So, You Want to be an Archaeologist...

I have, since starting this blog, received several emails from people asking how they can become archaeologists, or what to expect if they enter the field as professionals. It dawned on me that it would be useful to write up what I tell people so that I could just refer people here, and also it might let a few of the regular readers in on what professional archaeologists really do.

So, if you want to be an archaeologist, here's what you should probably know:


You Could've Been a Lawyer...or a CEO

One thing that I would say to would-be archaeologists is simply that they will spend alot of time training that could be spent pursuing better-paying careers. Now, this is not to dissuade these folks from getting into archaeology - I'm here, I spent the time and enjoy my career, so I definitely think that it's worth it - but the impression that I get from many people is that they think of archaeology as a field that can be easily entered, perhaps as a hobby, and it really isn't*.

A field technician is the "grunt worker" of archaeology (truth be told, they have to be intelligent and hard working, so they're hardly grunts, but this is often how they characterize themselves). Field technicians are responsible for carrying out the basic field tasks (walking survey transects, excavating units, screening dirt), as well as maintaining their own records for the project. Although some companies (and some projects) will allow field technicians who do not have a degree, you should expect that any field technician position will require a bachelors degree as well as field experience (at minimum a field school). Also, be aware that if you do an academic-oriented field school, you may not have gained the skills necessary to do CRM (cultural resource management) archaeology (consulting work and field/lab work geared towards keeping land developers in line with historic and archaeological preservation regulations), which is where the jobs are. Most field technicians work on a project-by-project basis, meaning that they should expect very little job stability, and you have to have a fair amount of experience before you should expect either a full-time job or a large number of employers keeping you busy as if you had a full-time job.

From field technician, you can work your way up to crew chief or field supervisor. On occasion, someone with only a bachelors degree and extensive experience will move up to field director or project manager. However, these jobs typically require someone with a Masters degree or a PhD (there are regulatory reasons for this, so it isn't just snobbishness). So, if you want stable, career-oriented employment in archaeology, you need to go to graduate school.

Myself, I attended a community college for two years, then transferred to the University of California, where I finished my BA. I then went to another University of California campus to get my MA. In between, I attended a field school and took other field and lab classes at Cabrillo College in Aptos, CA. All told, I was in college or graduate school for approximately nine years in order to get the credentials that I need for my job. Depending on the program that one attends, this could conceivably be done in six-to-seven years (I attended a research-oriented graduate school, so my MA thesis was a very different affair from those who attend CRM-oriented graduate schools). If you are an MA student, then there is not much funding available for you, so you should expect to take whatever jobs you can find while you attend school. Basically, don't expect to have a life outside of school and work.

This is comparable to (and very often exceeds) the education burdens on someone who is earning a law degree or an MBA. However, archaeologists should expect to make significantly less money than someone with a JD or MBA. So, bear that in mind while you rack up student loans.

You may have noticed that I focused here on CRM archaeologists and didn't talk much about becoming a professor. There's a reason for that...

Academics? Meet Consulting?

Although an increasingly large number of university anthropology programs are recognizing the necessity of CRM education, most remain academically-oriented. And by academically-oriented, I do not mean that they are geared towards education (though they are, and that is certainly appropriate), but rather that the majority of university programs are geared towards archaeology as a research discipline rather than an applied discipline, and many professors like to cast aspersions upon CRM (interestingly, the professors that I have met who are most likely to do this are the ones who are least likely to have had any CRM experience, and they are typically very much mistaken in their beliefs regarding CRM.

This is a problem because the vast majority of archaeologists in North America are CRM rather than academic archaeologists. Surveys of the field performed in 2009 indicate that at least 85% (and maybe more) of all archaeologists in the United States work in CRM, either for private companies or for government regulatory agencies. So, CRM is where the jobs are, and it's growing (that 85% includes an increase in numbers from a previous 2001 survey). By contrast, when last I checked (which was admittedly a few years ago, though there's little reason to think that matters have improved), there were 10 PhDs granted every year per academic job opening in archaeology. So, the odds are severely stacked against someone who wants to go into academics, and the number of unemployed PhDs that I know is truly staggering.

So, if you decide on a career in archaeology, expect to do CRM work, and don't plan on going into academics. What this means in practical terms is that the aspiring archaeology needs to learn more than just archaeological theory and practice. Someone wanting to become an archaeologist should study laws and regulations (Tom King's is a good place to start, but should not be where you stop), the standard phased approach to regulatory compliance (I recommend Neumann and Sanford's excellent books), and business skills including basic human resource management, budgeting, and project tracking.

Also, if you wish to become an archaeologist, avoid getting the "high and mighty" attitude that I have seen many people take with them out of the university. Talking down to construction workers and Native American representatives is a great way to not get hired for another project.

You'll Use That Shovel More Than That Trowel

Every time I bring a new person into the field, they are surprised at the methods that we employ. Owing to the way that archaeology is typically portrayed int he media (including portrayals by archaeologists), there is a perception that we always dig slowly using a trowel and a brush and nothing else.

You can imagine how surprised a newbie is when they see me pull out a shovel and a dig bar. And you should see the looks on their faces when backhoes show up.

The reality is that the tools that we use are diverse, and vary depending on a number of conditions. If we are digging a site with a lot of features that are identifiable only by subtle soil changes, then we may very well dig with a trowel and a brush. If you are excavating human remains, you'll use tools even more gentle than the trowel. By contrast, if you are excavating a shell midden that lacks any clearly identifiable strata and is located on a sand dune, you are going to use a shovel. And if you are digging a light density flaked stone scatter in dense clay, you are going to pound it with a dig bar. And there are even situations that call for excavation by heavy equipment.

Although there will be a few people who assume that this is the "destructive excavation" of CRM work, each of these tools is also found in the tool rooms of university anthropology departments. We use the tool that is necessary, which sometimes means slow, careful peeling back of soils...and sometimes means pounding the shit out of dense clay so that you can actually find the buried archaeological materials.

How Do You Feel About Hiking?

Another thing that you should probably know about actual archaeology is that we don't dig as much as people think. And I don't mean that our field season is limited, or anything like that. I means that the majority of the projects on which we work are geared towards finding out where the sites are, rather than digging them up. Although this has long been true of CRM, it is also often true of academic archaeology.

The way that we determine the locations of sites is by performing surveys. We hike over a given area looking for evidence of archaeological sites. Survey methodology varies from place to place, due in large part to local geomorphic conditions. In California, we typically do surface pedestrian surveys - in most parts of California, if a site is present, there will be some evidence of it on the surface. Where we think that may not be the case, we will recommend buried site testing (where auger bores, backhoe excavation, or some other method is used to look under the surface). In other parts of the U.S., survey involves digging holes with a shovel at regular intervals looking for evidence of buried archaeological materials. While this method does involve digging, it should be noted that they are digging to look for sites, rather than digging within sites.

Get to Know Your Relevant Disciplines

In addition to the need to learn about business and regulations, you should also make sure that you either know your flora and fauna, or build up a library for looking things up. Most archaeological site records include information regarding local plants and animals, and it is also wise to get some training in how to use local historical archives (local historical society libraries, county assessor's records, library map and genealogy rooms, etc.). Again, academics will generally not train you to do this sort of work, but it is vital for a career in archaeology.

An Adventure in Paperwork

Another aspect of archaeology that tends to surprise people is that there is a lot of paperwork.  Really, just a metric shit-ton of it.Get used to it.

On any given project, my paperwork consists of, at minimum, my field notes (kept in my personal notebook) and a daily work record (a form used specifically by my company, though many other companies have equivalent forms). I keep track of essentially the same things on both documents: where I am working, who is present, weather conditions, type of work, complications to doing work, anticipated and actual rate of work, and so on. I keep the notes because, after our forms have been put into cold storage, I will often be asked questions regarding something (especially if there is a complaint from a client or former employee, or if we find ourselves having to argue with a regulator or community group), and having my own notes is useful in order to save time. These notes also provide me a place to track information that is relevant to my job, but not appropriate to turn over to the client (for example: internal disputes between employees, musings on the nature of archaeological materials that are not directly relevant to the project, etc.).

Now, that's the bare minimum that I do. If I am performing survey, then I also fill out a survey form, which details the project area, where we surveyed,  transect spacing, ground visibility, etc. If I am excavating a site, then each excavation unit will have a form or series of forms detailing depth of excavation, tools used, soils encountered, materials identified, etc. etc. If I am doing site condition assessments, then I will have forms related to that. If we are collecting artifact,s soils samples, or anything else, then there are forms for that as well. And when you get to the lab, you have forms detailing your lab work and the chain-of-custody of items.

And that is just talking about forms that vary from company to company. Every employer for which I have worked has required a photo log for all pictures taken, and if you are recording archaeological sites, you will have to fill out the appropriate forms (which vary from state to state).

Then of course, there's the basic administrative paperwork that you have to handle. If you're a field technician, get used to filling out time cards and expense reports. If you are a supervisor, you do the same, PLUS you review your crew's time cards and expense reports. If you are a project manager, you have all of this, plus you may have regular progress reports and budgeting paperwork.

If I am on a project for more than a week, it is not uncommon for me to return from the field with a binder (or multiple binders) filled with forms and records.

Is it Worth It?

This is, of course, subjective. I have seen people burn out quickly, and decide to go back to school to become lawyers, or take a job in the administration of a local tech company, etc. etc. etc. So, for them, it wasn't worth it.

For me, it has been worth it. For all of the frustrations that I have experienced, and I have had some severe frustrations, I have been fairly happy with my career choice. I have been able to go to some amazing places and see some wonderful things, and meet some interesting people. And if I sometimes spend too much time in a shithole, well, that's the trade off for the good times. While I don't get paid as well as my friends who work in the tech industry, I don't have the stability of the friends and family who have gone into law, and my life isn't as adventurous as a friend of mine who travels Africa doing rather important agricultural work, it still suits me rather well, and I enjoy my job more often than not.

But this line of work is not for everyone. I does have a low financial payoff, a lot of stresses, frequent instability (depending on the construction industry's activities), and a lot of areas of conflict. But every career has its downsides, and the upsides are sufficient to keep me satisfied.


*There is, of course, and exception to this. There are volunteer archaeology programs that will teach people how to perform basic fieldwork, and there are programs that allow people to pay archaeologists to accompany them on projects. These are of variable quality, and they can be an entry-point into archaeology, but none of them will carry you very far in and of themselves.

...and why are we in this handbasket?

Although I missed last month, I am participating in the final month of Doug's Archaeology's blog carnival. And, if you have not yet gone to Doug's archaeology, click this link here and go there immediately.


As per Doug's instruction: "The last question is where are you/we going with blogging or would you it like to go?"


I am really not sure about how to answer this question.


As I noted in an earlier post, I began my blog for multiple reasons, including the desire to tell stories about what archaeology is like, as well as to educate readers regarding various aspects of archaeology. In the years since then, the blog has served these purposes, and has also served as a platform for me to spout off about whatever topic is bothering me or things that I think are cool.


In the last year and a half, I have written very little, owing to work and family obligations. And in that time I have considered the question of whether or not I will continue blogging, and, if I do, what my goals will be.


I would like to continue, but I don't know how realistic that is. As my daughter gets older, she will require less constant one-on-one attention, which may free up some of my time. However, I am taking on more and more responsibilities at work, which take up more of my time. So, in the end, I don't know if I will have time to return to blogging on a regular basis. I hope to, but I don't know if I will.


If I do return, however, I would like to do three things:


1. Interact more with other archaeology bloggers. I feel as if I tended to be isolated, typing away in my own little corner of the internet with no real connection to other bloggers. But, of course, it doesn't have to be this way, and I can engage in various types of social blog activity (more blog carnivals, link-swaps, guest posts, etc.).


2. Focus. As my regular readers know, I tend to have a scattershot approach to blogging, writing about whatever odd thing happens to strike me as interesting at any given point in time. However, I would like to focus more on archaeology in general and CRM in particular. I would especially like to find ways to discuss CRM laws and regulations that move away from dry descriptions and gets into more entertaining narratives.


3. Enjoy my writing. I often enjoyed writing blog entries, but it was also sometimes stressful. For some time, I put a lot of pressure on myself to post three entries a week, and this meant that I frequently sweated as I tried to come up with things to write about. I would like to find that happy medium by which I can write routinely, but be comfortable on those occasions when I don't have anything about which to write.



I would also like to see the archaeology blogger community do two things:


1. Become a resource for the media. When the media want to speak with an archaeologist, they contact the local museum or university, and as such always get the perspective of tenured (or occasionally post-doc) academic archaeologists. The archaeological blogging community, however, contains undergraduate and graduate students, CRM archaeologists, faculty and museum staff, agency archaeologists, and field technicians. We're a much more representative sample of archaeology, and if we make ourselves well known, we can provide more and different perspectives to the media.


2. On a related note - provide an archaeological perspective on events. Earlier this week, the IPCC released it's report on global climate change, with a focus on adaptation. This has, understandably, generated a lot of media interest in how humans can adapt and maintain our current industrial civilization, and has also brought in those who are certain that our civilization will collapse. Archaeologists have a unique perspective regarding how humans have adapted to climatic and social changes, and we can help people understand what is going to happen (for example, my own grad school research into Native Californian adaptations to environmental change makes me think that we aren't staring down a Mad Max future if we don't deal successfully with the climate, but probably a reorganization of people at a more local level - but someone who specializes in Mayan archaeology might read this situation a different way).


There are many stories surrounding issues of ecology, politics, and society that could benefit from the perspective of archaeologists. Blogs are one of the many places where we can provide that perspective.



So, there you go, that's where I would like to see us headed.

My Greatest Hits

So, Doug's Archaeology has a new question up for January: What are your best blog entries?

My two most popular, in terms of page views, are Ancient Aliens - The Test! and Glenn Beck's Pseudo-Archaeology, Part 1.

The Glenn Beck entry is one of three parts, and is basically a by-the-numbers explanation of a pseudoarchaeological claim. I enjoyed writing it, but it's not one that really sticks out in my memory. The Ancient Aliens entry is more of my typical sarcasm-mixed-with-Socratic-Method type of writing, and I quite enjoyed it. That being said, neither of these are my personal favorite entries.

I have edited this to mention that the most popular entries among my circle of friends include an ethnography of assless chaps, and one discussing the use of cats to generate electricity. While I very much enjoyed writing these, they are not my favorite entries.

No, my personal favorites, or which I personally consider the best, I would say that those would be my Wild and Wacky Forest Adventure entries, which are here  and here  (incidentally, these are photos from the project area). These aren't necessarily the best written, and as can be seen, I was still getting the hang of formatting my entries when I posted the first one.

Nonetheless, I love these entries for two reasons. The first is that the events detailed within them are a large part of the reason why I started this blog. As I was going through these rather odd series of events, I kept thinking to myself "if only people knew that this is what archaeology is really like." So, I created the blog, and began writing these entries. The discussion of archaeology is largely missing in these entries, and that is because the project was not all that interesting from an archaeological standpoint. It was a fairly standard survey with exactly the sorts of results that one would expect given the project area. But the various weird-ass events that accompanied fieldwork were memorable, and are the sorts of things that typically don't get discussed with the public or with aspiring archaeologists.

You may have noticed that these are not the first entries on my blog. The reason for this is that other things sometimes seemed more pressing, and I often would go with something that was easier to write rather than the thing that I actually wanted to write. However, I kept text files with the nascent versions of these entries on my computer for several years.

One of the ironies of these entries is that, despite the events described in them being the impetus for me starting this blog, I have yet to complete the story. There is so much more to tell about that project, from the various personnel that I had on the project (and their often unsanitary or eccentric habits), to the weird people that we encountered in the forest, to the freak weather conditions, to the bizarre public relations issues surrounding it. If I continue to keep a blog, and increase my output at some point, I will have more to say about it.

But there you have it - my personal favorite entries are the ones that have little to do with archaeology and everything to do with the strangeness of field work.

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Once again, I am writing in response to Doug's Archaeology monthly blog carnival. The theme this time around is "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." So, without further ado, let's begin.

As usual, I will respond to Doug's questions:

The Good- what has been good about blogging. I know some people in their ‘why blogging’ posts mentioned creating networks and getting asked to talk on a subject. But take this to the next level, anything and everything positive about blogging, share your stories. You could even share what you hope blogging will do for you in the future.

The good is pretty simple: I tend to get positive feedback from people who are interested, and,w hen I was writing regularly, I had a number of regular readers who would post interesting comments and questions. Also, an added good, based on comments and emails that I have received int eh last couple of weeks, many of those readers are still around.

Also, it has been common for me to receive feedback providing information of which I had been unaware when I began writing on a topic. For example, when I wrote a post about the origins of acorn consumption, a reader who lived int eh southeastern portion of north America posted a comment letting me know about a species of oak in their neck of the woods that doesn't require the extensive processing for the acorn to become edible. This was a species of which I had been unaware (being based in California), but learning of it provided a bit more information regarding this food than I had previously possessed, which was very nice.

The Bad- lots of people mention it feels like talking to brick wall sometimes when you blog. No one comments on posts or very few people do. What are your disappointments with blogging? What are your frustrations? What do you hate about blogging? What would you like to see changed about blogging?

While I have had some regular readers who posted comments, and whose comments I enjoyed reading, there is significantly less feedback than I would have liked. This is, it seems, a function of the venue in which I write. there are thousands upon thousands of blogs, and I feel myself lucky to have gotten the number of readers that I have....but just as I rarely comment on the blogs that I read, my readers often don't comment here. On the one hand, this is fine, as I also like to read blogs but don't necessarily write back to the bloggers. On the other hand, it does make me wonder who is reading my posts, and what they make of them.

But, again, going back to the "good" - those comments I do get tend to be either of high quality, or complimentary, or both, and for that I am grateful

Getting away from the comments, there is another "bad" that I would like to mention, though it is one that is understandable, and unavoidable.  Because I work in cultural resources management (aka heritage management, aka contract archaeology aka environmental consulting archaeology aka etc. etc. etc.), all of the material I produce for a project, including field notes and photographs, are the property of my clients. While I doubt that many would care if I used photographs or information from the notes in blog entries, I am barred from doing so without permission - and very few of my clients are inclined to take the time to answer questions regarding whether or not I can use their materials in blog entries.  So, while I don't think it would be a problem, I never get an answer, and that makes it a bit more difficult to get material for entries.

The Ugly- I know Chris at RAS will mention the time he got fired for blogging about archaeology. It is your worst experiences with blogging- trolls, getting fired, etc.

I have, on the whole, been pretty lucky in this regard. I have had very few truly negative experiences, and almost no negative comments on my posts that are specifically about archaeology. However, I do occasionally get rather ugly feedback regarding some of my other posts.

For example, back in 2008, when I wrote about Proposition 8 here in California, the proposition that outlawed same-sex marriage in this state, a commentor began to respond in a way that was, rather clearly, just them trying to justify their own bigotries. The point they made that most stuck with me was that, if someone who is opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons is required to treat a homosexual couple as legally married, then this is, in their words "the tyranny of the masses" - though it never seemed to occur to them that the same couple having their rights withheld because of another persons completely arbitrary beliefs is an even bigger imposition on the people having their rights withheld, and therefore, could very definitely be considered "tyranny of the masses" in a much stronger and more meaningful sense. The same commentor would routinely write comments insisting that anyone who was not religious was a "moral free agent" incapable of actually having any sort of moral center.

The odd thing is that this person apparently knew me off-line, but because they commented under a pseudonym, I have no idea who they are.

Still, compared to what other bloggers have dealt with, this isn't all that bad, and I have been pretty fortunate.

The Ehhh...huh?

Although not part of Doug's question, there is one other element that I want to touch on briefly, and this is the stuff that's not really good or bad...just kind of there. I have consistently found these things amusing, but have never considered them to be either a boon or a curse. Unfortunately, after I read what I was sent, I didn't keep the links to these things, so I can't point you in their direction. I wish I had done so, as I did enjoy reading them, and writing this section made me want to go back and look again.

From time to time over the last five or so years is that I have discovered that individual blog entries have become...well, "popular" isn't the word, so much as "well known" in certain online communities, and often with bizarre and hilarious results.

The first time that this occurred, to the best of my knowledge, was when I wrote on the diets and overall health of prehistoric populations. I had tried to provide a decent overview of what we can determine regarding hunter-gatherer diets and health from the archaeological and ethnographic records, as well as discuss how variable diet and health can be across time and geography. A friend of mine sent me an email with a link to a website where some would-be new-age "teacher" was holding up my entry as an example of why lay-people shouldn't write about the human past. This person claimed to have "taught hunting and gathering" for ten years, and "know for a fact that hunters and gatherers are healthier, have longer life spans, and taller stature" than "modern people"...which would certainly be news to most hunter-gatherers. I wasn't sure which was more entertaining, that this lay person was trying to take me to task for being a lay-person, that they were so astoundingly factually wrong while insisting that they were wise and knowledgeable, or that they seemed to think that "teaching hunting-gathering" was a good career choice.

Another occasion saw someone at the Graham Hancock forums taking exception to me characterizing Graham Hancock as a bullshitter..you know, which he is. Anyway, a few people on that forum took issue with me and discussed my dubious parentage, and apparently one of my readers pokes around on the forum enough that they spotted it and sent it to me, providing me with an hour or so of enjoyment. I have always figured that, if people who are fooled by Hancock and his ilk dislike me, I must be doing something right.

And the last one of these occasions was when another blogger decided that they disliked this entry.  They produced an entry on their own blog demonstrating that clearly I was ignorant of biblical history, and clearly an atheist (which is true, and also irrelevant), and obviously I was just out to destroy people's faith. It was quite the screed.



Anyway, so there's that entry. I hope to, again, take part int he blog carnival next month, but we will see.

Why?

Those two or three of you who still check in on this blog on a semi-regular basis are probably wondering why, after months, there is finally a new entry.  This Night of the Living Dead blog action is brought to you by Doug's Archaeology, who has organized a monthly blog carnival in the lead-up to the Society for American Archaeology annual meetings next year.  I will attempt to participate next month, as well.

This month, Doug has asked two questions, which I will attempt to answer, assuming that I can keep my natural blathering tendencies in check.  So, without further ado, the questions:

Why blogging? – Why did you, or if it was a group- the group, start a blog?

This blog did not originally start out as an archaeology blog, per se.  It was, and on those rare occasions when I update it, still remains a blog onto which I post pretty much whatever happens to be bugging me on any given day. Archaeology is a frequent subject simply because I am an archaeologist, and as a result it is often on my mind.

Blogging offered me an opportunity to do a few things:

1) Tell stories: Field work can be wonderful and exciting, but it is, at least as often, stressful and frustrating (at least if you are a supervisor). I realized that I had the opportunity to do a lot of things that other people could not, but I was often so stressed that I wasn't enjoying it. However, I found that even the worst field experience became considerably more tolerable when I realized that it would make a good story later. Blogging gave me an outlet for storytelling any time I needed it, which allowed me to better deal with stress, which, in turn, helped me focus on my job and be a better archaeologist.

2) Vent my spleen: As anyone who reads through my previous entries can see, I am something of a curmudgeon. I can be grumpy, and I am frequently irritated with the nonsense, pseudoscience, and pseudo-intellectual posturing that passes for public discourse on a variety of subjects. Having a place where I could develop my arguments and explain my opinions allowed me to better articulate my position, typically with less venom, when I was face-to-face with someone espousing dubious views. It also forced me to articulate my opinions, which often resulted in me thinking them through more carefully and sometimes changing my mind.

3) Entertain: I never had a huge following, but I did pick up some regular readers who seemed to enjoy what I was writing. Knowing that there were a few people out there who enjoyed my writing was, well, fun. It made the writing exciting. This is why many of my entries were completely humorous.

4) Inform: Archaeology is often misrepresented in the media, even by journalists who are genuinely trying to get it right. I enjoyed using this blog as a forum for trying to better explain issues. This was especially enjoyable with recent potentially pre-Clovis finds, where I found that I got a good deal of positive feedback from people who had been confused as to the nature of the issue and who didn't know who to believe.

I enjoyed blogging, and found that it made me a clearer thinker and better archaeologist.


Why are you still blogging?- or - Why have you stopped blogging? 

I have never formally stopped blogging...I just kind of haven't been doing it.

During the life of the blog, my reasons didn't change so much as shift. The numbered reasons above are in order of their original importance to me. If the original order was 1, 2, 3, 4, by late last year, when I stopped posting regularly, the order had probably changed to 4, 2, 1, 3.

As to why I haven't been posting regularly, well, the biggest reason for that is documented on this very blog. Becoming a father has taken up much of my free time, and what little free time I have left I have generally spent doing things other than writing.

In addition, I don't have quite as great a need to write. I still enjoy entertaining people, and I probably could stand to routinely research and write out my positions on various subjects (I realized recently that I have become a bit of an ideologue on a few issues - while I think that my position is correct and justifiable, I have a hard time understanding the opposing position, and therefore could probably stand to write things out).

However, the need to tell field stories as a way to deal with stress has become less important - I am a more seasoned and confident archaeologist, and no longer need to have quite the same outlet to deal with stress. While this reason for blogging became less important to me, it was nonetheless an impetus to continue writing. I have had a number of field experiences that make for great stories over the last year, but I no longer stress out over them the way that I used to, and as such don't have to re-frame them in my mind in order to maintain productivity.

I do enjoy writing, though, and keep promising myself that I will return to regular blog entries.  I just don't know when.

Trying to Do Something New With It?

It seems that, whenever I encounter someone who is an advocate of some form of pseudo-archaeology, after I have exhaustively pointed out the flaws, inconsistencies, and made-up-shit that goes into their pet hypothesis, I am told something along the lines of "well, at least I (or the person who they are quoting) am trying to do something different with this information!  THAT has value!"

If you are genuinely trying to do something new and innovative with old information, and trying to do it in such a way that you are not engaging in fabricating information, using special pleading to make your case, or in some other way being a dishonest bastard, then yes, trying to do something new has value.

The people who use this as the last-line defense for their pet hypothesis, though?  Well, A) they are almost always just trying to maintain an older, stupid idea ("ancient astronauts," Biblical literalism, etc.) and aren't actually trying anything new, and B) they are pretty much always conflating "trying something new" with playing fast-and-loose with evidence and ignoring anything even vaguely approaching logic or honesty.

If you think I'm being overly harsh, then let's consider the fact that this explanation is pretty much only used in pseudo-science, and is not present in any other realm where people try to arrive at some sort of coherent explanation of events.

For example, in criminal investigations, you would rightfully dismiss someone as a nut if they insisted that a theft was committed by aliens, and then proceeded to "prove" this by making references to out-of-context information from unrelated crimes, pulling bits and pieces of conspiracy beliefs from pop culture, making up "facts", and ignoring relevant information from the actual crime scene.  They would certainly be "doing something new" with the information...but that something new would not only not get you anywhere closer to solving the crime, it would, in fact, move you farther and farther away from the real solution.  A person doing this would be immediately drummed out of the investigation and replaced with someone who was, you know, actually mentally competent.

And yet this same basic procedure - pulling out-of-context information from unrelated sites, pulling "facts" out of pop culture rather than data, making false claims about relevant sites, and often just making shit up - is the norm in pseudo-archaeology, and even people who are not directly involved in it often defend these practices by claiming that the pseudo-scholar is "trying to do something new" with the information.

Often, perhaps typically, implied under all of this is the notion that real archaeologists (or, as the pseudo-archaeologists often label us "establishment archaeologists - booo, hisssss, bad establishment!") aren't trying to find anything new.  Sometimes it is flat out stated - there are many claims from the pseudo scholars that actual scholars are just trying to maintain some sort of "status quo", which reveals the true depth of the ignorance of the pseudo scholars - but at least as often it's just sort of implied, clearly there as an accusation, but covered up enough that the accuser can deny it if called on it.

The truth, however, is that we are working far harder than any of these twits.  We are routinely trying to test and verify our methods and our results (see here for a summarized history of how archaeology has changed, or read this for a more thorough discussion).  I have opened myself up to criticism by my professional colleagues for presenting papers that were not in-line with established models of past cultures, I have also found and publicized artifacts that are out-of-keeping with established cultural chronologies, and I have long supported archaeologists who work on the frontiers of what we think we know (for example, those working on pre-Clovis archaeology in North America).  And I am not alone, some solitary warrior fighting against the "establishment" - every archaeologist that I know who presents papers or publishes their findings does similar things.  Trying to "do something new" is what archaeologists do.

Now, it could be said that we should be better at communicating this to the general public.  That is a valid criticism, and certainly one that I, and others try to address by keeping blogs, giving public lectures, appearing on podcasts, and so on.  Some of us are lucky enough to be able to participate in radio and television, which is where most people get their information.

However, while we might do a better job of communicating our work and our findings, that in no way absolves the pseudo-archaeologists who distort, lie, and obfuscate.  And, if you are someone who is going to  claim that real archaeologists aren't "doing something new" then I offer you a challenge:  When is the last time that you read an issue of National Geographic?  Smithsonian Magazine?  Or looked at professional journals such as American Antiquity?  If you haven't done so lately, then you don't know what archaeologists are up to, and you sound as ignorant as you truly are when you imply that we aren't doing anything, or are simply supporting the "status quo."

So, It's Been a While...

So, it has, indeed, been a while since last I posted an entry on this blog.  The reasons for this are simple - work and family obligations coupled with trying to complete an archaeological research project outside of work have kept me very, very busy.  And after a while, I didn't feel like posting routine posts that simply said that I would be getting back to writing soon when, as it turned out, I have not been able to.

That being said, I do enjoy writing this blog, and there are several topics that I'd like to cover, so I do intend to continuing writing...it just may be a while before I am able to get back to doing it on a regular basis.

In the meantime, I will mention that it looks like the PI on the research project with which I have been involved is getting ready to publish our results, so I will likely have another publication under my belt, soon.  I'll post here when that happens.

I would, in the meantime, like to point all y'all towards the CRM archaeology podcast Random Acts of Science.  Serr Head, of Archy Fantasies, is a panelist on the most recent episode, so it ought to be worth a listen.

Although we make up the vast majority of archaeologist, CRM archaeology is not well-represented in the media, so I support any effort to further our cause.

The Ghost Town of Calico

Just east of Barstow, in the Calico Hills, is a rebuilt old mining town, named Calico.  It is currently operated as a regional park by the County of San Bernardino, but was once a busy silver mining town.

Welcome...TO HISTORY!

The Silver Rush of the late 19th century is less well-known than the Gold Rush of the mid-19th century.  However, the Silver Rush was important in the histories of both Nevada and California (especially southern California).  The town of Calico was founded in 1881 by a group of miners who headed into the local mountains looking for silver.  Within two years, the town had grown to house around 1,200 residents, had 500 mines, and the usual accompaniments of a successful old west town (justice of the peace, post office, hotels, restaurants, numerous brothels, etc.).

Calico...never will you see a more wretched hive of scum and villainy

Before long, Colemanite borate (an ore of Boron that can be purified, and can itself be used for the manufacture of glasses, medicines, cosmetics, as well as for numerous industrial processes).  The town swelled to 3,500 people, with settlers from both Europe and Asia joining the American settlers.

The structures constructed during this time ranged from standard wooden construction, typical of 19th century houses and businesses, to stone structures that integrated the slopes and cliffs into their structure.

And, of course, there was no shortage of mining structures and equipment, including machinery such as a stamp mill.

Remember - it's not an exploitative Hell hole that OSHA would shut down anymore, it's historic!

However, as is so often the story with mining towns, the fall came almost as quickly as the rise.  The Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had the effect of reducing the price of silver.  As the decade wore on, Calico's silver mines became less economically viable, and the town began to depopulate.  By 1898, the post office shut down, followed by the school, and the town was pretty much abandoned by 1900.

In 1915, an attempt was made to recover unclaimed silver from the old mines, using cyanidation (a metallurgical process for the extraction ore using the chemical properties for cyanide).  While this did result in the brief resurgence of silver mining, it did not cause Calico to boom again.

In 1951, Walter Knott, of Knott's Berry Farm, bought Calico and began restoring many of the buildings.  While the purchase of historic buildings by the wealthy is hardly unusual, this was a unique turn in two ways: 1) Walter Knott had, as a young man, been a local homesteader and helped to build the cyanidation facilities, and 2) he turned it into a historic park with restored buildings, repaired or re-built based on old plans and photographs, and donated it to the County of San Bernardino in 1966.  

See, tacky Halloween decorations

While the buildings may have been restored to a close resemblance of their historic grandeur, the town is more tourist attraction than ghost town.  While it does serve to teach a visitor a bit about local history, it also has numerous souvenir shops and chachki stands that don't exactly stand up to historical scrutiny.  Oh, and if you happen to visit in October, as I did, you will witness numerous tacky "spooky" plastic skeletons and ghosts arranged about the place, further removing the historicity of the place.

Nonetheless, if you poke around outside of the central town portion and walk on some of the other paths, you will find the remains of buildings that have not been rebuilt, as well as some that have been rebuilt faithfully in ways that don't romanticize the old west.

The solution to California's high housing costs!

Oh, and if you visit, be sure to check out the cemetery.  It is fascinating both in terms of the tombstones, and of the construction of the graves themselves.  Observe:

Calico Hills, California

So, the new father routine has been keeping me busy and occupying much of the time that I used to use to keep this blog.  However, for now I am away from home and working on projects in the Mojave Desert, based out of Barstow rather than Lancaster, this time.

Contrary to popular opinion, Barstow isn't too bad a place - it's not high on my list of vacation spots, but it is a decent enough place out of which to be based.  It beats the hell out of Taft, at any rate.

We finish our work day a few hours before dark, and so I have been using my late afternoons/early evenings out exploring the area.  Yesterday, I headed out to the Calico Hills, an area of interest to me for a few reasons.

There are claims that the Calico Hills was host to a Ghost Dance movement.  The Ghost Dances were religious movements that had begun amongst the Paiute in Nevada and moved out among Native American groups during the 19th century (the best known being the one that sparked the massacre at Wounded Knee).  They varied considerably from place to place, and were often known by names other than Ghost Dance.  The ritual consisted of an extensive dance, coupled with lifestyle changes towards clean living, which would summon the ancestors (or, in some versions, the spirits worshiped by the ancestors) who would wipe the Europeans and their descendants from the Americas.

Needless to say, as often happens with apocalyptic religious  movements, the members of the Ghost Dance cults were tragically wrong.

I have been unable to confirm whether or not there was a Ghost Dance cult involved in the Calico Hills.  It may very well have, there were groups in the general vicinity who had been influenced by the Ghost Dance, but much of what is readily available about the Calico Hills cult comes from half-wit new age "spiritual investigators" and therefore isn't worth the air that the Wi-Fi on which I read about it penetrates.

The area was heavily mined for silver during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  The town (now ghost town and tourist attraction) of Calico Hills - about which more will be written in a following post - is partially in ruins and has been partially rebuilt.  However, the tunnels for the silver mines are still present, if falling apart, and make for some interesting viewing.

Another interesting aspect of the Calico Hills is the alleged "early man site" - a site that allegedly has artifacts that date to up to 200,000 years old depending on what dates you accept.  Now, I have not handled these alleged artifacts directly, but having seen photos, I am unconvinced.  They do look like they might be artifacts...or they might be geofacts (naturally occurring rocks broken in ways that make them look like artifacts).Given the dearth of any other evidence of humans or pre-human hominids in the Americas prior to 20,000 years ago (the most reliably dated old deposits date to around 12,000 years ago, though that may be beginning to change), and the ambiguous nature of the Calico Hills items, it seems safe to say that they are likely just geofacts.

Many of the supporters of the early man hypothesis like to point out that the legendary Louis Leakey believed these to be genuine artifacts and not geofacts.  However, becoming familiar with the actual work of Louis Leakey (as distinct from the work of his wife Mary or his son, Richard, both of whom have well-earned good reputations among archaeologists and paleoanthropologists) tends to lead one with becoming impressed with his business/fund-raising acumen, and somewhat less impressed with his skills in archaeology.  In fact, Mary Leakey cited his involvement with Calico Hills as being one of the primary causes of her losing respect for him as a researcher, and a contributing factor to the couple separating.

Regardless, the Calico hills have a weird, almost alien, beauty.  And they made for an excellent place to relax and watch the sunset over the playa below and behind the mountains across the valley.

Loose Theory

Archaeologists are notorius for, to paraphrase a T-shirt, stalking other disciplines down dark alleys, whacking them across the head, and then rifling through their pockets for loose theory. 

There is, it should be said, some benefit to archaeology from this behavior.  There are ideas from fields as diverse as physics and literary criticism that have found good employment in the field of archaeology. 

However, there are also many times when this results in bizarre concoctions of intellectual puree that make little sense, but are championed by certain practitioners as if they were the height of human intellectual achievement. 

Back in 1971, the archaeologists Kent Flannery wrote a perceptive and hilarious article titles Archaeology With a Capital "S"  in which he was extremely critical of the tendency of many of the archaeological theorists active at that time to uncritically adopt concepts from physics, mathematics, and biology without thoroughly considering the applicability of these concepts to the archaeological record.  Unfortunately, I can not find an on-line copy to which I could direct you - it is really worth a read.

Flannery's complaint was that the archaeology of the 60s and 70s was filled with sciencey-sounding buzzwords and claims, though he was writing 10 years too early to see how many of the post-modern views of humanity would filter into archaeology and displace many of the sciencey-sounding buzzwords with philosophy-sounding buzzwords.  In both cases, there was good that came from it - the theoretical changes of the 50s through the 70s provided us with a fairly robust model for developing and testing hypotheses, as well as for checking our ideas against the real world, while the post-modern ideas that began filtering in during the 70s and really came to the fore in the 80s provided ways of looking into behavior that wasn't easily quantifiable, as well as providing reminders of our own biases and the subjective nature of our conclusions when dealing with something as convoluted and open to interpretation as human behavior.  There was also a whole lot of pseudo-intellectual posturing that came from it, and more than a few examples of archaeologists mis-applying concepts because they simply did not comprehend them.

For example: one approach to studying changes in material culture is to attempt to find similarities between the way that artifacts types change over time and the ways in which biological entities change over time.  While there are some definite issues to be dealt with (people design tools and can do so relatively quickly, while evolution works through a process of random mutation and decidedly non-random selection over many generations), there is some benefit to employing the concept to try to understand how the physical or social environment might result in the selection of certain tool forms over others by the tool's makers and users.

However, this can become problematic when the archaeologist doesn't understand either evolution, or the difference between biological evolution and choices on the part of toolmakers.  This was thrown into stark relief for me one day, when I was in a theory seminar, and we were discussing this approach.  I commented that one way that the concepts of biological evolution could be applied would be to see which changes survived and became more common amongst tool types, and which only appear on a single or small number of known specimens.  The common tools would indicate either a tool well adapted to a variety of uses or tools adapted to a narrow range of common uses (such as an arrowhead - it only serves one purpose, but that purpose is quite common in the life of a hunter/gatherer, so there's a butt-load of the things lying around archaeological sites); the less common tools would either indicate tools that ultimately didn't work or didn't work as well as others, or else were specialized tools for particular niche tasks that were relatively uncommon.

As soon as I said this, one of the other students stated "well, you're forgetting what any biologist could tell you.  Evolution happens at the level of the individual!"

No.  Any biologist could tell you (and many have told me) that mutation occurs at the level of the individual.  Mutations only feed evolution if they spread throughout the population, meaning that evolution is a generational/population-level phenomenon.  This is relevant to the application of the idea to archaeology in that it provides a loose framework for trying to make sense of the relative frequencies of both different types of tools and different traits of similar tools.  When you assume that evolution=individual change, then you get it backwards and can easily doom yourself into attributing more importance to each individual variation than is warranted.

You see this sort of thing occur with all manner of ideas taken from other fields, however: resistance (from literature and history), identity theory (from history and sociology), carrying capacity models (from biology), etc.  Each of these ideas is useful, to an extent, but tends to be at least somewhat misunderstood by many of its adherents in archaeology, and as a result, tends to get somewhat abused and misused.

This is, it should be said, a bit of a shame, as all of these ideas are good ideas, and can be applied to archaeology, but the mis-use by many of the more fervent supporters results in these concepts being misunderstood by other archaeologists, and therefore good ideas get scoffed at due the the enthusiasm of some of the more enthusiastic and misguided.

Wacky Adventures in Career Archaeology

As you may have noticed (those three of you who look in here semi-regularly), I have been a bit busy lately and therefore not posting.  It's the usual: baby prep, work business, family issues, etc.  I am going to try to get back to posting 2-3 times a week, but it may take a while.  In the meantime, I will try to post the occasional bit o' stuff when I get the chance.

At the moment, though, I had a few minutes to pause and reflect on the direction that my career has taken over the last six years.  I have, at various points, considered changing careers, either to make more money (I'm doing okay, but I could do better if I went back into business) or to get away from the stress that my job can entail (significantly lower with my current employer).  I have, however, come to the conclusion that while my job has both low and high points, at least I'm not usually bored for long. 

It is difficult to conceive of other lines of work in which you are likely to be ordered by the county coroner to carry human remains in your trunk, run into a macrobiotic dieting cult in the middle of the forest, or discover that your required communications equipment is so poorly adapted to the environment that it literally creates a greater safety hazard than it could possibly solve. 

Even at my job's worst, I have at least gotten good stories about running into grounded boats in the middle of deserts with no water around, being told by oil company executives that "the laws don't apply to people like us" (incidentally, turns out that they do apply), trying to find my way through a maze of improvised roads with no clear landmarks in dense fog, and had weird run-ins with drunk biologists who were tracking rats.

Kaylia, my fiance, has taken to describing my fieldwork as "field adventures."  I would typically disagree with this - digging holes next to a highway in high temperatures is more of an annoyance than an adventure - but there is a degree of truth to it.  When I was younger, I was very timid, and while my friends were out climbing mountains, skydiving, experimenting sexually, going to clubs, and generally finding ways to look for excitement, I was either at work or at home, and feeling a bit down.

Now, most of these friends have moved on, and have jobs in which they sit in an office all day, and go home to a fairly normal home at night.  While there are elements of this that I find agreeable (indeed, I am actively working on the whole "fairly normal home" part of this), I must admit that I get a bit of enjoyment out of being the guy with the best stories when we get together: "Your boss wants that code finished before it's even possible?  That sucks.  Hey, did I tell you about the time that I learned how to chase off a charging pack of dogs armed with nothing but my voice?*"

While there are things that I would change about my career, I think that, on the whole, I've been pretty lucky.




*Yes, this actually happened.

Severing the Hand

Sometimes it seems like the people who work outside of California get all of the weird-ass sites.

So, in Egypt, pits have been found that contain the remains of hands.  Specifically, the remains of severed right hands.  In all, sixteen hands have been found, and some were located in areas where their burial pits in front of the throne room of a Hyksos* ruler by the tongue-twisting name of  Seuserenre Khyan (original paper available here, summaries available here and here). 

The Hyksos and Egyptians shared a practice of post-combat mutilation wherein a defeated opponent's right hand was severed (I have to wonder if, when a left-handed a opponent was defeated, a left hand would have been taken, but I don't know).  This served a few functions: 1) it disabled an opponent, reducing or even destroying their ability to fight again; 2) it was a way of taking an easy tally of the number of opponents defeated (count up the hands, and you have your total); 3) in cases where a bounty was given for defeated enemies, it allowed proof of the defeat.

In this case, Egyptian records make it clear that the severed hands of defeated enemies were  turned in to authorities for "the gold of valor" - that is, a bounty payment. 

When I first read about this, my initial thought was "weird, a bunch of severed right hands!  That's just bizarre!"

But, of course, it really isn't that bizarre.  Post-combat mutilation, whether to the bodies of enemies, or to the still-living enemies, is fairly common, likely even the norm in complex, hierarchical societies that engage in organized warfare.  The histories of Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas are replete with societies in which trophies were taken of the bodies of enemies, sometimes as proof of their defeat, sometimes for ritual purposes, sometimes for another reason altogether.  And this isn't something relegated to our "savage" past.  In the book Dead Mean Do Tell Tales, forensic anthropologist William Maples indicates that it was common enough for returning GIs to bring some rather grisly trophies back from the war, that when a skull that showed signs of being from a Japanese man was found, they initially assumed that it was the boiled-down remains of a decapitated Japanese soldier that had ended up in a U.S. soldier's grandchildren's attic.

The exact method used varies - sometimes it's a hand, sometimes it's an ear, or the head, or the scalp, or any number of other body parts.  But the intention remains the same - mutilate the enemy, and take a sign of their defeat.  Historically, this has backfired in some ways - there have been places where bounties offered for the removed body part have resulted in people taking the body part from other, innocent people, in order to collect - after all, who is to know whether the scalp came from an enemy soldier or your neighbor? 

In addition to the reasons outlined above, I often wonder whether this prescribed mutilation might serve another purpose.  We often fail to consider how the business of war screws with people's minds.  Indeed, there has long been a tendency in the western militaries to deny that killing and being shot at has much of an effect on your psyche.  But, throughout the world and throughout history, there have been practices geared towards directing the aggression and turmoil of soldiers.  The Bible tells of Hebrew rituals that likely served to help warriors put their acts into perspective, and Roman and Greek sources talk of things that soldiers were and were not allowed to do in and after combat in order to keep them disciplined but also sane; and I rather suspect that if I did a reading of the war practices of other cultures throughout the world, I would see more of the same.  In fact, when I read in the newspaper about U.S. soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan involved in the mutilation of bodies, as much as I may be disgusted, I am not shocked - they are doing something that humans have since the onset of warfare, that it doesn't happen more often is a tribute to the level of discipline in modern militaries.

In this sense, I have to wonder if the prescribed mutilations might serve as a way of directing people's post-combat violent tendencies to a particular, predictable goal and preventing them from acting out in even more destructive ways.  As distasteful as we may find these practices, I can not help but wonder if they served an important purpose. Regardless, archaeology has confirmed that Egypt was also home to this practice.  






*Fun fact - many a biblical literalist, when confronted with the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews having been held captive in Egypt, will claim that there is plenty o' evidence, but that they were known as the Hyksos.  This seems to come from a rather dubious claim made by the early historian Josephus Flavius, backed up by a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word Hyksos.  Despite the fact that both archaeological and historical investigation have proven that the Hyksos were not the Hebrews - and, what's more, were perfectly capable of holding their own militarily, not the subjugated slaves of Exodus - this claim is still frequently made by Biblical apologists.

Archaic Undies

So, it appears that archaeologists working in Austria have uncovered several 600-year old bras.

[This space left for those who are going to crack jokes about either pervert archaeologists or rank 600-year-old laundry]

The objects look like they could have come from the sock and underwear aisle at the local CVS, and aren't exactly consistent with what most of us think that Medeival women would have been wearing.  On the other hand, you can now tell your local SCA maven that your Hanes are historically accurate, thank you very much, and she should stop yammering on about how your underclothes fail to convey the proper historical era.

Now, if you were to compare this find with information from the era concerning other aspects of clothing, you might be able to make some arguments or draw some conclusions about how these undergarments reflect on attitudes regarding the body, bodily functions, and sex.  Depending on what other information is available, that may or may not be a fruitful line of investigation.

That, or it's a reason to crack a joke about archaeologists being late to the panty raid. 

However, what I find interesting is one of the narrative lines moving through the stories on this.  And it's not the content of the narrative line that's interesting, it's the form.

What the hell am I talking about?

Well, several of the articles I have seen on this quote a scholar who states that it had long been thought that the bra developed from the corset, and that the discovery of this corset may indicate that the corset actually originally developed from the bra.

So, what is interesting about this to me is that this pretty closely parallels other lines of discussion or explanation regarding the development of artifacts.

While radiocarbon dating, obsidian hydration, dendrochronology, and other forms of determining the age of a site are extraordinarily useful, they only work when there's materials in the site that are amenable to the method being used.  And so we require the use of time-diagnostic artifacts - artifacts that are routinely found in sites dating to particular periods of history or pre-history, which can therefore tell us the age of a site, at least approximately, even when datable materials are not present.  However, when an artifact is found to change, and then change back to it's previous form, that can throw a bit of a monkey wrench into the works. And so, bras apparently are an artifact type that can join a few specific others in bouncing between two different forms, making their time diagnostic properties somewhat more limited (though, given that they are made of cloth, the odds of these types of garments ever preserving to be good diagnostic artifacts is actually quite small), and while the applicability of this is probably rather limited, it's a good illustration of a basic principle.

The other way in which this is interesting is that it illustrates the challenges of attempting social interpretation based on types of artifacts, rather than common collection types.  Contemporary women's undergarments are usually explained through a combination of practicality and negotiation of personal freedoms and sexuality.  The corset of the Victorian age and early was typically viewed as both a tool and a symbol of woman's limited and subjugated role in society, while the bra was seen as a symbol of women choosing comfort over social pressure/convention, and the development of women's lingerie in general is seen as a sign of women controlling both their clothing and their own sexual behavior (though counter-arguments to the contrary have also been made).

So, to find essentially identical items 500 years earlier than the modern version appears, associated with a time and place with very, very different social norms and mores, it immediately begs the question: are we looking at similar negotiations and attitudes?  Are we looking at different ones that had a similar material manifestation?  Are we, perhaps, reading too much into the material culture of the people we study, and assuming that it tells us more than it does?

And if this is true for bras, is it perhaps also true of other artifacts to which we attribute great importance?  Do we read too much into the use of shell beads?  Are we properly considering the factors that lead to the development of milling implements?

It's essentially a "slow news day wacky story" that, if you stop and think about it, makes you ponder how we examine material culture.

More Pre-Clovis Goodness?

You may have heard that more evidence for extremely early occupation of the Americas has been found.  This time in Paisley Caves in Oregon.  (look here, here, and here for some of the information, or the original paper is here).  

The basic run-down: A type of tool known as the western stemmed projectile point has been routinely found in contexts (or with obsidian hydration rinds consistent with) and age of up to 10,500 years ago.  At Paisely Cave, these points have been found in contexts that appear to date to up to 13,000 years ago (depending on the calibration used for the radiocarbon dates), indicating that they are older then had previously been thought, and may indicate a separate cultural tradition existing simultaneously with Clovis.  At the same time, new dates on coprolites (ancient human feces*) taken from the cave suggest occupation beginning by 14,300 years ago.

So, pretty old shit...literally.

Stemmed points, from the University of Oregon's website

When the dates were first released from coprolites several years ago, there was, of course, a good deal of debate regarding whether or not the ages were legitimate, and the possibility that the samples had been contaminated was raised.  While this appears to have annoyed the researchers at Paisley Cave, it is a legitimate point, and one that needs to be dealt with (and, it should be said, it appears that they have dealt with it).

This got a fair amount of press coverage, and there are, of course, many statements in the press (some by the researchers themselves, others by over-eager reporters) to the effect of "these findings put the nail in the coffin of the Clovis-first hypothesis!"

No, they don't.  Understand, I believe that the Clovis-first hypothesis is flawed, and I did before data started coming out that really put it into doubt.  But with every individual piece of data, there is the possibility of flaws - ranging from corruption of the data source itself to mis-interpretation of the results.  No one piece of data puts the nail in the Clovis coffin.  That was the case with Buttermilk Creek, and it is the case with Paisley Cave.

What is making the Clovis-first hypothesis less and less tenable isn't any one result.  Rather, it is the fact that results that are in disagreement with the hypothesis continue to show up.  It is also the fact that there is no known Old-World precursor to Clovis, making it unlikely that the Clovis culture appeared spontaneously in the Americas - it is much more likely that people already living here developed the material culture that came to be known as Clovis after the migrated to the Americas from Asia.

Clovis points uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Bill Whittaker

Older sites, or sites with older components, are being found...not routinely, exactly, but often enough that it no longer surprises me when I hear of Clovis-Age or pre-Clovis dates.  That the Clovis-first hypothesis is still around has more to do with the fact that it had been the best hypothesis for a long time, and therefore people are loathe to give it up even in the face of new evidence.  This is not proof of some sort of cover-up or refusal to accept "the truth" as many a pseudo-archaeologist would claim.  It is simply proof that archaeologists are human, and like all humans, certain of us are unwilling to accept new evidence that disproves old conclusions.  Still, the younger archaeologists generally are more than happy to accept this new data, and most of the older archaeologists are willing to do so as the evidence continues to become stronger, so I think that, during the course of my career, the Clovis-first hypothesis will go the way of the dodo.

It is a pretty exciting time to be a North American archaeologist.

More interesting that the data supporting pre-Clovis occupation of the area is the data that suggests that the Western Stemmed Tradition may have developed around the same time as, and in paralel with, the Clovis tradition.  This would indicate the possibility of two very different identifiable cultural groups** occupying the Americas, which may suggest that there are artifactual signs of the multiple waves of migration currently suggested by genetic evidence (looking at the types and distribution of genetic markers in the Americas suggests that people arrived here from Asia over three different periods of migration).  That being said, this is the early stages of such a hypothesis, and any of a number of different types of data may surface that kills the hypothesis before it can grow.

Still, once again, it is a pretty exciting time to be a North American archaeologist.




*Remember, archaeology is glamorous and exciting...even when you are dealing with fossil turds.

**It should be remembered that both Clovis and Western Stemmed traditions indicate tool types, not people.  It is fair to think that the makers of the Clovis points all derived from a related cultural group, and the same of the Western Stemmed manufacturers.  However, these were likely not monolithic groups, and the spread of the tools likely represents the spread of increasingly schisming cultural groups.  So, just because people in New Mexico and in Texas used Clovis points, doesn't mean that the peoples in these areas would recognize each other as being kin.  These tools let us identify the peoples as different, but the people making and using the tools likely saw themselves as having little but their tools in common.