic archaeology still makes me sleep. Just ask some of my fellow students here at OU. They were about to buy me a neck brace because my head was bobbing pretty violently during some of the historic paper presentations.
Overall, it was a good experience. Good to see the BYUers. Take care all.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Quotable Quotes from Gardner Dalley
Just thought I’d pop on and share some of Mr. Dalley’s site descriptions. We obviously have a lot to learn about writing from these old-timers:
Site 118: Quite level and very few “veggies”
Site 55: This is just a really cute, compact little site…roomblocks…may have a couple of little PI hookie-dos on it.
Site 56: There is just a dandy artifact scatter to the east…aspect is pick your own.
Site 57: Site is on a major order architecturally, although it’s a pure bear to sort out exactly…some fool punched right into the guts of the thing with a backhoe…screwed the alignments.
Site 58: Site type = “donut pueblo”
Site 22: …also the sucker is a good PI and they lay in a strange matter oft-times.
Site 66: “feels” substantial and is probably [structural]…have to be fairly husky to support the big midden.
Site 77: Don’t have a clue what it is.
Site 88: Maybe 20 m diam…ugly as sin.
Site 96: One spiral and a couple of other jobbers.
Site 4: It’s a hard sucker to get a good photo of and it defeats my limited sketching abilities…looks like some SOB tried to get his share for the mantle.
Site 9: There appears to be a minor ledge under the figurines, but it does not appear to be my kind of place.
Site 3: I can’t see everything that’s on the face and I have no interest whatsoever in trying to get closer.
I remember reading a few more, but couldn't find them today when I went through the forms again. Good times. Different times. Poor little undergrads'll love standing around the valley with us come field school trying to locate these things--you should see the site sketches!
Site 118: Quite level and very few “veggies”
Site 55: This is just a really cute, compact little site…roomblocks…may have a couple of little PI hookie-dos on it.
Site 56: There is just a dandy artifact scatter to the east…aspect is pick your own.
Site 57: Site is on a major order architecturally, although it’s a pure bear to sort out exactly…some fool punched right into the guts of the thing with a backhoe…screwed the alignments.
Site 58: Site type = “donut pueblo”
Site 22: …also the sucker is a good PI and they lay in a strange matter oft-times.
Site 66: “feels” substantial and is probably [structural]…have to be fairly husky to support the big midden.
Site 77: Don’t have a clue what it is.
Site 88: Maybe 20 m diam…ugly as sin.
Site 96: One spiral and a couple of other jobbers.
Site 4: It’s a hard sucker to get a good photo of and it defeats my limited sketching abilities…looks like some SOB tried to get his share for the mantle.
Site 9: There appears to be a minor ledge under the figurines, but it does not appear to be my kind of place.
Site 3: I can’t see everything that’s on the face and I have no interest whatsoever in trying to get closer.
I remember reading a few more, but couldn't find them today when I went through the forms again. Good times. Different times. Poor little undergrads'll love standing around the valley with us come field school trying to locate these things--you should see the site sketches!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Review of the Southwest Symposium
The Southwest Symposium was a great experience and it was refreshing to hear about something besides the gastric. Granted, the main theme of the symposium was on perceptions of landscape, but there were many well done papers.
The 13 hour drive from Provo to Las Cruces was fairly uneventful but filled with decent conversation and pretty good tunes. Jim has some good music in his collection, from world music to Barenaked Ladies. We also learned all about the American Revolution from the book 1776. Jim has it on CD.
For me, the conference began when I met up with our very own Mike Searcy and his OU group. Mike graciously introduced me to Pat Gillman and Paul Minnis. They were both really nice people and were supportive of my research interests. It was strange to be treated as if I actually had something significant to say (even though I'm only 25). A new sensation.
The first paper I listened to was by Christine Ward from Geomarine, Inc. Her paper was on the idea that the location of toolstone sources are just as important as the toolstone itself. Also, she suggested that the act of procurement was as important as actual procurement. In otherwords, the actual location of toolstone sources and the act of procurement are both charged with important memory and tradition. Ward also claimed that convienience (proximity to source), redistribution(of materials), and social ties had little to do with the presence of lithic materials at great houses in Chaco.
She noted a lack of patterning between the presence of certain toolstones and the distance of sources. She observed that exotic toolstones were used and discarded in the same way as local toolstones.
The balance of papers on Friday were devoted to landscape archaeology. Specifically rooted in how a landscape approach to Chaco Canyon could provide new and interesting research questions. Many of the papers were too "touchy-feely" for my liking, but the main theme seemed to be an attempt to understand the purpose/origins of Chaco.
At the end of the Friday morning session, the discussant, Wendy Ashmore mentioned eight different factors that should be considered in all elements of archaeology. I only got five, so maybe Mike or Holly got the rest.
Here they are: Use of ethnography
Consideration of time
Consideration of movement/migration
Scale
Power(social relations)
Friday afternoon had two good papers. One was about the sun daggers at Chaco Canyon. Due to vandalism and shifting sands, the sun daggers do not appear in the same place during the solstices. Some people from Ohio State scanned all of the area with laser scanners, entered the scanned data into a computer and created similations based on photographs from the 60s and 70s. They were able to figure out where the stones need to be in order for them to generate the original solstice daggers. Pretty amazing that they scanned the whole cliff face and surrounding terrain to get an accurate reading.
The second paper was by Bill Walker (NMSU) who suggested in the past that the mutiliated skeletons found among anasazi pueblos can be attributed to witch killing. Apparently when he made those claims, he caught a lot of flak from the Man Corn camp. His paper at the SWS was in part a reaction to criticism and in part an explanation why so many dog skeletons are found with mutilated remains. Walker suggested that the dogs were included with the witch bodies to keep the witches from re-emerging from their graves.
Saturday was filled with all sorts of talk about experimental archaeology, specifically testing hypotheses of why many anasazi structures are burnt. A bunch of people from U of AZ built a roomblock and set it on fire in a few different ways to see if they could note burn patterns, roof-fall, and other things.
I enjoyed their presentation/film but i still have some critiques. Some of their methods were questionable and it seemed that they were trying to hide their lack of data behind a cool idea. Their testing methods were sketchy and left a lot of room for error. Bottom line, a great idea that needs some more work. Or, if anything, the students needed to present their data in a clearer manner. One student suggested that the fires were a way to curb insect infestation, but it was a rather weak argument. Without the data/conclusions they are just setting fires.
Finally, I should note that we ate at a great little Mexican place where the carnitas, soup, tacos, and such, were excellent. It was way better than Los Hermanos...and that's saying a lot. Because LH is one of the best in the nation! Just kidding.
Anyway, that's my review of the SWS. I've left some things out so that Mike can throw in his two cents. Maybe Holly will too...
The 13 hour drive from Provo to Las Cruces was fairly uneventful but filled with decent conversation and pretty good tunes. Jim has some good music in his collection, from world music to Barenaked Ladies. We also learned all about the American Revolution from the book 1776. Jim has it on CD.
For me, the conference began when I met up with our very own Mike Searcy and his OU group. Mike graciously introduced me to Pat Gillman and Paul Minnis. They were both really nice people and were supportive of my research interests. It was strange to be treated as if I actually had something significant to say (even though I'm only 25). A new sensation.
The first paper I listened to was by Christine Ward from Geomarine, Inc. Her paper was on the idea that the location of toolstone sources are just as important as the toolstone itself. Also, she suggested that the act of procurement was as important as actual procurement. In otherwords, the actual location of toolstone sources and the act of procurement are both charged with important memory and tradition. Ward also claimed that convienience (proximity to source), redistribution(of materials), and social ties had little to do with the presence of lithic materials at great houses in Chaco.
She noted a lack of patterning between the presence of certain toolstones and the distance of sources. She observed that exotic toolstones were used and discarded in the same way as local toolstones.
The balance of papers on Friday were devoted to landscape archaeology. Specifically rooted in how a landscape approach to Chaco Canyon could provide new and interesting research questions. Many of the papers were too "touchy-feely" for my liking, but the main theme seemed to be an attempt to understand the purpose/origins of Chaco.
At the end of the Friday morning session, the discussant, Wendy Ashmore mentioned eight different factors that should be considered in all elements of archaeology. I only got five, so maybe Mike or Holly got the rest.
Here they are: Use of ethnography
Consideration of time
Consideration of movement/migration
Scale
Power(social relations)
Friday afternoon had two good papers. One was about the sun daggers at Chaco Canyon. Due to vandalism and shifting sands, the sun daggers do not appear in the same place during the solstices. Some people from Ohio State scanned all of the area with laser scanners, entered the scanned data into a computer and created similations based on photographs from the 60s and 70s. They were able to figure out where the stones need to be in order for them to generate the original solstice daggers. Pretty amazing that they scanned the whole cliff face and surrounding terrain to get an accurate reading.
The second paper was by Bill Walker (NMSU) who suggested in the past that the mutiliated skeletons found among anasazi pueblos can be attributed to witch killing. Apparently when he made those claims, he caught a lot of flak from the Man Corn camp. His paper at the SWS was in part a reaction to criticism and in part an explanation why so many dog skeletons are found with mutilated remains. Walker suggested that the dogs were included with the witch bodies to keep the witches from re-emerging from their graves.
Saturday was filled with all sorts of talk about experimental archaeology, specifically testing hypotheses of why many anasazi structures are burnt. A bunch of people from U of AZ built a roomblock and set it on fire in a few different ways to see if they could note burn patterns, roof-fall, and other things.
I enjoyed their presentation/film but i still have some critiques. Some of their methods were questionable and it seemed that they were trying to hide their lack of data behind a cool idea. Their testing methods were sketchy and left a lot of room for error. Bottom line, a great idea that needs some more work. Or, if anything, the students needed to present their data in a clearer manner. One student suggested that the fires were a way to curb insect infestation, but it was a rather weak argument. Without the data/conclusions they are just setting fires.
Finally, I should note that we ate at a great little Mexican place where the carnitas, soup, tacos, and such, were excellent. It was way better than Los Hermanos...and that's saying a lot. Because LH is one of the best in the nation! Just kidding.
Anyway, that's my review of the SWS. I've left some things out so that Mike can throw in his two cents. Maybe Holly will too...
We need a good archaeological TV program
Chris has thrown this idea around with Cady and I for some time. It is true that there are really no good TV programs about archaeology except for the occasional National Geographic, NOVA, or other documentary. Recently, the History Channel has begun a series about archaeology. I was turned off to the show just after I saw the advertsing...
Digging for the Truth
Although I see this as an attempt to put our field in mainstream media, using Hollywood gimmics (Indiana Jones-esque font and style) is so overused and steriotypical.
I propose we look to doing a show that exposes Joe Schmoe to archaeology as it is - scientific, historical, and expanding. In addition, each episode would not only expose the viewer to a new part of the world, but would involve an experiment, so-to-speak, each episode. For example, recently, an archaeologist produced his own yucca rope to see if it was strong enough to rapel down a cliff face into a grannery. This would take the science from the lab to be tested in the field. We could use experimental archaeology as the eye-catching, never before been done, aspect of the show. I know it may seem as though this brings a "reality TV" edge to the idea, but that is what people are used to watching and have grown to like.
Tell me what you think. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
Digging for the Truth
Although I see this as an attempt to put our field in mainstream media, using Hollywood gimmics (Indiana Jones-esque font and style) is so overused and steriotypical.
I propose we look to doing a show that exposes Joe Schmoe to archaeology as it is - scientific, historical, and expanding. In addition, each episode would not only expose the viewer to a new part of the world, but would involve an experiment, so-to-speak, each episode. For example, recently, an archaeologist produced his own yucca rope to see if it was strong enough to rapel down a cliff face into a grannery. This would take the science from the lab to be tested in the field. We could use experimental archaeology as the eye-catching, never before been done, aspect of the show. I know it may seem as though this brings a "reality TV" edge to the idea, but that is what people are used to watching and have grown to like.
Tell me what you think. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
FoF, a serious institution?
Recently, it has been suggested that FoF is not a serious scholarly forum, and that serious research oriented topics have only started appearing in the past 2 or 3 months.
I exhort all FoF's to read the list below, and note that as early as May 2005 (one month after the birth of the blog), scholarly discussions were commonplace. I turn your attention to the following posts/subjects:
May 2005:
Thesis Outline (Chris)
Coprography
The Northern Periphery
June 2005:
Definitions of the Fremont
July 2005:
Homosexual Marriage
August 2005:
Various academic conferences
Yoder's Thesis
The Hohokam
Paul Minnis and the Fremont
September 2005:
Fremont Subsistence
The RMAC
October 2005:
The importance of Technoarchaeology
What makes a Fremont?
Fremont Mortuary Practices
Aaron's Tech Blog(sorry, I'm biased)
Historic maps of Hohokam sites
Pre-Clovis stuff with Adovasio
The importance of blogs in academia
The Three Corners
November 2005:
Fremont Production
Optimal Foraging
The Semester in Review feature (still waiting to see a few...)
The SW symposium
Projectile points in the GB
Presence of the GB in American Antiquity
December 2005:
Fremont site occupation/mounds
Various SIRs
January 2006
Paleoclimates in the EGB
Moqui Marbles and Hopi ideology
Multi-disciplinary approaches
The SW symposium
Since May, we have had at least one serious or thought-provoking post per month. That's pretty good if you ask me. Of course there are jokes, there are fun posts, and there are non-research oriented discussions, but for the most part we have done some pretty good stuff so far.
I think the above list tesitfies to the legitimacy of this blog. It has spawned at least two splinter blogs (Chris' Thesis blog, and my tech blog), and provided an excellent forum to bounce ideas around. Just making a point.
I exhort all FoF's to read the list below, and note that as early as May 2005 (one month after the birth of the blog), scholarly discussions were commonplace. I turn your attention to the following posts/subjects:
May 2005:
Thesis Outline (Chris)
Coprography
The Northern Periphery
June 2005:
Definitions of the Fremont
July 2005:
Homosexual Marriage
August 2005:
Various academic conferences
Yoder's Thesis
The Hohokam
Paul Minnis and the Fremont
September 2005:
Fremont Subsistence
The RMAC
October 2005:
The importance of Technoarchaeology
What makes a Fremont?
Fremont Mortuary Practices
Aaron's Tech Blog(sorry, I'm biased)
Historic maps of Hohokam sites
Pre-Clovis stuff with Adovasio
The importance of blogs in academia
The Three Corners
November 2005:
Fremont Production
Optimal Foraging
The Semester in Review feature (still waiting to see a few...)
The SW symposium
Projectile points in the GB
Presence of the GB in American Antiquity
December 2005:
Fremont site occupation/mounds
Various SIRs
January 2006
Paleoclimates in the EGB
Moqui Marbles and Hopi ideology
Multi-disciplinary approaches
The SW symposium
Since May, we have had at least one serious or thought-provoking post per month. That's pretty good if you ask me. Of course there are jokes, there are fun posts, and there are non-research oriented discussions, but for the most part we have done some pretty good stuff so far.
I think the above list tesitfies to the legitimacy of this blog. It has spawned at least two splinter blogs (Chris' Thesis blog, and my tech blog), and provided an excellent forum to bounce ideas around. Just making a point.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Cherry Poppin' Daddy
Well, you knew it would happen eventually. I'm directing my first excavation tomorrow. It's a small one, 2 days and 360' of trench, but I'll be directing it nonetheless.
This has been a really cool job for me, and I guess this project sort of represents the culmination of the last 6 months of work here. I did everything except sign the contract. I did the lit search, wrote the test plan, will direct the test Thursday and Friday, and will do the analysis and write up the report next week.
Who would have thought that we'd be entrusted with our own backhoes and crews. Eat that BYU Anthro Department, eat that...
This has been a really cool job for me, and I guess this project sort of represents the culmination of the last 6 months of work here. I did everything except sign the contract. I did the lit search, wrote the test plan, will direct the test Thursday and Friday, and will do the analysis and write up the report next week.
Who would have thought that we'd be entrusted with our own backhoes and crews. Eat that BYU Anthro Department, eat that...
Southwest Symposium
It looks like a few of the Friends of the Fremont will be attended the 10 Biennial Southwest Symposium this weekend. I'm particularly looking forward to the experimental work done on the burning of structures in the Southwest. Maybe we can have an update for the blog when we get back. Take care all.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Historic Arch Sucks but Multidisciplinary stuff is SEXY!
I just got back from being in the field for a week doing a survey in which we found nothing but historic junk (blahhh). There's this ranch out in the middle of the Nevada desert that the BLM just bought but are going to let UNLV manage because there's a bunch of historic buildings out there. So some PI's from UNLV (Biology, Archaeology, Geology, and Landscape Architecture) are planning on turning it into a multidisciplinary field camp/station/research facility. So I had to take a couple of undergrads out and survey the place. The survey was boring (cans, glass, wood, etc) but the multidisciplinary part was pretty cool. All the other ology's had one or two folks out there doing baseline surveys for their disciplines and at nights we were supposed to be figuring out how we could integrate all the disciplines. Talking and interacting with these other guys was really productive and I think if this thing is able to get the grant money it needs there could be some really cool research coming out of here. We discussed and learned a lot of things but just one wierd example is.....did you guys know that hematite comes in a lot of forms? One night one of the geologists comes back in and plops down a bunch of rock samples and is looking over them and I was asking him what he had. So he starts naming them and tells me one of them is hematite. This rock was black, sparkly, and solid. Nothing about it said hematite. So I was like, ummm, that's not what we call hematite. So he goes on to explain that hematite comes in different forms depending on how it was created. Then he picks up a nail and scratches the rock and I'll be damned if the scratches didn't turn bright red! Anyway, the whole week we were mixing data and info and it was pretty cool. And as always, multidisciplinary is SEXY! I'm thinking some cool stuff may come out of this venture if it gets the funding.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Eastern Great Basin Paleoclimate
I've just started "Collapse", Jared Diamond's latest ingenious synthesis of archaeological data that sort of disses archaeology. In it, Diamond identifies 5 factors contributing to cultural collapses: environmental change, anthropogenic damage to the environment, a decline in support from friendly neighbors, hostile neighbors, and cultural responses to the above (link).
As I was reading, it occurred to me that with the Fremont, we are clearly dealing with a collapse. It further occurred to me that I know almost nothing about the Eastern Great Basin paleo-environment. Is this because there actually is nothing known, or if I'm just ignorant of it. I know that Madsen has done a bunch of pollen work, but I guess I always figured that it was early and not late. Anybody know about this?
If there has been little work done on this, maybe we should start thinking about it. Can we assume things about the Fremont area pale-climate from the extensive work on the Colorado Plateau? How does the collapse of the Fremont relate to other Southwestern collapses? Can we catch up the tree-ring record in the Eastern GB to address some of these issues? Is Range Creek the Answer?
This is just a research direction I hadn't really considered before. In examining intra- and extra-Fremont relations, I have been inadvertently examining a large part of the Fremont collapse, but the environmental factors should also be considered.
As I was reading, it occurred to me that with the Fremont, we are clearly dealing with a collapse. It further occurred to me that I know almost nothing about the Eastern Great Basin paleo-environment. Is this because there actually is nothing known, or if I'm just ignorant of it. I know that Madsen has done a bunch of pollen work, but I guess I always figured that it was early and not late. Anybody know about this?
If there has been little work done on this, maybe we should start thinking about it. Can we assume things about the Fremont area pale-climate from the extensive work on the Colorado Plateau? How does the collapse of the Fremont relate to other Southwestern collapses? Can we catch up the tree-ring record in the Eastern GB to address some of these issues? Is Range Creek the Answer?
This is just a research direction I hadn't really considered before. In examining intra- and extra-Fremont relations, I have been inadvertently examining a large part of the Fremont collapse, but the environmental factors should also be considered.
Moqui Marbles
My mom works at the Provo School district and a lot of discounted books are sent directly to the district by publishers with the hopes that Provo will buy their books for school libraries. Most of these books are rejected and then sold to Provo School District employees for 1 to 10 dollars.
The other day, my Mom brought home a book called "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" by Adrienne Mayor. Mayor is a folklorist who deals mainly with Native American stories and how they deal with fossils. Kind of a limited niche. You may recognize Mayor's name-she was quoted in the December issue of National Geographic.
I was reading her book two nights ago and found the following passage. Those of you who did your field school in Escalante will appreciate this, especially those who were there for Carl Shurtz and his paint bucket full of Moqui Marbles.
"...moqui marbles are unique rock spheres found at the base of Navajo Sandstone Formations in Arizona and Utah, encasing pink sand from the Creataceous inland sea. These were long thought by scientists to be mere iron concretions, but recent studeies have revealed their true origin: mollusks trapped in a great flood of sand about 130 million years agao. As the mollusks decomposed, their internal juices were drawn out, leaving hollow centers, and as water filtered through the outer shell over the ages, fine sand filled the centers and iron deposits formed around the outer shell, along with phosphorus and lime from the mollusks' shells.
The Hopi word moqui means "dearly departed ones," and according to legend, Hopi ancesotors descend from heaven in the evening, brining the marbles to play games. At dawn, the ancestors retrn to heaven, leaving the marbles behind to reassure their relatives that they are happy. Hopi people gather the moqui marbles and keep them in their homes to welcome the spirits of the departed relatives" (Mayor 2005:156-157).
Interesting eh? Mayor does not cite any paleontologists (or any other source for that matter) so the veracity of her explantation of moqui "mollusks" is debatable. Regardless, the explanation of the Hopi curation of moqui marbles is intriguing.
The other day, my Mom brought home a book called "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" by Adrienne Mayor. Mayor is a folklorist who deals mainly with Native American stories and how they deal with fossils. Kind of a limited niche. You may recognize Mayor's name-she was quoted in the December issue of National Geographic.
I was reading her book two nights ago and found the following passage. Those of you who did your field school in Escalante will appreciate this, especially those who were there for Carl Shurtz and his paint bucket full of Moqui Marbles.
"...moqui marbles are unique rock spheres found at the base of Navajo Sandstone Formations in Arizona and Utah, encasing pink sand from the Creataceous inland sea. These were long thought by scientists to be mere iron concretions, but recent studeies have revealed their true origin: mollusks trapped in a great flood of sand about 130 million years agao. As the mollusks decomposed, their internal juices were drawn out, leaving hollow centers, and as water filtered through the outer shell over the ages, fine sand filled the centers and iron deposits formed around the outer shell, along with phosphorus and lime from the mollusks' shells.
The Hopi word moqui means "dearly departed ones," and according to legend, Hopi ancesotors descend from heaven in the evening, brining the marbles to play games. At dawn, the ancestors retrn to heaven, leaving the marbles behind to reassure their relatives that they are happy. Hopi people gather the moqui marbles and keep them in their homes to welcome the spirits of the departed relatives" (Mayor 2005:156-157).
Interesting eh? Mayor does not cite any paleontologists (or any other source for that matter) so the veracity of her explantation of moqui "mollusks" is debatable. Regardless, the explanation of the Hopi curation of moqui marbles is intriguing.
New baby!
Hello all FoFs
We have a new member of the Friends of the Fremont. Max Mabry Searcy. That's right, Amie and I had a healthy baby boy on Dec. 29th. He's doing great and you can read about all the details at www.searcypages.com . There are pictures as well (you may have to scroll down a bit to find the post about Max's birth). Well, may your year's begin well and may heaven's windows open up wide at the beginnning of this new semester. I know I could use all the help I can get. Take care.
We have a new member of the Friends of the Fremont. Max Mabry Searcy. That's right, Amie and I had a healthy baby boy on Dec. 29th. He's doing great and you can read about all the details at www.searcypages.com . There are pictures as well (you may have to scroll down a bit to find the post about Max's birth). Well, may your year's begin well and may heaven's windows open up wide at the beginnning of this new semester. I know I could use all the help I can get. Take care.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)