"Thanks for sending me the paper. I found it very well written with only a few typos, etc. It is nice that you found support for our interpretations of the site occupation. A concern I have is how you are treating functionally different structures. What I recall (without checking) is that the storage structures had very different fill content than the pit houses. It almost seemed that people avoided dumping in the granaries. There could be several reasons for that but I wondered how storage vs pit houses plotted."
It is nice? WTH? I realize that the chronometric data from FFR did indicate that most of the site was probably occupied at the same time, but, by Joel's own admission, these data were pretty problematic for a number of reasons. I have generated an independent corroboration of his results, and he tells me that "it is nice"?
I realize that the paper isn't some sort of mind blowing research, but to me, the mound phenomenon is the most important research topic in Fremont archaeology. These aggregates represent a total change in trajectory for the Fremont. If not everyone is convinced that the occupations were large (and according to Jim Allison, they aren't), then we have a real problem.
This is my biggest critique of BYU's graduate program. The grad students are treated as idiots who aren't capable of contributing. As long as they're treated as such, they really won't contribute anything other than maybe a crappy thesis. Some (looking at Yoder here) are able to rise above the oppression, but I thought my ideas weren't good for a long time. Turns out they were good, and I was just being dismissed because of my position.
For those of you still suffering, let me tell you that there's a whole other world out there. There's a place where prominent researchers treat you like a junior peer, and not like some member of their scout troop. There's a place where you are encouraged to publish your work, a place where you can learn and be respected.
Don't let the man get you down.
El Che Vive!
Anyway, I'd like to get some feedback on the paper sometime. Maybe Joel is right, but I don't think he is...
4 comments:
You know, in hindsight, this is a pretty bitter rant even by my standards...
Although parts of it ring quite true. I thought the paper was well written and from my admittedly limited knowledge of statics seemed to make sense. I agree that the issue of aggregation at these Fremont “mega sites” is key to really understanding the Fremont period. I think the U guys really have it wrong here. I think this comes in part because of BYU’s experience with these sites. They dug 5 Finger and have PVAP sitting on the second floor. I think the evidence is definitely in our corner. Good job in providing collaborating evidence.
Chris, I don't know if it is such a rant. I saw the pain you went through having to mold your thesis around the preferences of said committee member. It seems more to me that there is a bit of "data possessiveness" going on. Props to your efforts. I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Get it published in Utah Arch. and blow off the critics!
Post a Comment