Archy vs. Angel Mounds.

In case you didn’t know what Angel Mounds is, I will link you to the web site. In case you didn’t know what I’ve been doing lately, I’ve been digging at Angel Mounds, to which I link you to our Field School Blog, and you should go read it. Doo eet.

I’ve been here for a week now and we are just now opening units up. Let me explain why it’s taken this long, because it’s actually a really cool reason.

Grad Mentor Matt with the Magnetic Gradiometer, walking lines to get a picture of the ground beneath.

For the first week we checked and set up the equipment we were going to use. Aside from the usual shovels and screens we’re using a Magnetic Gradiometer (aka Magnetomer or Mag for short) this year on pretty much all of the site we’re working on. This awesome little device use two sensors to measure the gradient of the magnetic field in the ground. It then creates a picture from those readings that can fairly accurately show where features are going to be on the site. It can’t show us depth and iron or magnetic metals will create these huge spots in the picture, but otherwise the picture is incredibly helpful in planing where to dig.

Magnetic gradiometer map of Prehistoric fire-hearths (site unknown). Image from Wikipedia.

So, now we have our own image of the site ground showing us a very interesting  image of the first terrace of Mound A. This allowed us to put in four 1 meter by 1 meter  units on the terrace right where the cool stuff is.

Honestly, this saved us tons of guess work and wasted effort, and really it only took one day to get the area surveyed and the image processed. Granted we did have to prepare the area and make sure any modern metal was well away from the area to be surveyed, so two days at max, and we (by we I mean Matt) covered a 60 meter by 60 meter area in a couple of hours. That’s pretty good.

I really can’t explain how much time and man power this saved us, or really how awesome cool the picture is.

Learning how to sharpen our trowels into razor sharp objects.

But all that was done last week, which means that today we actually BROKE GROUND! (Que Fan-Fair and Confetti!)

We opened four 1 meter by 1 meter  units on the first terrace of Mound A. All of them placed over places where the Mag showed us anomalies. Now, I am used to much bigger units, but I am also used to blindly digging based only on land forms and previous surveys. This is much better. Survey taken, spots identified, units opened, done.

Dr. Bill Monaghan from IU using the Total Station to locate and record points on the site grid on the terrace.

For those who don’t know, the first step here is setting up a grid. Which I am not going into this time. (Did I mention our Field School Blog and how you should go read it?) Once we’ve got that done and we have the Mag image, we picked out smaller areas for the units, which also had to be shot onto the grid using the Total Station (pictured above). If you’ve ever seen a survey crew on the side of the road, that’s the camera looking thing on a tripod they’re using. We use them to for the same reasons and then some. (again, go read the blog)

Once we have two points representing our North line recorded by the Total Station we set about laying in the other points using the age old method of tape measures and math.

Learning to lay in the other two corners of the unit via tape.

Once this is done the real fun begins, because now we can begin to dig. Which is much more then just sticking a shovel into the ground. See, we try and preserve the sod cap, or the grass on top. Usually because we plan to replace it afterwards. So because of that, there is a very specific way to remove the grass on top. (Also, we don’t want to screen the grass, because that takes forever and there is rarely anything useful in the grass.) What is this mysterious technique you ask? I call it, Sharpened Shovel Style!

See, we take square shovels (as opposed to spade shovels), sharpen them like knives, and then chop into the grass just far enough to get past the roots, but not really into the dirt much. Then we pry the grass up and roll it up and set it aside till we need it again. It sounds simple, but it can take a bit to get just right.

Popping the top off the unit. Note the perfect form…

Once that’s all gone we begin removing the dirt in arbitrary levels, unless the soil changes or we see a feature, and we begin taking copious amounts of notes. Seriously  we take so much paperwork it makes the trees cry! But we have too, see excavation is destruction, and even with doing as little damage as we will be using the Mag image and all, we still need to record everything we do and find so that later we can reconstruct the events of the excavation via the paperwork.

Grad Mentor Erica teaching us how to fill out the paperwork.

We also tag every bucket of dirt that we plan to screen. Which bring me to the next new thing we’re doing here that I’ve not seen done on a CRM site yet. Water Screening! (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just that I haven’t seen it yet).

Filling out the tags that will go with the buckets of dirt to the water screens.

So, Water Screening is basically regular screening, where you take a bucket of dirt and sift it through a metal mesh screen stapled to a wooden box frame, and you add water. Lots of water, like from a hose. When you do a big dig, or a phase 3, you move a lot of dirt and to get though all of it, you usually have dedicated screeners that rotate with the diggers. You also have large screen tables so you can work on more than one bucket of dirt at a time, making sure it’s all from the same level.

Setting up the water screening tables.

Water screening works the same way except the screens are a much finer mesh and not metallic, and you get to play with the garden hose. Oh and mud, there is lots of mud.

And mud.

Playing with the hose.

The benefit of this versus dry screening is a near 100% recovery of anything that comes out of the unit. Also, you get to play in the water on really hot days.

So, that was pretty much what happened on day six of my field school here at Angel Mounds. All the hard work from last week payed off and now the new hard work of digging begins. Interesting features await us beneath the soil on Mound A, and we’re going to find them.

Waiting to dig.

“But wait Archy, where are you in all these cool pictures you just showed us?” 

Where you ask?

Remember how I was telling you about the Magnetic Gradiometer? I was out there pulling tape so that Matt would know where he needed to walk in order to survey more of the area around Mound A. That’s right, there will be more units, and one of them has my name on it. (Seriously, I’m taking a Sharpie to it or something).

Me and my awesome hat, be jealous, it’s a Tilley.

An Update from Field

Or rather it will be.

Lots of high energy things have been going on here at ArchyFantasies Central. Unfortunately, between all of that and a massive attack of writers block, I haven’t posted in a while. Sorry for that.

However, we’re going to get back on track!

For those keeping count, I’ve got my classes all straightener out, got a massive lit review to write, plus a 6 week field school that is going to start in about two weeks…that hasn’t sunk in yet.

I’ll be blogging from the field, as much as I’m able. Hopefully we’ll find some interesting information. I think I get to play with the ground penetrating radar, and some magnetometry and resistivity testing. Should be a ton of fun.

I figure I got one more week to build up my stores of posts, and then we’ll resume regular postings in the beginning of May.

May is a big month, stick with me!

To tide you over listen to the newest CRM Archaeology Posdcast Ep 6!

Flu, Podcasts, and Screaming into the Void: Weekly Round-Up 2/24/2013

I’m sure you’ve all been wondering where I’ve been. (you have, haven’t you? I’m not just screaming into a black, soulless void am I?) Let’s just say, don’t put your Flu shots off any longer then you have to, cause the flu sux balz.

So after a week filled with all the joys of the Flu, I can finally eat again and stay awake longer then 20 min at a time. The good news is that I can now get back to work on my neglected blog. The bad  news is that I’m really behind on posting. That said, this time I am really going to get caught up…really…I mean it this time!

 

 

Until then I want to leave you with something enjoyable, and that would be the second episode of the awesome new podcast I am involved in, CRM Archaeology. In this episode we talk about Open Access in archaeology and there are six of us on the podcast this time, including a special guest, Eric Kansa from UC Berkeley and the Alexandria Archive Institute.  Also, the podcast is now available on Stitcher as well as ITunes, or at the website link, whichever. (Stitcher is cooler.)

Anyway, look for our regularly scheduled blog posts to resume shortly, and check out the podcast while you wait!

Interesting things that have happened this week.

Firstly, we’ve records and ArcheoWebby has post the new podcast I’m going to be on. You can find it over at Random Acts of Science, aka Dig Tech. You can find the podcast here. We talk a lot about looters and public archaeology with Chirs, Doug, and myself. Personally I had a blast making this podcast, and I can’t wait to do more. 

Also check out Doug’s blog over at Doug’s Archaeology and Chris’ blog over at Random Acts of Science/ DigTech. 

Secondly, HOLY CRAP my blog blew up! Srly, 750+ views today and still counting! I’m not sure who gave me the bump, but thanks a bunch!

Thirdly, Since I was checking my exploding views today I wanted to see what people were looking at, and apparently everyone is fascinated with the Coso Artifact. I’m glad everyone enjoy’s my write up on the little Spark-plug that could. It was fun to write about, and yah, it’s cool how it formed and all that. Feel free to lave me questions about it if you have any.

So that’s pretty much it for the week. I needed the down time to catch up with some school work and all. But, the  next week we’ll be back on schedule  no worries. Till then go listen to my awesome  podcast and rate us. Oh, and thanks for visiting!

Podcasts, Podcasts, Maker -Scouts: Weekly Round-Up 2/10/2013

I don’t really have a whole lot to report this wee, but not because nothing is going on. On the contrary, quite a bit is happening here.

Chris Webber over at Random Acts of Science has invited me to be on his CRM Podcast . He’s re-worked the format for the podcast and there are several panel members, so there should be some great conversation about archaeology and the world of CRM. We’re actually recording the first episode today, so expect a giddy, self-promoting post in a few days! In the mean time check out Chris’ blog and enjoy!

I’m also working with my local CFI family group here to start our own Guild of Maker Scouts. We’re going to be coding and building robots before we know it, and many other science related things. I supper stoked about this. I really wish this had been available to me as a kid, but now I can provide this for other kids. My dad did the best he could with a chemistry set  and the computer, now it’s time to up the game and take Lego’s to the next level!

And school is still ongoing, I’ve got a ton more reading to do about GIS and planning projects, but I’ve almost got it down, just in time to write a midterm report! Yay!

So keep an eye out for the podcast and think about starting your own Maker Scouts Guild.

A Plea for Help! From Archeology Dude

Reblogged from Doug's Archaeology:

Marc posted this message on his blog Archaeology Dude. If anyone is in the Pennsylvania area or would just like to help out, I am sure they would appreciate it.

Hello Everyone,

I know that we are still aways off from Brownsville Archaeology Month in May, but the Mon/Yough Chapter for the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology is in desperate need of volunteers, members, and donations.

Read more… 125 more words

Hey everyone, I don't re-blog often, but I wanted to share this one with you. You may not be able to Join the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, but even a small donation can help keep their programs going. Think of this a crowd sourcing Pennsylvania Archaeology, the ultimate Public Archaeology project! Enjoy!

Where the Vikings Weren’t – The Vinland Map

Vinland Map.

The Vinland map is an interesting artifact, one that captured my attention as a child. Frankly, I think the evidence points to the map being a fake, but there are a some who still fight for it to be real.

The Vinland map first surface in  1957 glued inside the of the cover of a bound volume of Hystoria Tartarorum (Feder 2006:119, Wiki). Apparently, the book was originaly owned by a Spanish-Italian book dealer named Enzo Ferrajoli de Ry. He hired London book dealer Irving Davis to offer the book to the British Museum. When that offer was refused Ferrajoli sold the volume, for $3,500, to an American dealer Laurence C. Witten II, who offered it to Yale University, who took the book (Wiki).

At first, it was dated to around 1440 and people suggested that the map was actually a copy of an earlier map based on Viking knowledge of Canada and Greenland (Feder 2006:119). Yet, even from the beginning there were skeptics.

One reason the British Museum had turned down the map when offered was because their Keeper of Manuscripts detected elements of handwriting style not developed until the 19 century (Seaver 2004). Also, map Scholar Douglas McNaughton pointed out that the map was in a style unlike any other 15 Cen map (Feder 2006:119). There was no delineation boarder showing the dived between heaven and earth, the orientation was wrong, and there was no mention of the map in the book in which it was bound (Feder 2006:119). The parchment appeared to have been soaked in some  unknown substance that was not able to be tested for and the out line of the map seemed to consist of two separate tracings, one in a feint graphite or ash, the other one more yellowish (Baynes-Cope 1974). This yellow line was of more interest because the black ink used to outline the continents appeared to have a diffused yellow band around it, which was typical for old inks, and normally takes hundreds of years to form. However, under the microscope it was discernible that the yellow line had been drawn on first, then retraced with the black in to mimic the appearance of old ink (Feder 2006:119).

Also, there is the appearance that they map was on drawn on a single sheet of paper, but rather two separate pieces (Baynes-Cope 1974). Evidence of this is that several place-names start or finish right before the inner edge of the map instead of  being written straight across it (Baynes-Cope 1974). Even the rivers of eastern Europe run parallel to it (Baynes-Cope 1974).  In 2005 a team from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, led by Dr. René Larsen, studied the map and confirmed that the two halves of the map were entirely separate (Larsen and Poulsen 2005). It was suggested that two separate blank leaves in the original “Speculum Historiale”, of which the first dozen or so pages are missing, could have been used to create the  map (Seaver 2004). This would explain the chemical treatment of the pages to disguise differences in color and texture, and the noticeable notch in the bottom could have been cut to disguised the slight size difference (Seaver 2004). All of which were common tricks of the fake antique trade.

All of this before we even discuss the ink!

The ink was instantly a point of contention as it was not conventional iron-gall ink, and didn’t match any known formula available at the time (Baynes-Cope 1974).  Also, microscopist Walter McCrone, examined the physical characteristics of the map with a scanning electron microscope and election and ion microprobes (Feder 2006:119). He found the presence of titanium dioxide, the name for a yellow pigment called anatase or titanium white, which was not manufactured until the 1917  and required a knowledge unknown until this time (Feder 2006:119).  His conclusions are backed up by a second study and by  British researchers Katherine Brown and Robin Clark (Feder 2006:119). Interestingly, this ink is not found on any of the pages of the book (Feder 2006:119).

As always there must be deceters, one of which is Larsen himself. At the International Conference on the History of Cartography in July 2009, Larsen revealed that his team had continued their investigation after publishing their original report, which was apparently not in support of authenticity. He letter explained to Reuters that:

“All the tests that we have done over the past five years — on the materials and other aspects — do not show any signs of forgery” (Acher 2009).

He says that his team studied the ink and the wormholes in the document and found that the wormholes were consistent with the book the map is bound in (Acher 2009), which contradicts earlier studies (Feder 2006:119), and that the ink could have gotten it’s traces of anatase from sand that could have been used to dry the ink (Acher 2009). Of course there is no evidence of this and Larsen and his team did not examine the crystals of the anatase to see if it matched up with anatase found in sand.

Kenneth Towe, a retired geologist from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. says,

“The problem is if the anatase…came out of gneiss or any other natural source, it is going to have a totally different appearance than the anatase that appears on the Vinland map ink,” he notes. Towe says the Vinland ink has small round crystals produced chemically, whereas sand would have larger fractured crystals from grinding along with other minerals like quartz. “Even if sand has been found on other maps,” he adds, “it still has never been found on the Vinland Map.” (Borrell 2008)

Though it is true that the parchment on which the map is drawn does carbon date to about 1440 (Acher 2009, Borrell 2008, Feder 2006:119), that doesn’t actually mean the drawing of the map itself was made at that time.  Clever forgers of the past have used old papers to create the look of authenticity. So why exactly did Larsen change his story? We may never know.

Still, the map is an interesting item, though at this point I would guess most scholars don’t believe in it’s real. What’s more important, we don’t need it to be. We have other, very credible evidence of a Viking presence in America long before Columbus. At this point the authenticity of the map is more to do with Yale than with history.

Resources:

Acher, John
2009  ”Vinland Map of America no forgery, expert says”. Reuters.com. Reuters. 17 July 2009. Retrieved February 4, 2013.

Baynes-Cope, A.D
1974     “The Scientific Examination of the Vinland Map at the Research Laboratory of the British Museum”.Geographical Journal (The Geographical Journal, Vol. 140, No. 2) 140 (2): 208–211. doi:10.2307/1797077.JSTOR 1797077.

Borrell, Brendan
2008    Pre-Columbian Map of North America Could Be Authentic–Or not, Scientific American. July 22 2008. Retrieved February 4, 2013.

Feder, Kenneth L.
2006    Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, 5th ed, McGraw-Hill, New York. NY.

René Larsen & Dorte V. Poulsen,
2005    ”Report on the Assessment and Survey of the Condition and Technique of the Vinland Map and the Bindings of the Tartar Relation and Speculum Historiale.” Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. Retrieved February 4, 2013.

Seaver, Kirsten A.
2004     Maps, Myths and Men. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Images provided by  Wikimedia Commons, unless otherwise stated.

Happy World Digger’s Day 2013! aka Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones, and the Real Crystal Skulls.

I love old Indy!

Lets be fun today, it’s the second international World Digger’s Day and as such we’ve all been asked to change our icons and avatars to either a pic of Indiana Jones or Laura Croft…I went with Indy because Croft is a Tomb Raider.

That being said, I thought it might be fun to dedicate a post to the glorious Harrison Ford. Why you ask?

I’m not going to lie, the Indiana Jones movies were my favorites growing up, I got all worked up when the Last Crusade came out, and when Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls came out I about died. I love them all, and maybe they had some influence on me choosing to got into this field. When I worked in the Arch lab during my undergrad, there was a life-sized cardboard figure of Indy watching over all of us. My advisory kept a hat and whip on hand at all times, and frankly, I can’t really think of a single individual I have worked with that hasn’t told me that they like the movies too.

Indy is a meme, or trope, for those of us in the field  however seriously or not-seriously we take him. He represents our naive ideals and is the starting point of many a real conversion on why we need to educate the public on what archaeology really looks like. We love Indy, and we hate him, and frankly we’re jealous of him.

But Indy isn’t a real person, he’s an archetype, a legend. What about the man behind him, the man who took words on paper and gave him life? What about Harrison Ford!

Harrison Ford was my first Movie Crush. I remember getting in to a fight in 4th grade with another girl over which one of us was going to marry Harrison Ford when we grew up. (needless to say neither of us won that argument.) Harrison Ford is also an active advocate for archaeology, a cheerleader if you will, and we love him for that even more.

Harrison Ford publicly speaks on behalf of archaeology, helping to raise public awareness and constantly advocating for the preservation of natural resources and places of historical significance. Matching with Indy’s statement “It belongs in a museum!” he also works to prevent looting and the illegal antiquities trade. He’s been serving as a General Trustee on the Governing Board of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) since 2008.

Screw it, I liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Now I know many don’t agree with me, but I liked the last movie. It was fun, fast paced, had all the old Indy feel to it, yah it was over the top, but Temple of Doom? Hello!

But one thing I wanted to look at a bit closer, because this is a blog about archaeology, were the Crystal Skulls themselves.

http://www.crystalskulls.com

Apparently, there is something to the Crystal Skulls. Their story starts in the 19 century as a collection of small skull shaped beads. They were recovered, supposedly, from locations in Mexico in a time when no scientific archaeological excavations had been done there, so knowledge of pre-Columbian artifacts was scarce (Walsh 2008). This was also a time when it was very lucrative to fake pre-Columbian artifacts, which was something Smithsonian archaeologist W. H. Holmes observed when he visited Mexico City in 1884 and was overwhelmed by “relic shops” (Walsh 2008).

William Henry Holmes (Wiki Commons)

The man who seems to be tied most intimately to the skulls is a French antiquarian named Eugène Boban. Boban was a Frenchman who was the official “archaeologist” of the Mexican court of Maximilian, and also a member of the French Scientific Commission in Mexico.

French antiquarian Eugène Boban with his collection of Mesoamerican artifacts at an 1867 Paris exposition. (Walsh 2008)

Boban appears to have fallen in love with Mexican culture at a young age, in his teens he spent his youth conducting archaeological expeditions on his own, becoming fluent in Spanish and the Aztec language, Nahuatl (Walsh 2008). Around this time he appears to have began selling his finds through a family business in Mexico City (Walsh 2008). He returned to France in 1870 and opened an antiquities shop selling a large amount of his collection eight years later to Alphonse Pinart, a French explorer and ethnographer  (Walsh 2008). Pinart donated the collection to the Musée de l’Homme. The collection at this time contained three crystal skulls  (Walsh 2008).

In July 1886, Boban moved his museum business to New York City where he later held an auction of several thousand archaeological artifacts including a crystal skull that Tiffany & Co. bought for $950 (Walsh 2008). In 1896, Tiffany’s sold that skull to the British Museum for the original purchase price (Walsh 2008). Off topic but interesting none the less, is Boban’s 1886 catalog for the New York auction lists another small crystal skull and it is listed with a crystal hand, neither can be accounted for today (Walsh 2008).

In the end Boban managed to sell no less than 5 crystal skulls, all in museums world-wide. Where did he get them? Who made them, and can they really melt your brain if you look at them?

All of Boban’s skulls are claimed to be from either Aztec origins, or more generically Mexico Valley. But there are no records to back up those claims. Archaeology was in its infancy at this time, and the Mexico Valley untouched by academic and scientific archaeology. We are well within our rights to question the claims of Boban’s skulls.

The crystal skull at the British Museum (ID Am1898C3.1 ), similar in dimensions to the more detailed Mitchell-Hedges skull. (Wiki Commons)

So what about the Skulls themselves? Dr.  Jane MacLaren Walsh has spent a great deal of her time answering those questions. She breaks the Skulls down into generations  describing the small bead skulls as the first generation. Usually they are small, no bigger than 1.5 inches and are drilled through from top to bottom, like a bead (Walsh 2008). The holes possibly are reminiscent of their bead’s pre-Colombian origin, but the beads were probably carved after the fact to be sold to European antiquarians or as mementos mori, objects meant to remind of the eventuality of death (Walsh 2008). The earliest of these seems to be a British Museum crystal skull acquired in 1856 by British banker Henry Christy (Walsh 2008).

The second-generation skulls appear as life-size representations of human skulls and don’t a bead hole, as they are too large to wear. The first of these appeared in 1881 in the Paris shop of Boban where he exhibited it alongside actual human skulls (Walsh 2008).

The third generation of skulls  started showing up around 1934. Sidney Burney, a London art dealer, purchased a crystal skull of proportions almost identical to the one in the British Museum (Walsh 2008). We don’t know where he got it, but it’s almost identical to the British Museum skull but with more detailed modeling of the eyes and the teeth, and a separate mandible (Walsh 2008). This skull has acquired a Mayan origin and a number of supernatural powers, it has nicknames like Skull of Doom, the Skull of Love, or simply the Mitchell-Hedges Skull, it is said to emit blue lights from its eyes, and for some unknown reason has a vendetta against computer hard drives (Walsh 2008)

The Mitchell-Hedges skull, (Walsh 2008)

There have been a few other possible candidates for crystal skulls sent anonymously to various museums, including the Smithsonian in recent years. None with any real documentation towards their authenticity.  The most recent was a skull sent about 16 years ago, according to its unnamed donor, was purchased in Mexico in 1960. It dwarfs the other skulls in collections at 31 pounds and 10 inches in height (Walsh 2008). but like the others, is indeed a modern hoax.

 All the skulls in both the British Museum and the Smithsonian have been examined under light and scanning electron microscope  by Dr. Margaret Sax and Dr. Walsh (Walsh 2008). They have conclusively determined that the skulls were carved with modern lapidary equipment (Walsh 2008). Pre-Colombian lapidaries used stone, bone, wooden, and possibly copper tools with abrasive sand to carve stone, and the skulls are too perfectly carved and polished to be made in this manner (Walsh 2008). Dr. Walsh also believes that the first generation of skulls were made in Mexico between 1856 and 1880, around the time they were sold (Walsh 2008). She believes that this 24-year period represents the work of a single artisan or workshop (Walsh 2008). 

Despite the fact that all of the known skulls are fakes, they are interesting compelling fakes. They are really cool to look at and I’m sure they make great conversations starters. I know I wouldn’t mind one in my room.

So there you have it, a great way to wrap up World Digger’s Day! A bit of love to Harrison Ford and a bit of debunking on the actual Crystal Skulls.

Resources:

Walsh, Jane MacLaren

2008    ”Legend of the Crystal Skulls”. Archaeological Institute of America
archive. Volume 61 Number 3, May/June 2008. http://archive.archaeology.org/0805/etc/indy.html. Retrieved February 1, 2013

Ella Sophia Armitage – Mistress of The Norman Mottes

Ella Sophia Armitage

For our next early female archaeologist I want to introduce you to Ella Sophia Armitage.

Armitage was a particular challenge for me, as many of the women I will introduce you to will be, since there is so little known about her as a person, other than she lived. It’s aggravating  but this is the product of so many years of ignoring and downplaying the contributions of women in our society  All we can do is try to piece things back together and reconstruct what was forgotten.

Sadly, what we know about Ella is cobbled together through surviving correspondences, her academic writing, and notes.  Though we know she kept personal journals, they are lost to us. What we know we’ve pieced together from her husband’s journals, letters to her cohorts, and her apparently copious academic notes. What this gives us is a picture of a very sturdy academic mind, but very little personal information. Still, her contributions were very important in the area of Irish archaeology, in a time when the practice was in its infancy.

During the mid 91th cen in Europe there was a revival of medieval studies focusing mostly on castles from the Normand, English, and Welsh traditions (Counihan 1998).  The presence and history of Scottish and Irish castles were seen as fringe (Counihan 1998). This view caused quite the controversy in the academic community, one that Armitage weighed into fearlessly.

Ella Sophia Armitage was born Ella Sophia Bulley on 3 March 1841 in Liverpool, to Samuel Marshall Bulley, a cotton merchant, and Mary Rachel Raffles (Wiki). She enjoyed early education and encouragement to be a voracious student from a young age by her uncle Rev James Baldwin Brown (Counihan 1998), and she entered Newnham College in 1874 were she was the first ever research student (Counihan 1998).

Ella became Mrs. Armitage in 1874 when she married the Reverend Elkanah Armitage, and the couple had two children during their marriage. From 1877 to 1879 she taught history at Owens College, Manchester, and developed her interest in medieval earthworks and castles (Ogilvie 2000:54). She took copious and detailed notes during her time as a student and teacher, being recognized as an expert, her notes were  were archived by the Yorkshire Archaeological Socisites in Leeds after her death (Counihan 1998).

Armitage had a great love for Irish castles, referred to as motte-and-bailey castles, or mottes (Counihan 1998). In 1895 she and her husband along with their young son, Godfrey, took a trip to Ireland to visit Armagh, Sligo, and Dublin (Counihan 1998). Her husband was completely unimpressed with the area, but Armitage and her son spent the trip examining as many mottes as they could, returning after the trip to further explore. It was during this time that her first major paper was presented to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland by her cousin Gerard Baldwin Brown on her behalf  as women were not permitted to to speak at this time (Counihan 1998).

She also compiled a list of  Norman mottes throughout Ireland from Goddard Orpen’s translation of “The Song of Dermot and the Earl” and Sweetmen’s “Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland 1171-1307″, then sent her nephew Basil Stallybass to inspect 62 of them (Counihan 1998). Stallybass was an architect and well acquainted with earthworks and he sent her sketches and detailed descriptions of 32 of locations (Counihan 1998). She used these notes to write several articles on the mottes over a decade or so showing that the mottes were were not constructed until after the 1066 Norman conquest of England, so they were not the burghs of the Anglo-Saxon, as had previously been thought, but actual Norman Castles (Castles, Ogilvie 2000:54). She eventually collected these articles and published them in a two part article in “The Antiquary” in August and September of 1906 (Castels). Then in 1912 in her seminal work, The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles, was published along with Stallybass’ notes on his investigations.

The real battle over Irish Mottes begin with the 1902 publishing of T.J. Westropp‘s paper in the “Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy“ on the ancient forts of Ireland (Counihan 1998). His  conclusions didn’t sit well with Goddard Henry Orpen, and the two began a debate in print, into which G.T. Clark was drawn (Counihan 1998). Clark’s comments drew the attention of Armitage and John Horace Round and the war of words began (Counihan 1998).  This “battle in print that spanned the Irish sea (Counihan 1998)”, apparently solidified Orpen’s and Armitage’s alliance and friendship and the two went on to collaborate and associate the rest of her life (Counihan 1998).

According to the Wiki, Armitage went on to be the assistant commissioner to James Bryce on the Royal Commission on Secondary Education to investigate girls’ education in Devon in 1894, and apparently led a full and seemingly rewarding life.

It would have been more rewarding to have a more personal look at Armitage, but I think we can draw a pretty complete picture of her from the surviving letters and notes from her. It took a very strong and forward thinking woman to not only step into a man’s world, but to challenge him in his own arena. She was certainly no shirking violet as she confronted Westropp, and others, when she believed they were wrong. She proved herself competent as a researcher, not only in college but in directing her nephew in their joint investigations of the Irish mottes. She was also not afraid to publish her own views and research, eventually proving her own ideas to be correct.

She also advocated for women’s education. She not only trail blazed with her own acceptance to Newnham College, but continued to work for the education and advancement of women though her own professorship and appointment to assistant commissioner. Her notes are still preserved for research, and her book The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles, is lauded as being one of the most important works on Normand Castles.

Ella Sophia Armitage, certainly left her mark on the world of archaeology, for that I am happy to call her a Mother of the Field.

Resources:

Counihan, Joan.
1998   “Mrs Ella Armitage and Isish Archaeology.” Anglo-Norman Studies: XX. Proceedings of the Battle Conference in Dublin 1997, Edited by Christopher Harper-Bill. The Boydell Press Woodbridge, Suffolk. http://bit.ly/XCJC40.  Retrieved Jan. 19 2013.

Ogilvie, Marilyn
2000   “Armitage, Ella Sophia A (Bulley) (1841–1931)”. The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science. London: Routledge.

The Castle Studies Group
Nd      ”Ella Armitage” The Castle Studies Group. http://www.castlestudiesgroup.org.uk/page93.html. Retrieved Jan. 19 2013.

The Loss of Aaron Swartz, the Need for Open Access, and a Comment on Depression.

Hey everybody! I know, it’s Tuesday…I’m behind…yah…I’ll get to fixing that.

Before I do, I wanted to talk a little about Open Access and Aaron Swartz. There isn’t a whole lot I can add to the discussion. What happened to Swartz, and what was going to happen to him was, in a word, horrible. It’s horrible that MIT and the US Government hounded him to an early grave, it’s horrible that he was sentenced to more prison time than a serial rapist or mass murderer, and it’s horrible that all this was over the access to and sharing of academic information.

We, those of us who are part of or participating in academia, should be ashamed of ourselves, because We are the ones that allowed this to happen. Fortunately, WE are also the ones who can change it.

Many others who are much better informed on this topic have talked about it, and instead of ranting on here, I thought it would be better to link articles and quote the parts that stuck out to me. I encourage you to read the articles in full and follow the links in them. I also encourage you to do what you can to push for the free and open publication of academic papers.

Carl Sagon urged that ideas and information be free and open to all, to do otherwise would create a “priesthood” of professionals and encourage the dissemination of pseudoscience in an information starved would. He’s right, as anyone who is aware of the Anti-Vaxer movement can attest too, or anyone trying to combat the idea of ancient alien visitors knows.  One of these is simply annoying, the other is deadly, both could be remedied by open access and the education of the public.

So, please read the articles, and feel free to comment. I’ll see you later this week with our regularly scheduled postings.

RIP, Aaron Swartz by Cory Doctorow

Not gonna lie, this is really hard to read, manly for the end where the author discusses Swartz battle with depression.

Most people think they have depression, but they don’t . They have blue days, and they’re stressed, but real depression is more than that. It’s not easy to shake or to think clearly when you’re in the grips of it. And you are in the grips of it. It’s a living, breathing thing that holds onto you and won’t let go. You don’t just “get over it”, and you don’t just have a happy thought and suddenly life is all good again. It sneaks up on you, it ambushes you, it isolates you, and it lies to you. I’m not “puzzled” as to why Swartz did what he did, I am sad that he did, but I understand.

Archaeology, Open Access, and the Passing of Aaron Swartz by Eric Kansa

“We have to remember, we, as a discipline work in the public interest.” (emphasis mine)

“There are many excellent reasons to promote Open Access in archaeology, summarized in this recent issue of World Archaeology dedicated to the subject. But the Swartz case helps to highlight another. Professional society reluctance (in the case of the SAA) or outright opposition against Open Access (AIA, AAA) puts many researchers at risk. Many researchers, particularly our colleagues in public, CRM, and contract archaeology or our colleagues struggling as adjunct faculty, either totally lack or regularly lose affiliations with institutions that subscribe to pay-wall resources like JSTOR. Many of these people beg logins from their friends and colleagues lucky enough to have access. Similarly, file-sharing of copyright protected articles is routine. Email lists and other networks regularly see circulation of papers, all under legally dubious circumstances. Essentially, we have a (nearly?) criminalized underclass of researchers who bend and break rules in order to participate in their professional community. It is a perverse travesty that we’ve relegated essential professional communications to an quasi-legal/illegal underground, when we’re supposedly a community dedicated to advancing the public good through the creation of knowledge about the past.”

“It’s time we also start seeing the ugliness in the current dissemination status quo, where the information outputs of archaeology become privatized, commoditized, intellectual property. This status quo carries the baggage of a legally oppressive system of copyright control, surveillance, and draconian punishments. Rather than dismissing Open Access off-hand, we have an ethical obligation to at least try to find financially sustainable modes of Open Access publication (see Lake 2012,  Kansa 2012 [pay-wall][open-access pre-print]).”

Fred Limp (SAA President) Responding to Open Access in Archaeology by Eric Kansa and Fred Limp

“However, the SAA is but one publisher. Even if its publication costs are relatively low, archaeological discourse takes place across many, many titles, typically managed by expensive commercial publishers. Legally accessing these requires institutional affiliations to get e-Journals, JSTOR and all the rest. Though you may get a few titles with your SAA membership, researchers lacking academic affiliations are still cut-off from the great majority of scholarly discourse. Most of them are stuck with extra-legal workarounds, putting these researchers in dire legal jeopardy. While I can understand Fred’s concern over financing SAA publications (and motivating membership), accepting the dysfunctions and legal dangers of pay-walls and strong intellectual property does not advance the interests of archaeologists or archaeology.”

Archaeology, Open Access, RIP Aaron Swartz

“I was at the Society of Historical Archaeology’s conference last week and in a panel discussion the issue of access to resources was brought up. Again, the time worn excuse that “we can’t go open access because then no one would join our society was used”. What I then said was, “well, have you polled your members to actually see why they join your society? The SAS polled theirs and found only a small percentage joined because of the journal.”

“What I wanted to say (and what did say later in a heated discussion about it) was, “Are you a fucking society trying to better mankind or fucking publisher in it for profit????” While societies do many great things I am starting to get real tired of them protecting the high salaries of their employees at the expense  of the rest of us, when, unlike a for-profit company, they are suppose to be helping us.”

I know it seems easy to vilify the SAA’s, but I want to strongly caution against it. Fred Limp at the SAA, to my current knowledge, is the only society representative to respond to this. That should actually give credit to the SAA because they are willing to participate in the discussion openly, whether you agree with them or not. This took guts, good for them.

Anyway, I am a strong advocate for open access and public access. I am also aware that there are aspects of this discussion I am not privy too, mainly because they are behind closed doors where I don’t have access. I also know that there are some valid reasons for not opening the flood gates and letting anyone and everyone have access to academic research. However, there is a middle ground, and it’s high time we find it. We didn’t need Aaron Swartz to prove that to us, but I hope something good will now come out of what he did.