Though this was technically a Grad level class it was combined with the general intro to GIS undergrad class, so it was incredibly easy (I'm talking about major assignments consisteing of one 2-3 page paper). But, it was very useful, especially since I don't learn well from just exploring computer programs on my own. Basically, we just completed the ESRI on-line lessons to learn how to push the buttons while we did one extensive project broken into a dozen little pieces to learn the applications. Finally, for the Grad students, we came up with an idea of how to use GIS in conjunction with our thesis. Originally, I wanted to show the distribution of gamming pieces over the Paragonah site, but it would have taken way too long to prep all the data, so I ended up showing the distribution of gamming pieces over the Fremont area.
I took one credit of readings simply so I could get my student loan, but it was extreemly helpful towards my thesis. I read the abundant (sarcasm) liturature on Fremont worked bone, mostly consisting of site summaries. There were a few other more helpful pieces including, of course, the Clear Creek Report. I ended up getitng into areas outside of the Fremont as well. The worked bone section of "The Durango South Project" (APUA No.34) was interesting because John Gooding attenpted to analyze worked bone (esp. awls) using functional characteristics rather than simply morphological attributes. I also actually started on the PVAP worked bone analysis, which has been challenging, but very useful, since I have to identify the element (faunal analysis is a major weekness of mine) as well as any modification/wear.
I was the sole TA (though I had much needed help from Aaron, Brad, and Jenny) for the Field School Lab class. This was most useful for comedic relief in my otherwise busy life. I think my favorite story about the students was the follwoing: One student (Let's call him, M) made a comment about how few scales we had and another (let's call him, D) replied, "Oh, you don't really need to use one. What you do is at the beginning of the day you weight one sherd and then use that one to help you estimate on the rest that you do." The best part is that this converstion was held right infront of Dr. Allsion! Through the grapevine I also heard that D found out that M (who was working with sherds from the same site as D) finished analysis and had found 100% greyware with sand temper, so D decided his must all be greyware with sand temper as well...he finnished his analysis really quickly after that.
Finally, I finished by Great Basin Seminar paper (on Fremont Architecture in the Utah Valley...basically reporting the uncommon structrures as Jay's Place) at least to get a grade. I'm sure it'll need a few more drafts before publication, but it's nice to be at a good resting point.
3 comments:
Both of these papers sound really interesting. What were your findings, and what methods did you use to look at distribution?
If you don't want to get into it, you can just email me the papers.
I would also be interested to hear about those topics Molly, especially the architecture one.
As to the field school kids doing analysis, I've always wondered how different final results would be if professionals instead of undergrads did artifact analysis. Kinda makes you worry about every fieldschool report you've ever read.
Lane once told me that he was going to re-analyze the entire Escalante ceramic assemblage before the occasional paper is published.
Post a Comment