HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Hannah Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:36:57 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2