Geo conference
Doug – Very nice message on using these forums to get interdisciplinary
perspectives. We were told in our archaeo training that archaeology is
an"elite" science because it absolutely requires a fairly good understanding of
all the other earth sciences. I don' t like that word "elite" but it is so
that we must know some geography, geology, anthropology, paleontology and even
psychology/sociology to comprehend the social patterns of the people who
habitated the sites that are uncovered. If we encounter articulated human
remains, we must first determine race and age, only to decide whether this is a
murder victim of recent vintage or a native American, in which case the local
tribal council has to be notified. As you know, bones don't last very long in
most soil environments so are rarely of any paleo significance. Petrifieds are
only paleontological. The Ice Man was a very notable exception. Boy, that's an
interesting singular event in itself; how this guy and his tools surfaced just
as the glacier was receding and was discovered so opportunely before the
microorganisms could gobble the warm remains! But my wife and I are now retired
from all that – I was trained primarily in Southwest Cultures – so not digging
any more. Never did much digging, just surveying and cataloging.
Archaeologists spend much more time with the business of diagnosing and
cataloging than digging. Minerals while digging? The potential of minerals to
have been selected for tools, the indigineous/imported minerals, the cobble as
a handy tool, the recognition of utilized flakes, all this is related and
interesting. But what do you do so we might exchange specific interests? We can
maybe get into this on January 6th. Today we are going skiing, there is a
gorgeous new snow on the mountain, the Christmas crowds are dwindling and I
want to try out some demos to decide whether to go from 195 to 200. Carl