Monday, June 25, 2007
Mt Meadows Massacre Article
This will appear in the September Ensign. Looks to be a definitive statement...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Type, Series, and Ware in Fremont Ceramic Classification
I already sent this to several of you. If I missed anyone that's interested, let me know. Comment away!
ABSTRACT
For nearly thirty years, Fremont ceramic analysts have primarily relied on a single seminal work – Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont, by Rex E. Madsen (1977). Although the value of R. Madsen’s study cannot be overstated, the intervening years of research have yielded a wealth of relevant data and refined analytical techniques. In addition, certain key observations from previous analyses were omitted from the R. Madsen typology. I review the past and current conceptions of the Fremont ceramic typology as well as the literature pertaining to variability within pottery types, specifically temper. Based on this existing research and my own observations, I propose a reclassification of Fremont pottery within the Type – Series – Ware hierarchy proposed by Colton and Hargrave (1937). Fremont pottery is surmised under a single ware, with series defined by temper and types by surface treatment. Building on the work of Lyneis (1994; Geib and Lyneis 1996), and in reference to recent developments in Hohokam ceramic studies (Abbott 2000), I further suggest ways to identify temper variability and to apply quantifiable differences to studies of pottery provenience.
ABSTRACT
For nearly thirty years, Fremont ceramic analysts have primarily relied on a single seminal work – Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont, by Rex E. Madsen (1977). Although the value of R. Madsen’s study cannot be overstated, the intervening years of research have yielded a wealth of relevant data and refined analytical techniques. In addition, certain key observations from previous analyses were omitted from the R. Madsen typology. I review the past and current conceptions of the Fremont ceramic typology as well as the literature pertaining to variability within pottery types, specifically temper. Based on this existing research and my own observations, I propose a reclassification of Fremont pottery within the Type – Series – Ware hierarchy proposed by Colton and Hargrave (1937). Fremont pottery is surmised under a single ware, with series defined by temper and types by surface treatment. Building on the work of Lyneis (1994; Geib and Lyneis 1996), and in reference to recent developments in Hohokam ceramic studies (Abbott 2000), I further suggest ways to identify temper variability and to apply quantifiable differences to studies of pottery provenience.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
A Craig Freeman sighting
This just in-
Lane ran into Craig Freeman in Vivian Park (Provo Canyon). Craig was on Rollerblades. Lane said that Craig is still doing construction/concrete stuff, but that he is thinking about getting back into archaeology.
So, who knows? Maybe everyone's favorite metalhead and epigrapher will return to the fold.
Lane ran into Craig Freeman in Vivian Park (Provo Canyon). Craig was on Rollerblades. Lane said that Craig is still doing construction/concrete stuff, but that he is thinking about getting back into archaeology.
So, who knows? Maybe everyone's favorite metalhead and epigrapher will return to the fold.
Aaron's SIR
This semester was pretty uneventful. It comprised of me going down to Sand Hollow in January, and then spending the rest of the time in the bone room analyzing the chipped stone from PVAP. After plodding through only one box (there are 14 total), I have now analyzed 900+ tools from Summit (42IN40). Most of them are utilized flakes.
So, my previous method of "just get through all the boxes" has been foiled. No way am I gonna be able to do 13 more boxes with similar artifact counts and ever graduate. Enter sampling strategies.
For now, I am working on revising drafts of my proposal and figuring out how to sample the assemblage. I've been reading a lot of stuff on Homol'ovi (the Hopi Mesas area) and despite the obvious differences between the Hopi and the Fremont, I have gained some perspectives into how to sample a massive collection, and also gotten some ideas about studying spatial distributions of chipped stone.
This past week I was near Bliss, Idaho with Lane doing Idaho Power stuff for Mr. Baker. We documented several sites along the Snake River. Cool stuff up there. We found several points, some late prehistoric ceramics, sandstone shaft smoothers, and a few rock shelters. Apparently the week before I went up, they found a burial. Shane was all over it. Not much left, just some vertebrae and teeth.
We did find a really cool site near the banks of Salmon Falls that, according to his journal, was visited by John C. Fremont. He and his cronies traded with the Shoshone for dried Salmon and spent some time near the falls. The site was very large with lots of groundstone, shell, chipped stone, rock art, and circular features with upright slabs. There was also a historic component, stacked stone walls and a ditch. It was pretty picked over by visitors to the site (read: looters) and little has been done to preserve it. After finding several looter pits, Lane shook his head and uttered, "Bastards." He then lamented Idaho's neglect for this historically significant site. Hopefully, with some strong suggestions to put it on the register, it will get there. We could have easily spent three days recording that site due to the massive amount of stuff there.
I wish there was more to report, but I didn't take any cool classes, and I've been doing a lot of analysis so there isn't much else to say.
So, my previous method of "just get through all the boxes" has been foiled. No way am I gonna be able to do 13 more boxes with similar artifact counts and ever graduate. Enter sampling strategies.
For now, I am working on revising drafts of my proposal and figuring out how to sample the assemblage. I've been reading a lot of stuff on Homol'ovi (the Hopi Mesas area) and despite the obvious differences between the Hopi and the Fremont, I have gained some perspectives into how to sample a massive collection, and also gotten some ideas about studying spatial distributions of chipped stone.
This past week I was near Bliss, Idaho with Lane doing Idaho Power stuff for Mr. Baker. We documented several sites along the Snake River. Cool stuff up there. We found several points, some late prehistoric ceramics, sandstone shaft smoothers, and a few rock shelters. Apparently the week before I went up, they found a burial. Shane was all over it. Not much left, just some vertebrae and teeth.
We did find a really cool site near the banks of Salmon Falls that, according to his journal, was visited by John C. Fremont. He and his cronies traded with the Shoshone for dried Salmon and spent some time near the falls. The site was very large with lots of groundstone, shell, chipped stone, rock art, and circular features with upright slabs. There was also a historic component, stacked stone walls and a ditch. It was pretty picked over by visitors to the site (read: looters) and little has been done to preserve it. After finding several looter pits, Lane shook his head and uttered, "Bastards." He then lamented Idaho's neglect for this historically significant site. Hopefully, with some strong suggestions to put it on the register, it will get there. We could have easily spent three days recording that site due to the massive amount of stuff there.
I wish there was more to report, but I didn't take any cool classes, and I've been doing a lot of analysis so there isn't much else to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)