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=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
|
