Exerpts from:
"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 Present State of Rock Feature Research
“While researching this paper, my colleague
and I came across many experienced archaeologists who had regularly encountered
rock features, or were at least aware of their existence, but who had not
previously thought to record or research them. In many cases these
"non-standard" features are overlooked in favor of traditional
archaeological resources (see Ballard and Maver 2006:37-38; Ives 2013; Muller
2009). In CRM, tight budgets and schedules make it especially tempting to
ignore ambiguous features, as no developer wants to be told that they should
avoid a pile of rocks based on an unproven possibility that it may be
significant. The uncertainty surrounding rock feature interpretation then
perpetuates the lack of research. My co-author and I contacted the officer or
head archaeologist at each SHPO in order to gauge their awareness of and
opinions on the rock feature problem, as well as to gather approaches to their
recordation and interpretation. The results were widely varied, with no clear
patterns in regard to region of the U.S., the characteristics of known rock
features, or the presence or absence of recognized Native American tribes. Only
a few states, such as Montana, North Dakota, and Oregon, have formal guidance
in place (some of which I will discuss later in the presentation) Connecticut
is currently in the process of developing ceremonial stone landscape (CSL)
forms and/or guidance (James Gage, personal communication, 2015)...
...(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)..."
This past October, my colleague and
I were able to attend a conference entitled "Interpreting the Past: Ceremonial
Stone Landscapes of the Northeast," during which academic and CRM
archaeologists, Native Americans, and SHPO and Tribal Historical Preservation
Offices (THPO) representatives self-critically discussed the poor
state of research and protection for sacred indigenous landscapes. A
resulting publication is planned. The general consensus was that archaeologists
must stop imposing their own academic, racial, or ideological biases and must
recognize that prehistoric, post-contact Native American, and historic European
American rock features are worthy of study and preservation. Panel
discussants noted that archaeologists who are faced with their inability to
interpret a rock feature often mistake their ignorance for some kind of
epistemological impasse inherent to these features. Because the growing
body of literature refutes such an impasse, we must consider if our
inability to interpret may actually be the result of insufficient effort on our
part and on biases about what types of cultural resources are important or
interesting. Through deep collaboration with native groups, archaeologists
can learn to hear the landscape and have the responsibility to speak on the
behalf of native peoples, especially when the absence of federally-recognized
tribes or loss of oral traditions about rock features is the result of
their displacement and cultural suppression. Sites like the celestial
alignments at Fort Drum, New York (Rush 2015),the "memory piles"
along the Constitution Pipeline in Pennsylvania and New York (Cassedy and
Bergevin 2015),or the CSLs at Lawton Foster Road and Turners Falls in Rhode
Island and Massachusetts, respectively, (Albertini2009; Drummond 2014; NPS
2008; Timreck 2011) could not have been recognized by archaeologists alone, but
can now be used as case studies to interpret other stone landscapes.
These issues have had another unfortunate
side effect. Members of the public who are confronted with the apparent
antiquity and awe-inspiring nature of rock features often become frustrated
with their dismissal by professional archaeologists, or by archaeology's
failure to explain their origins, and turn to pseudoarchaeological explanations.
These features' ambiguity creates an ideal situation for theories about
extraterrestrials, lost civilizations, and supernatural entities to flourish,
as people try to make sense of these visually impressive landscapes. 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). Rather
than belittling or alienating non-archaeologists, we should encourage public
interest in archaeology and coordinate our efforts to understand the past. The
websites and publications of the New England Antiquities Research Association
(NEARA 2015; see Ballard and Maver 2006; Holstein 2012; Muller 2009), a group
of primarily amateur rock feature researchers, and historian mother and son team
Mary and James Gage (Gage and Gage 2015a; see Gage 2009a; 2009b; 2014; 2015;
Gage and Gage 2015b; 2015c) have been particularly valuable during our
research..."
A Call
For the Adoption of Archaeological Theory and Rock Feature-Specific Guidance
"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, such as Tilley's (1994;
see 1996) phenomenology of landscape, Boivin and Owoc's (2004) work on perceptions
of the mineral world, and Ingold's (2000) dwelling perspective. Ingold's work
is particularly applicable, as it can be used to explore the affordances (which
are perceived properties and use-values) of stone, individual stone constructs,
and their environmental settings in order to develop possible meanings and
reasons behind their construction. These theoretical approaches, which could be
collectively subsumed under the study of "paleo-environmental
inhabitation" (Moore 2012), are readily applicable to rock features. For
example, Trevarthen's (2000) study of prehistoric cairns demonstrated how
geological affordances like color and luster can convey ideology, William's
(2007) study of medieval cemeteries revealed how burial cairns and other
mortuary and commemorative monuments were carefully designed by the living to
selectively reflect individual and collective identifies and relationships, and
Johnston's (2001) work on prehistoric clearance cairns explored the ways in
which cairns structure both the physical and social realm.
Framed and
intersected by navigable water and ancient travel routes, the Upper Ohio River
Valley has been a geographic center for economic and cultural development
spanning Native American cultures like the Hopewell, early European-American
settlement and agriculture, nineteenth-to-twentieth century industry, and the
current oil and gas boom. As people built rock features, in all their forms,
functions, and origins, they were reflecting a shared, but ever changing,
understanding of human experience and interactions with the materiality of
landscape (e.g. augmentation, imitation, interaction, modification of existing
conditions). However, until all archaeologists, SHPOs, and agencies begin to
adopt region-appropriate guidance and best practices, guided by some of the techniques
and resources discussed here, and to respect indigenous beliefs about the
agency of landscape features and their ancestors (e.g. Holstein 2010), this
information will continue to be unreachable."
The full presentation can be accessed here:
The full presentation can be accessed here:
No comments:
Post a Comment