Not to detract from Jenny's recent post about lithic scatters (I will comment soon), but I found a really cool website that allows you to make USPS approved stamps using your own photos.
I think this would be a great way to get some fun images circulating through the nation. Imagine- a "tribute to trowels". Imagine--a FoF stamp or an "OPA-Nouveau" stamp designed Mr. Ure! Finally, imagine a "Great Basin All Stars" series. Once every few months we could get a new one.
The possibilities are endless. A little more expensive, but endless.
Here is the link:
Photostamps.com
Sunday, February 12, 2006
On the Ground
I’ve got a question for the general audience relating somewhat to fire issues, more to obsidian dating:
I work a lot out in southern Tooele County on the Vernon parcel of the Forest (ok, as if most of you haven’t heard me compulsively raving about the joys of Vernon…). Long story short, we see tons of little non-descript lithic scatters, mostly Fremont in my book, but quite a few have Archaic points. Most sites have at least a few little bits of obsidian, though I’d say the points are more often chert. There are typically no associated features and very few ceramics, but a lot of these suckers are huge (most of the sites are strung out along the creek beds and can be as long as a mile or more).
Now here’s the issue. For years, my boss has put off making an eligibility statement on any of them because she and Dykmann have gone back and forth about the whole potential to contribute scientific information. There is a distant possibility that they may have buried deposits, but not even enough evidence to justify a test pit (though we’ve put a few in over the years and generally don’t see anything besides lithics in the first 10 cm—to complicate it more, most of the area has been cultivated or chained, or both!). Dykmann’s primary argument, though, is that we can’t call them Unknown Aboriginal and Not Eligible simply because, in his book, we could technically do obsidian hydration on every site. I guess he wants them all Eligible. Problem is, we’ve got documentation of burns over almost the entire Vernon unit, and no doubt, of course, that there have been fires prehistorically as well.
So what do you think? I’m not hugely familiar with obsidian dating, but I know fire can reset the clock. If we don’t have buried deposits (particularly because things have been so disturbed historically) deep enough that the obsidian has been protected, could we ever really trust hydration dates? And is it even remotely worth dating little scatters that don’t even have diagnostic points? Obviously, part of the issue has been solved with Dykmann’s retirement, although maybe Seddon will have a problem, too, but I’m looking to finish up these forms and write an article or two on the prehistory of Rush Valley one of these days and it’d help to have a solid grounding on eligibility. It’s a neat little microcosmic world out there, with some cool patterns, so the report really deserves to be published.
Any thoughts are appreciated. Apologies to any anti-CRM among us who take horror at the thought of being reduced to discussing National Register status. =)
I work a lot out in southern Tooele County on the Vernon parcel of the Forest (ok, as if most of you haven’t heard me compulsively raving about the joys of Vernon…). Long story short, we see tons of little non-descript lithic scatters, mostly Fremont in my book, but quite a few have Archaic points. Most sites have at least a few little bits of obsidian, though I’d say the points are more often chert. There are typically no associated features and very few ceramics, but a lot of these suckers are huge (most of the sites are strung out along the creek beds and can be as long as a mile or more).
Now here’s the issue. For years, my boss has put off making an eligibility statement on any of them because she and Dykmann have gone back and forth about the whole potential to contribute scientific information. There is a distant possibility that they may have buried deposits, but not even enough evidence to justify a test pit (though we’ve put a few in over the years and generally don’t see anything besides lithics in the first 10 cm—to complicate it more, most of the area has been cultivated or chained, or both!). Dykmann’s primary argument, though, is that we can’t call them Unknown Aboriginal and Not Eligible simply because, in his book, we could technically do obsidian hydration on every site. I guess he wants them all Eligible. Problem is, we’ve got documentation of burns over almost the entire Vernon unit, and no doubt, of course, that there have been fires prehistorically as well.
So what do you think? I’m not hugely familiar with obsidian dating, but I know fire can reset the clock. If we don’t have buried deposits (particularly because things have been so disturbed historically) deep enough that the obsidian has been protected, could we ever really trust hydration dates? And is it even remotely worth dating little scatters that don’t even have diagnostic points? Obviously, part of the issue has been solved with Dykmann’s retirement, although maybe Seddon will have a problem, too, but I’m looking to finish up these forms and write an article or two on the prehistory of Rush Valley one of these days and it’d help to have a solid grounding on eligibility. It’s a neat little microcosmic world out there, with some cool patterns, so the report really deserves to be published.
Any thoughts are appreciated. Apologies to any anti-CRM among us who take horror at the thought of being reduced to discussing National Register status. =)
Friday, February 10, 2006
Wow, more secret messages
For those of you who did not notice, the word "hell" in Holly's post "An Open Letter" is a link. Scroll down and check it out. What were you trying to say, Holly?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Haikus for the Forgotten
For Mike and Scott:
Anthro research lab
"You can't use that in the film!"
Re-do, re-do, damn.
For Cady:
Parowan turquoise
Sourcing? Isn't that Joel's thing?
Academic thief
Anthro research lab
"You can't use that in the film!"
Re-do, re-do, damn.
For Cady:
Parowan turquoise
Sourcing? Isn't that Joel's thing?
Academic thief
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Mr. Yoder's Thesis: On-Line!
I forgot to previously mention that my thesis is now on-line at BYU. It feels good to have it done. Here's the link:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd1052.pdf
Now what you do is go to this link and then scroll down to page number 9. Increase magnification to about 300% and look on the left hand side of the image. The excavators of North Creek, forever immortalized.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd1052.pdf
Now what you do is go to this link and then scroll down to page number 9. Increase magnification to about 300% and look on the left hand side of the image. The excavators of North Creek, forever immortalized.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
An Open Letter
Dear Everyone,
I've made haikus for all!
A Haiku for Chris:
Ho-ho-ho- wha? who?
Ho-ho-what the h? who cares?
More like, ho-ho-krap
A Haiku for Jenny:
Are you kidding me?
Rusty nails and can scatters
You get paid for this?
Oh, another haiku for Jenny!
Hole-in-top, matchstick?
Insignificant cowboys
Boring, boring, dumb
A Haiku for Aaron and the Fremont:
Fremont foragers
Don't loose your rabbit stick now!
Smelly pithouses
A Haiku for the Nabataeans:
Written language, kings,
Monumental structures....hmm..
Sounds like it's a state!
A Haiku for State-level societies:
Important cultures
Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians
No snail suckers here!
A Haiku for North American Archaeologists:
Burial digging
Don't let NAGPRA keep you down!
Night excavations
Now you can all pack your bags and go to Hell-
Love,
Holly
I've made haikus for all!
A Haiku for Chris:
Ho-ho-ho- wha? who?
Ho-ho-what the h? who cares?
More like, ho-ho-krap
A Haiku for Jenny:
Are you kidding me?
Rusty nails and can scatters
You get paid for this?
Oh, another haiku for Jenny!
Hole-in-top, matchstick?
Insignificant cowboys
Boring, boring, dumb
A Haiku for Aaron and the Fremont:
Fremont foragers
Don't loose your rabbit stick now!
Smelly pithouses
A Haiku for the Nabataeans:
Written language, kings,
Monumental structures....hmm..
Sounds like it's a state!
A Haiku for State-level societies:
Important cultures
Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians
No snail suckers here!
A Haiku for North American Archaeologists:
Burial digging
Don't let NAGPRA keep you down!
Night excavations
Now you can all pack your bags and go to Hell-
Love,
Holly
Saturday, February 04, 2006
A request for Resurrection:
So, I was sitting around trying to avoid writing my Western Shoshone paper for Great Basin and, as has become a somewhat ritualistic habit in the past month, wandered over to FOF for a bit of light reading. I couldn’t get past the Dashboard all day, however, with two results: 1) You were all spared a number of lame and/or dry comments on such things as I generally know nothing about…you may now stop celebrating, thank you, and read 2) I did a search for FOF to try a back way in and ended up accessing the first three or so lines of the last 82 some odd posts on a Blogger search page that was actually working.
I’ll grant that it was a stunted view of what’s gone on over the life of the blog, but I’m slightly disturbed at the loss of a lovely tradition that seemed to be burgeoning.
Where is the haiku?
I think it was a nice touch.
And Holly was alive.
Sniff.
I’ll grant that it was a stunted view of what’s gone on over the life of the blog, but I’m slightly disturbed at the loss of a lovely tradition that seemed to be burgeoning.
Where is the haiku?
I think it was a nice touch.
And Holly was alive.
Sniff.
Knorosov: The Decipherment of the Mayan Script
This week at BYU International Cinema, they had a film on Yuri Knorosov, the Soviet linguist who made significant contribuitons to deciphering Mayan glyphs. It was very interesting, including interviews with Michael Coe, excerpts from Diego de Landa's writings, and several great photographs of Mayan ruins.
Towards the end of the film, Knorosov started talking about the origins of the Maya. he suggested that they migrated from the north down into Mesoamerica. Knorosov theorized that the Mayan homeland was somewhere in the American SW.
Knorosov suggested that Mesa Verde may have been of particular importance in the Mayan cave emergence. In other words, K. believed that Mesa Verde may have been the site of the seven caves/seven rivers where the Maya believed they emerged. Knorosov provided no real evidence, he just quoted from the Popul Vul and other Mayan writings.
A lack of evidence aside, this is an interesting idea. Especially since the idea of a southwestern Aztlan has been mentioned by Mike.
So I guess the question is this: Is the Southwest the epicenter of Great Basin and Mesoamerican cultures?
Towards the end of the film, Knorosov started talking about the origins of the Maya. he suggested that they migrated from the north down into Mesoamerica. Knorosov theorized that the Mayan homeland was somewhere in the American SW.
Knorosov suggested that Mesa Verde may have been of particular importance in the Mayan cave emergence. In other words, K. believed that Mesa Verde may have been the site of the seven caves/seven rivers where the Maya believed they emerged. Knorosov provided no real evidence, he just quoted from the Popul Vul and other Mayan writings.
A lack of evidence aside, this is an interesting idea. Especially since the idea of a southwestern Aztlan has been mentioned by Mike.
So I guess the question is this: Is the Southwest the epicenter of Great Basin and Mesoamerican cultures?
Friday, February 03, 2006
AJ Sighting
I have it on a high authority (Lane Richens), that our beloved AJ has been found doing contract work for John Baxter's CRM firm, Bighorn Archaeology. It is also on the records that he is still living in Moronihah and is still working for the Forest Service. Long live the Filfoul! We need to find a way to get him on FOF with us!
Another new feature?
Over the years we've talked a little about doing some kind of "Great Basin Archaeological All-Stars" trading cards. Maybe we could do a trial run here on FOF. We could come up with legitimate profiles for all of our favorite friends, with a brief biography, research interests, and selected bibliography. That way, if we ever talk about "Joel", we could link his name to his profile. This would be particularly helpful for the uninitiated.
On a sidenote, I'm thinking about organizing a lunchtime forum here at ASU to talk about blogging and its potential uses. That might mean a bunch of people looking at this site. We'll see if I decide to do it.
On a sidenote, I'm thinking about organizing a lunchtime forum here at ASU to talk about blogging and its potential uses. That might mean a bunch of people looking at this site. We'll see if I decide to do it.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Thanks and Request
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)