Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower*except for a meteorite)
Hello List I guess I missed out on much of this, but it occurs to me that whomever is in charge of a dig, not the student, is to blame. Poor instruction and supervision is what it sounds like here. Iron artifacts, over the years, may well have been mis-identified as red ochre simply because the orthodox belief teaches that before a certain time, iron working was not possible in a given area, even though much evidence to the contrary may been published. Mark Ferguson - Original Message - From: Thaddeus Besedin To: E.P. Grondine Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower*except for a meteorite) E.P. Grondine and list, I certainly agree. Researchers often relegate strata unrelated temporally to a target component to the waste-heap of total irrelevance, often due to a progressively (regressively) narrowed perspective and/or lack of time/funds (weather? what a joke! temporary structures such as canopies can be built. This all should have been anticipated in that part of the world). I believe no irreversible, destructive excavation work (as if there is any other) should be undertaken without a research design accounting for all site formation processes, and not at all if an artifact-fetish motivates attitudes. Charcoal and other organics (if recovered at all) was discarded frequently during excavation before the advent of C14 dating, and lithic debitage, a highly informative artifact class, was largely ignored until the '70s. Thermally-affected rocks are usually only counted, weighed, and discarded in contemporary excavations. Invasive field archaeology is only maximally informative as a highly systematic recordation of a site that values tedious redundancy - statistical redundancy - and is not biased by a search or discovery of a people, culture, or other construct bound to one of many competing theories or in verifying (as opposed to falsifying - in the Popperian sense) a selected hypothesis. Archaeology is not ethnography. Populations utilizing the Newport Tower may have buried objects to extreme depth, overlooked because of age (not to mention also that chemical pedology is specifically and uniquely contingent on the presence of metals or organic remains not otherwise associated with each other - affecting precipitation in a predictable manner). We must anticipate revolutions in analytical field methods, which is to anticipate better analytical technologies as well as a more holistic awareness of physical conditions commanding the collection of data-sets often ignored in ordinary contexts. Very large hydrologic-geomorphological data-sets will be necessary to the the future of geoarchaeological research of Acheulian European sites, for example; most sites like this have been redeposited by Pleistocene alluvial process, but will be interpreted with much greater certainty as technology permitting fast, accurate mass data acquisition and physical analysis becomes inexpensive. If my reading is correct, some work at Newport Tower sounds like bad CRM archaeology, necessarily controlled by and preocuppied with issues like 'significance,' with time, money, and impetus always too limited. Better attention to chemical precipitates, if iron residues can be morphologically detected physically as discrete anomalies, may reveal traces of iron artifacts (perhaps only oxidizing into ostensive oblivion). It's all too expensive. Too bad we can't re-excavate. ... and students ... . I know of a student who, during the excavation of a California Archaic (Millingstone Horizon - La Jolla [San Marcos]), troweled right through a rare hearth feature in their 1x1m unit, and simply did not record or otherwise mention it. A sense of shame and regret motivated this action (rather a lack of action) once it was recognized that ANY damage had been done. Data still could have been collected from some in situ portion of the hearth. Error or inexperience of a student led to the inadvertent and auspicious discovery of an important object irrelevant to historical reconstruction. Carelessness due to inexperience and a lack of accountability led to incomplete chronostratigraphic calibration somewhere else. -Thaddeus Besedin (a student of geoarchaeology - pardon the false pedantry) E.P. Grondine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all - They were not paying attention to that level This gets my blood pressure up. While from what I read, the excavators were constrained by time and weather, given the uniqueness of the site, they should have been paying attention. good hunting, Ed Man and Impact in the Americas --- Charlie Devine wrote: Mark wrote: Good work there, well done taking the time to go see the site...Do you know if they do any kinds of tests other
Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower *except for a meteorite)
Hi all - They were not paying attention to that level This gets my blood pressure up. While from what I read, the excavators were constrained by time and weather, given the uniqueness of the site, they should have been paying attention. good hunting, Ed Man and Impact in the Americas --- Charlie Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark wrote: Good work there, well done taking the time to go see the site...Do you know if they do any kinds of tests other then a visual like a streak test, magnet test, etc., etc.? Hello Mark, Well, I'm only 30 minutes from the site, so no big deal getting there. Besides, the Newport Tower has been called the most enigmatic structure in North America, so visiting the first dig allowed there in 60 years was a must for me, since I've long been interested in the mystery of it's origin. Everyone involved wanted to see a Viking sword emerge from the ground, but that never happened. As for the mystery stone, it was actually found by accident when one of the students working there ran a magnet through dirt taken from a 2000-3000 BP level. They were not screening or paying attention to that level, as it long predates the tower, but the student didn't realize it and used a magnet in a search for metal artifacts, and up popped the stone. I was certainly disappointed that I was unable to examine it. On the other hand, that probably spared me the task of being the one to tell them that's no meteorite. I didn't want to find myself in that position, since by then the stone was their most exciting find. Many people from this list had written them, and at least one listmember suggested a monetary value for the stone!! So now the people at ASU can make the call. Best wishes, Charlie __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower *except for a meteorite)
E.P. Grondine and list, I certainly agree. Researchers often relegate strata unrelated temporally to a target component to the waste-heap of total irrelevance, often due to a progressively (regressively) narrowed perspective and/or lack of time/funds (weather? what a joke! temporary structures such as canopies can be built. This all should have been anticipated in that part of the world). I believe no irreversible, destructive excavation work (as if there is any other) should be undertaken without a research design accounting for all site formation processes, and not at all if an artifact-fetish motivates attitudes. Charcoal and other organics (if recovered at all) was discarded frequently during excavation before the advent of C14 dating, and lithic debitage, a highly informative artifact class, was largely ignored until the '70s. Thermally-affected rocks are usually only counted, weighed, and discarded in contemporary excavations. Invasive field archaeology is only maximally informative as a highly systematic recordation of a site that values tedious redundancy - statistical redundancy - and is not biased by a search or discovery of a people, culture, or other construct bound to one of many competing theories or in verifying (as opposed to falsifying - in the Popperian sense) a selected hypothesis. Archaeology is not ethnography. Populations utilizing the Newport Tower may have buried objects to extreme depth, overlooked because of age (not to mention also that chemical pedology is specifically and uniquely contingent on the presence of metals or organic remains not otherwise associated with each other - affecting precipitation in a predictable manner). We must anticipate revolutions in analytical field methods, which is to anticipate better analytical technologies as well as a more holistic awareness of physical conditions commanding the collection of data-sets often ignored in ordinary contexts. Very large hydrologic-geomorphological data-sets will be necessary to the the future of geoarchaeological research of Acheulian European sites, for example; most sites like this have been redeposited by Pleistocene alluvial process, but will be interpreted with much greater certainty as technology permitting fast, accurate mass data acquisition and physical analysis becomes inexpensive. If my reading is correct, some work at Newport Tower sounds like bad CRM archaeology, necessarily controlled by and preocuppied with issues like 'significance,' with time, money, and impetus always too limited. Better attention to chemical precipitates, if iron residues can be morphologically detected physically as discrete anomalies, may reveal traces of iron artifacts (perhaps only oxidizing into ostensive oblivion). It's all too expensive. Too bad we can't re-excavate. ... and students ... . I know of a student who, during the excavation of a California Archaic (Millingstone Horizon - La Jolla [San Marcos]), troweled right through a rare hearth feature in their 1x1m unit, and simply did not record or otherwise mention it. A sense of shame and regret motivated this action (rather a lack of action) once it was recognized that ANY damage had been done. Data still could have been collected from some in situ portion of the hearth. Error or inexperience of a student led to the inadvertent and auspicious discovery of an important object irrelevant to historical reconstruction. Carelessness due to inexperience and a lack of accountability led to incomplete chronostratigraphic calibration somewhere else. -Thaddeus Besedin (a student of geoarchaeology - pardon the false pedantry) E.P. Grondine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all - They were not paying attention to that level This gets my blood pressure up. While from what I read, the excavators were constrained by time and weather, given the uniqueness of the site, they should have been paying attention. good hunting, Ed Man and Impact in the Americas --- Charlie Devine wrote: Mark wrote: Good work there, well done taking the time to go see the site...Do you know if they do any kinds of tests other then a visual like a streak test, magnet test, etc., etc.? Hello Mark, Well, I'm only 30 minutes from the site, so no big deal getting there. Besides, the Newport Tower has been called the most enigmatic structure in North America, so visiting the first dig allowed there in 60 years was a must for me, since I've long been interested in the mystery of it's origin. Everyone involved wanted to see a Viking sword emerge from the ground, but that never happened. As for the mystery stone, it was actually found by accident when one of the students working there ran a magnet through dirt taken from a 2000-3000 BP level. They were not screening or paying attention to that level, as it long predates the tower, but the student didn't realize it and used a magnet in a search for
Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower *except for a meteorite)
Hi Charlie. Good work there, well done for taking the time to go see the site. Hopefully common sense will prevail, and it will be looked at by a lab. Seems at the moment they just have a brown rock and nothing more. As for them visually seeing 'evidence of melting', after 3000 years in damp soil??? I would think this must be a mistake? Do you know if they do any kind of tests than a visual, like a streak test, magnet test etc etc? We had a similar thing here in England UK, in the 1970's with the Danebury meteorite, it was found buried in a Neolithic pit at Danebury hillfort, it was supposedly classified by Oxford University as a weathered chondrite, but no photos or write-ups can be found and the original mass is missing, so not sure if it was a 'mistake' or not - (The whole event Just has striking similarities to what you have been looking at...) Best Mark Ford BIMS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Devine Sent: 27 November 2006 12:41 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At MysteriousNewport Tower *except for a meteorite) I spent 2 days at the Newport Tower dig, but was unable to examine the meteorite, as by then it was in the mayor's office for safe keeping, and the mayor was nowhere to be found. Whether it be meteorite or meteorwrong, it belongs to the city of Newport. I did explain to Jan and Ron Barsted, the directors of the dig, the steps necessary to get it classified and officially recognized, should it be the real thing. As a result it will be taken to Arizona State University for identification. Jan Barsted is a faculty member at ASU. Here are the 2 photos I posted last week, should anyone care to comment based on photos alone: http://www.chronognostic.org/photo_tour.php?date=20061018id=26 http//www.chronognostic.org/photo_tour.php?date=20061018id=27 C. Devine __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
