Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:02:33 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Cremated remains are harder to record as an archaeological site than a pile
of flakes. Back about 25 years ago, I surveyed a 1920s adobe church built on
the prehistoric village of Cupa in San Diego County. Artifacts along the
ridge included 1840s-1860s English transfer-print sherds, aqua glass, and
lots of "toasty" bone fragments. Having been taught physical anthropology by
the late Spencer Rogers,, I had a healthy dose of forensic study of cremated
human remains and instantly recognized the scatter as cremated human material
(a zygomatic here, a patella there..). The bone material spread a greater
distance beyond the adobe historic scatter, but when I submitted papers to
record the site, the Information Center technician refused to accept the bone
material as evidence and the site narrowed down to the historic artifact
boundary. Since the entire property was under my control as staff
archaeologist for the County of San Diego at that time, I placed a dedicated
open space easement that protected the bones even though the cretin at the
Information Center refused to record the total extent of the site. Funny how
people are about bones.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
|
|