🧵 1/ Come along on a journey of how archaeology REALLY works..
So, recall this quite strange artifact I showed off a few days ago? It was found near the bottom of a historic fill layer at the Henry Whitfield House in Guilford, Connecticut.
2/ Here it is moments after recovery last July. This was one of the most interesting artifacts I had ever seen. Also, I had No Idea what this thing was, but I found it so evocative. Look at that weird little face on there! Look at that delicate handle!
3/ So, the guessing games began. Here's a video of it in motion - that's right, it moves! That little iron bit near the "arm" is a tiny delicate hinge. And I mean delicate, we don't move it anymore bc it's very corroded.
4/ My initial guesses were.. well.. very wrong. I was convinced this was an 18th century child's toy, sort of in the whirligig category. But initial attempts to find info about it were unsuccessful. I was fascinated!
5/ Finally, I went to twitter, where the inimitable @archae_delle immediately identified it as a fragment of 16th/17th century chafing dish. I'd never heard of such a thing. There exist numerous similar examples in the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme.
6/ Dr. Bricking wowed me again today by being able to provide, on command, the somewhat obscure 1973 hyper-focused article on exactly these types of artifacts and how to identify them. What a title!
7/ So, for a year I've known that this was a chafing dish fragment, and I knew that it is probably the oldest settler-colonial artifact ever found at the site (1575-1650, the house was built in 1639). But I had no idea what part of the vessel these things belonged to. Well!
8/ So far as I know, this is the first of this type of artifact to be found in North America. If anyone knows of others, please let me know!
Because that, it turns out, is how archaeology works in 2023. Twitter, cell phone photos, and YouTube shorts. And one OLD artifact.
Remember when you wrote that great paper, took you untold hours of work - cited dozens or even hundreds of thoughtful sources - and it was rejected? Well, prepare to despair over this paper citing only a bad textbook and a self-published preprint touting warmed over race science
This is basically just the premise of The Bell Curve - you find some data, any data really, from Africa, completely ignore all the myriad reasons why it’s statistical insanity to compare that data with non-Africans, do it anyway, and pretend like it proves racism is biological
I've been compiling threads, articles, and interviews from skeptics of #AncientApocalypse in the description of my YouTube video on the subject. I'll link them below in a 🧵
Please feel free to share others and I'll add them.
1/ Here's where I'm going to end off on this, hopefully back where I started: Repatriation is a morally-right action. I'm speaking now to folks who are not already in this debate.
2/ Repatriation, if you don't know (and in the simplest terms I can manage) is taking the remains of Indigenous ancestors currently housed in museums, universities, and elsewhere, and giving them back to descendant communities (usually) for reburial.
3/ The moral justice of this action was controversial in archaeology for a long time. It has not been controversial for decades. That doesn't mean no one disagrees, but it has become an ethical consensus.
1/ On the ethics of talking about bad actors. This is a followup post/couple of posts on a discussion still ongoing (you can check my profile if you'd like to see it firsthand) with @ArchyFantasies@FlintDibble@JenniferRaff and others
2/ @ArchyFantasies brought up this person's twitter profile last night on a discord which we both frequent. She pointed out that as of now, this person was not getting any serious, sustained criticism from the archaeological community and that they should - I agreed
3/ We both decided to QRT this person with a criticism and a call to action. That action led to some larger accounts taking notice and raising a much broader awareness (this was a good thing, IMO)