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...