Ok ok, kind of related to archeology, really its more geology though so idk, but anyway

What do you think is America's favorite kind of rock?? What type of rock do you think he likes??

To bring it back to archaeology, since I am the champion of Alfred F. “Indiana” Jones, he’d be telling you his favorite soil texture. And his favorite page in the Munsell color chart book, because this fool has the money to own one. “I live on the 10 YR page and I love me a sandy clay-to-sandy loam consistency! 🤓” And then he whips out the trowel he always carries and takes a tiny piece of the nearest dirt so he can test it in his hand. Sand crumbles, silt smears, and clay balls, etc.

But to answer your real question, his favorite “rock” would be the Vishnu Schists/Vishnu Complex which are part of the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite. And for those out of the know, the Vishnu, Rama, and Brahma schists are part of the Grand Canyon Supergroup! Metamorphic rocks that are Early Proterozoic in age and make up the basement of the Grand Canyon. (Oh god look, it’s me. I’m the nerd now.) If you’ve never heard of the schists, Grand Canyon Supergroup, or the Zoroaster Plutonic Complex, it’s very fun.

Might I ask WHY Mr. Jones is having his archaeological license revoked?

aight so first off, not to knock his indiana rizz, but what type of buffoon wears a leather jacket in the field? absolute dipshittery.

he's too broad fr like this man is just a walking encyclopedia. all the professors i know are very smart, but generally they're all very specialized by the time they get to the point of teaching. my primate anatomy professor's specialty was spinal development in children. ur telling me indie is going from pre-columbian south america, to ancient egypt, india, medieval christian artifacts, and then to china? i'm envious but...

and he's more a treasure hunter than anything? rather than naming and recording a site based on a hypothesis or questions had, finding possible evidence, and deciding to do survey and then excavations (if necessary),,,, indie is basically looking for very specific types of artifacts. famous things belonging to famous people or important symbolic or ritual artifacts. i mean c'mon. the holy grail? a golden fertility idol? also this man does basically ZERO recording of anything which made me want to cry because man filling out artifact tags and bags and making sure you have everything in context CORRECTLY...AAAAAAA!!! 90% or more of archaeology is not this way.

to use my own experience as an example: we were attempting to answer questions about the daily lives of settlers at jamestown, finding those ordinary stories. my favorite artifacts to expose from the screens were pieces of clay pipes and things like shards of glass. like case bottle glass that can relatively date a unit to 1652 or later because of previous knowledge guiding us, telling us this type of glass wasn't used before then? beautiful even in its state of decay. shards of pipes that can tell us where they're from by their color (a red virginian clay versus the white 'kaolin' clay of england)? and some even have decoration that we can mend? maker's marks even??? "star maker" pipes my beloved! they tell us about trade at the time. the importance of something seemingly as mundane as the tobacco trade.

bestie. we got excited to find evidence of a ditch that was mentioned tangentially in just one or two historical records. we are not looking for the fantastic on purpose. usually.

there is so much i could say on fictional archaeologists like indiana jones in terms of accuracy, but honestly? that takes the fun out of it. since those movies have come out there has been an abundance of real archaeologists that have debunked his behavior. even i still enjoyed the action of the movie! just take him with a grain of salt :D

Completely unrelated to anything on your blog unt I found a first edition copy of the london arts society thingy from 1865to 1870 (cannot remember the date rn) and it's just sitting in my school library.

The immense differences in what is considered old in the uk and the us is astounding, like that book isn't by far the oldest I've found, theres a copy of dante's divine comedy from even. before that that would sell for 500 pounds if someone 100 or so years ago hadn't cut bits out an annotated them.

Like socially something is considered old about in the 1500s and asking Americans and then they say the 1850s is so wild to me, like perspectivessssss.

Ah, relativism! My favorite word. Perhaps strange, but it is my favorite part of what I want to do. I have always been a person on both sides of the story; I love the when, the where, and the why, not just the what! The ability to know and understand that human nature is not consistent or cookie-cutter. You could say that I might have a view of life colored filthily by optimism and rose-tinted glasses, but I simply have an excitement for the concept of living on this Earth here and now. Through thick or thin.

I can't say much because I am, unfortunately, American (meaning I have a bias and you should take my words with a grain of salt), and I have had my own moments of handling artifacts only 400-450 years in age and thinking with wonder, "I can't believe how old this object is!" Meanwhile, I know perfectly well that many texts, buildings, and even simple bricks and beads across the globe predate my homeland even being a thought by centuries - millennia in some cases! History - both written and unwritten - is fascinating and characterized by many facets.

There is richness in the sheer multitude of perspectives in this world. The lenses through which we view life are endless in origin and form. We are products of where we are from, who we are raised by, the people we meet in our daily lives, and the environments in which we were raised. The average view is that this is both a good and a bad thing - and even that view is relative. It differs from person to person. Honestly, human nature is like giving a kid a box of random LEGO bricks and seeing what they come up with without an instruction booklet. Only imagination and suggestions from friends that are nearby.

To you, we are that young. To us, you are that old. And such is true in the grand scheme of things on both sides. Someday in the future, perhaps even us Yanks will look at something and think, "My, that's so young compared to [local event]." Someday the 1850s will be more than just two centuries behind us and the 1500s will look even more ancient. Now isn't that a weird thought?

I think that's the fun of getting to speak to so many different people with platforms like Tumblr and Discord. I get to interact with so many different perspectives and that's a beautiful thing. The mosaic of life I constantly build in my head is elevated by the stories of friends, family, and even strangers on the street. Do not be afraid to learn. Do not be afraid to question everything. Above all, do not be afraid to have an adventure.

OK SO

how do the specific rock and soil types around a certain dig site contribute to the way that a bone fosillizes if it does at all, such as would it fossilised better in clay rich moist soil, often the ones found at the bottom of a bog for example, or a more silt and sand based soil found in airod climate or on the sea floor.

and if you dont mind me asking what is your favourite crystal formation structure, its for a thing

So, brave adventurer, what you're seeking is a little something called 'taphonomy'. To put it poetically, taphonomy is the study of how an organism goes from the biosphere to the lithosphere; in simpler terms - how one goes from living to stone. The study of fossilization, in even more basic terms. Primarily associated with paleontology, taphonomy is actually useful for archaeology as well. I've had it lovingly told to me by professors and mentors that taphonomy in our context is the study of how long a material/artifact stays in the archaeological record. We are interested in what happens between deposition and lithification just as much as we are interested in the fossil itself.

There are many factors that affect a bone's preservation process, but if we're talking just soil, there is a very basic rule of thumb: Organic materials such as bone, shell, and wood are going to preserve best in anaerobic environments. This means an abundant presence to a lack of oxygen. This rule actually goes for a few other material types, too, but I digress. Other conditions that are advantageous for good preservation are climatic extremes: extremely dry (deserts - think of natural mummification in desert environs) and extremely wet (the bottoms of bogs and seabeds). In the latter, an anaerobic environment coupled with an extremely wet environment is excellent, such as the poorly-draining setting of a raised bog. Ex: The Osterby Man (Osterby, Germany) and the Elling Woman (Silkeborg, Denmark), two separate bog bodies well-known for the presence of their hair and pieces of their clothing/burial shroud.

We also look at the acidity or alkaline nature of the soil. So it is not necessarily if the soil has more clay or sand, but the humidity, acidity, and exposure to oxidation. Bone and glass do very poorly in acidic soils, but other organic materials thrive in it. There are many confounding variables such as the material type itself. All material types preserve differently in different soil conditions. You have to use a lot of context clues and careful observation.

And fun fact, a single soil type and composition might not even be consistent across the entirety of a site. I've worked in two units barely 15 meters from one another, and their soil colors were entirely different, their composition highly variable, and the artifacts in differing states of preservation. Archaeology is all about being flexible!

>> P.S. While I'm not sure if I have a favorite crystal system, I do adore minerals with an acicular crystal habit!

I’ve had these silly guys occupying my brain waves recently. Only posting to this blog because of the drawing. Also just try telling me several of the European nations don’t remember these things, they were everywhere!

“Bartmann Jugs”

Frechen stoneware, 16th-18th century

From the Köln region of Germany (named for Frechen, a town at the western border of Köln

Salt-glazed, which gives the outer surface an orange peel-like texture

Characterized by relief decorations made by moulding techniques

Bartmänner often have coats-of-arms on their bellies (not pictured)

German: Bartmaske/Bartmann meaning bearded mask/bearded man, after the common neck decoration of a bearded male face

Bartmänner from earlier periods tend to be smiling or generally appear happy. Bartmänner from later periods, on the other hand, are often frowning or even scowling. This could be for a number of reasons

Other interesting tidbits: Also known as Bellarmine jugs. The bearded men on Bartmänner may be associated with the wild man/green man figure in European folklore. We find many examples of these from the early English colonial period on the eastern coast of the US, too! The sherd of a Bartmann (a small smiling mouth!) was the first artifact I ever held from the field.

how far is geology from paleontology/archeology and would you mind terribly if I bombard you with questions about rocks that may sometimes be archeologically related

Well, I can't speak fully for paleontologists (though I have a healthy love for the field and the people that practice it!), but both archaeology and paleontology borrow concepts from geology in many parts of daily life. Anthropology and archaeology as a whole are what I would call the jacks of all trades, masters of none. In the short time I've been doing archaeology, I've had to learn a lot about geology, biology, cartography, history, philosophy, and so much more. In fact, my brain hurts 9 days out of 10, but in the best way. The study of humanity and the process of learning more about us is a complex field that requires a huge team. One massive concerted effort. And that's part of what makes it fascinating. I take no arguments on this statement.

And I don't mind at all! I used to want to do geology, paleontology, meteorology, or something astronomy/astrophysics-related before I went to school for animation, then anthropology. Listen. I'm a turbo-nerd, okay? I can't help it. Life and the world are both beautiful and offer so much to learn and be happy about. I guess much like my chosen field of study, I would call myself a jack of all trades and master of none.

Feel free to bombard me with all sorts of questions! Just know that I don't know everything and that I am still learning. But I'm always willing to look things up, too, haha