Does anyone remember talking about putting together an online projectile point database for North America? Well, I think I may have figured out a way to do it without much trouble.
Wikipedia provides for small semi-independent, more insular communities called Wikia. We could pretty easily set up one of these and start putting up the Great Basin points that we know. Once it gets going, I think we then write an article about it in Lithic Technology and email a bunch of people to get involved.
An open source project like this would be really cool, especially if we could categorize the points in a number of different ways to help people check points they may not know. We could also set up a section to post "mystery points" for others to check out and see if they can identify.
What does everyone think?
10 comments:
I think that'd be really useful
I have already made some highly detailed drawings of points that we could start with. Its a drawing technique that merges layers of cast light photos from different angles in Photoshop. This way you can draft the facets quite easily and accurately.
Sweet technology, Scott. Combine it with the wisdom of an online database for wide spread distribution and I'd say you guys have got a really great idea.
Not to get all anti-altruistic, but how could you market this... Ish, I feel guilty for even going there, but there it is. My parents were right, I should have gone into accounting.
Our personal gain from something like this would be that as the administrators, we would be entitled to write articles about it.
For example, after the initial setup, we would write an article in lithic technology essentially advertising it and outlining the issues.
The nicest thing about an open source project is that we don't have to do all the work. Local researchers who are intimately familiar with the point types and toolstone sources write and modify the articles. Making it subscription or something would require us to do all of that work. I don't know about the rest of you, but I just don't have the time.
sounds good.
I like it and think that's a great idea. My only question would be how do you envision solving the inevitable problem of people disagreeing on types. If you get a lot of people to contribute (which is one of the goals I would guess), some folks, even professional types, are going to disagree over how to classify certain points. Do you have THE expert in lithics in some broad geographic area check in on what's being posted every once and awhile? Maybe they could assign a stamp of approval or include a "?" by points they feel aren’t typed just right. I don't know... but maybe something to think about. I just think of all the debates I have heard as veteran archaeologists stand around looking at the same point and saying "Oh, that's a Watkins basal-notched", "I don't know, looks more like a Raymond Al-Uzzah to me."
Again, great idea. Just trying to think of how to work out any kinks.
That's a really good point Dave. I think that another advantage to an open source database would be the ability to include a variety of perspectives in type definitions. If there is disagreement, all perspectives could be included in the entry. Users could then decide exactly what they wanted to go with.
I actually applied for Wikia space over the weekend. I'll let everyone know if we get approved.
I can't believe I haven't commented on this before now. Sorry.
I agree with Dave, I think that we will have some difficulty with disagreement. Especially in the Eastern and Western GB.
Dave said: "Do you have THE expert in lithics in some broad geographic area check in on what's being posted every once and awhile?"
I would suggest that you ask Rick Holmer and/or Dave Thomas to consult. They seem to be the experts in this area.
Also, we need to be aware of the problem of re-working. Did a point start out as a Parowan Basal Notch and evolve into a Cotton Wood Triangular?
Anyway, I think that the open forum environment will sort out some of these disagreements.
All in all, a good idea.
OK, I've been mulling this one over for a few days now. I think it would be an excellent forum for identification. I know when I was first learning from you guys about typologies and characteristics of points, I got so frustrated at the lack of continuity. I don't just mean on a local level, but macroregional studies of points. A database would inevitibly create debate, and that should be encouraged, but would Wikia provide space for graphics, data tables, etc.? It would be excellent if we could set it up where there were cells that would be completed by contributers that are uniform, that way there would be no confusion on what should be included in a description of a point. For example, name, locations found, alternate names and locations, pictures/drawings, physical descriptions, etc. I've always thought it would be great to publish a volume on some type of encyclopedia of point types, but have always been told that it would cause an emense amount of backlash by other archaeologists. Thanks Chris for moving ahead and getting the space!
Wikia is a no go. Here is their email response:
Thank you for your wiki request.
There is already an existing wiki on archaeology at
http://archaeology.wikia.com where you are welcome to add the content
you proposed. The wiki is not very active, so you there should be no
problem with adding a points section to this site.
If you need admin access to that wiki, just let me know.
If you need any help with editing that wiki, please see the tutorial
at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Tutorial or contact our community
support team by email at community@wikia.com.
Regards,
Angela
There is a reason their archaeology Wiki has nothing on it, all the articles on archaeology are on Wikipedia!! There is no archaeological community succinct enough to get behind an entity that general.
I'm going to resubmit to Wikia explaining this, and will also apply to other Wiki hosts. Kind of a bummer...
Post a Comment