Expecting detailed classification by time period is not realistic for probably the majority of newly discovered archaeological sites (and many of the older under-investigated ones) that have not seen an intensive level of testing. That's why site forms make a simple, basic distinction between pre-Contact / post-Contact or pre-Colonial / post-Colonial, or in the more 'archaic' form, prehistoric or historic. It is a purely *functional* distinction that informs future investigators to some degree what they are dealing with regard to a particular resource and often how to approach it for further investigation. You can almost never immediately identify whether a lithic scatter is Paleo or Late Woodland...but you can say with relative certainty that it ain't an early 20th Century Industrial site.
I don't know what cultural resource professional thought they were 'constrained' by site form terminology in developing a display for public presentation, but any failing there is completely on them--not the site form. As I said, careful consideration is entirely appropriate in public or professional delivery. When it comes to finding the 'right' term for a simple distinction between site types based on whether or not they contain European derived technology, the posturing starts to get real silly, real fast.
The Tribes we work with out here in Connecticut have expressed displeasure with 'historic' vs 'prehistoric', as apparently they have in Utah. They are not wrong, and as major stakeholders in archaeological research their views should not be disregarded. As this chain of discussion has just reaffirmed, however, there is no universally satisfactory alternative. Nor should one be expected. Language is constantly being renegotiated. Site forms are designed to be simple and functional. They can't be revised to suit the latest jargon every couple years or even the professionals are going to get confused.
C. Scott Speal
National Register Specialist, Archaeology
Office of Environmental Planning
Connecticut Department of Transportation
2800 Berlin Turnpike
Newington, CT 06131
Phone: 860-594-2918
Fax: 860-594-3028
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Steen
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
I have to agree Jim. Here in SC it is common practice to divide time and culture into Paleo, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian and Historic, and to give a specific date for the beginning and end of each "period,"
ignoring cultural differences that can persist for hundreds of years.
(Did everyone practicing Late Woodland lifeways really up and leave when the Mississippian Period began about 1000BP? If so, where'd they go?).
That is one reason I suggested avoiding bias by using time periods.
On 3/22/2018 1:25 PM, Jim Gibb wrote:
> Yea, Scott: I have to take exception to your suggestion. I've been using Maryland's state site files for several research projects lately and can confirm that how these data are structured constrains research. This isn't about being politically correct.
> The state had a permanent exhibit in which prehistory was on one side of the room and history on the other side of the passageway that divided the room. In the passageway they had a glass case with 'Contact' material in a laudable, but unsuccessful attempt to bridge the divide. One of the implicit statements taken away from the exhibit is that Indians were here, but they disappeared during the early years of European colonization, never to return. Since then, Maryland has granted recognition to several indigenous groups, a result of petitioning and lobbying, not of exhibit design.
> It is a given in anthropology that the words we use structure our views of the world. Site forms are so basic to structuring the views of generations of archaeologists, they should be periodically critiqued and revised.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Gibb
> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
> Annapolis, MD
> [log in to unmask]
> 410.693.3847
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Speal, Charles S <[log in to unmask]>
> To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 12:57 pm
> Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> On the other hand, if all you are doing is modernizing the State site form, it's probably not necessary to navel-gaze yourself into oblivion. At the end of the day what I imagine you are looking for is an effective check box that adequately classifies a newly identified resource on the basis of what may be a minimal amount of available diagnostic information--without being blatantly offensive.
>
> You can probably leave the bulk of the pc term-chasing to those publishing their grand inferences.
>
> Scott S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Hannah Russell
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> Good Morning HistArch community,
>
> Over the past year in Utah, we have been working with a new site form (see link below). One of the new features on the site form is a new site class. The state has added "Protohistoric" to "Prehistoric" and "Historic". For a lot of reasons, this addition is pretty exciting, the state has acknowledged on the site form the false duality of "prehistory"
> and "history". That's an awesome step towards better inclusivity in the archaeological record, and a more holistic way to talk about the historical
> experiences of Indigenous peoples! As the site form and manual are
> written however, the use of the word is incorrect. The manual defines prehistoric as Native American sites prior to 1800, Protohistoric as 1800-1900, and historic as non-native groups after 1800.
>
> These time frames, and the use of protohistry can and should be improved on our new form. At the consultants meetings for the last two years, we've been told that there is room to make changes on the form. I've brought this issue up at both of those meetings and have been told that the task force to create and improve the site form haven't found a better alternative word to protohistory.
>
> I've been invited to the next site form task force meeting to discuss this issue further, and I'd like to workshop some ideas with the histarch group. Personally, when I write and talk about the early and sustained interactions between Indigenous and Euro-Americans in the archaeological record, I use multiple terms together including protohistory, contact, and historical Indigenous. When talking about this issue with a friend, she suggested contact period as an alternative to protohistory. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Or for that matter suggested reading?
>
> https://heritage.utah.gov/history/archaeology-site-form-release
>
> Thanks so much for your time,
>
> --
> Hannah Russell, RPA
> Cottonwood Archaeology, LLC
> [log in to unmask]
> (435) 210-0414
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTAR
> CH&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTAR
> CH&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTAR
> CH&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
|
