"Only when rock feature sites are regularly recorded in a thoughtful and knowledgeable way, we will be able to identify meaningful patterns and better understand the past through the application of archaeological theory..."
Overcoming
the Ambiguity of a Rock Pile: Their Examination and Interpretation in Cultural
Resource Management Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
By Charity
M Moore and Matthew Victor Weiss
This paper
was presented on January 9, 2016 at the SHA 2016 Conference on Historical and
Underwater Archaeology.
The paragraph did begin with the "fringe" but it was stated that "However, this ambiguity has not stopped many non-archaeologists and amateur researchers from conducting insightful and thorough research on cairnfields, rock effigy sites, etc. Although their conclusions are not always based on conventional science, history, or archaeology, the resulting websites, blogs, and articles contain a wealth of primary data that is invaluable to the archaeological researcher (e.g. Native Stones.com 2006;Waksman 2005; 2015; see Muller 2009:17)." I think you were being paid a compliment! "Insightful," "thorough, " and a "wealth of primary data invaluable to the (professinal?) researcher."
ReplyDelete"professional researcher"
ReplyDeleteYou are right. I am over sensitive to being lumped into a "non-scientific" group.
ReplyDeleteTell me about it!
ReplyDeleteI was happy to see many of the names mentioned, such as Loubser and Hudson, Holstein and Muller.
I appreciate this article from Tim. We can all be a little proud that rock piles have become so mainstream. But now there are $$$ involved and the opportunists are busy. Rock piles and pipelines have become a money making proposition for people who claim to be experts.
ReplyDeleteThe "mentions" I care about are in a paragraph on how "professinal" researchers should not condescend to amateurs. But they cannot help it because they are competing for $$$$. I do not expect these people to do any real science.
Note well where the authors mention these "professinals:" ...(T)he most concerning and extreme SHPO opinion came from Massachusetts' website, which claims that "research into such stone piles [has]invariably shown that these features are not associated with the Native American settlement of Massachusetts" and then goes on to imply that historic-period rock features are not culturally significant (MHC 2015).Furthermore, their SHPO has refused to accept forms which report prehistoric rock features (Gage and Gage2015a). Their SHPO did not respond to our request for further information, but their opinion has often been discredited (e.g. Gage and Gage 2015a; Muller 2009; NEARA 2015; Rush 2015) and even overturned by other federal agencies in the high profile Turners Falls case (Albertini 2009; NPS 2008; Timreck 2011)..."
ReplyDelete