Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

Maia Atlantis: Ancient World Blogs - http://planet.atlantides.org/maia

older | 1 | .... | 6130 | 6131 | (Page 6132) | 6133 | 6134 | .... | 6176 | newer

    0 0

    Podcast 8.22: Milton’s Traditional Satan in Paradise Lost (1600s) (Download).


    0 0

    Podcast 8.23: Goethe’s Ironic Mephistopheles (1700s-1800s) (Download).


    0 0

    Podcast 8.24: Satanic Imagery And Conspiracies In Modern Culture (Download).


    0 0

    A desert tomb became a watery grave for some 50 to 60 ancient Egyptians at the ancient Nile quarry...

    0 0

    Texts Added to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG®) on August 11, 2018
    0086 ARISTOTELES et CORPUS ARISTOTELICUM Phil.
    2062 JOANNES CHRYSOSTOMUS Scr. Eccl.
    2598 PROCOPIUS Scr. Eccl. et Rhet.
    2701 GEORGIUS PISIDES Poeta
    2709 Joannes MAUROPUS Rhet. et Poeta
    2714 THEODORUS STUDITES Theol. et Scr. Eccl.
    3190 Nicolaus MESARITES Rhet.
    3196 Constantinus ACROPOLITES Rhet. et Hagiogr.
    3212 Manuel GABALAS Philol. et Theol.
    3229 BESSARION Theol. et Rhet.
    4013 SIMPLICIUS Phil.
    4028 STEPHANUS Byzantius Gramm.
    4083 EUSTATHIUS Thessalonicensis Scr. Eccl. et Philol.
    4418 Simon ATUMANUS Epist. et Scr. Eccl.
    4458 Matthaeus CANTACUZENUS Epist. et Phil.
    5154 PASSIO MARTYRUM DECEM Hagiogr.
    5155 PASSIO SANCTAE AGNETIS Hagiogr.
    5332 EUCHOLOGIA Liturg. et Hymn.
    5333 NOVELLAE ET CHRYSOBULLA IMPERATORUM POST JUSTINIANUM Jurisprud. et Legal.
    5334 CODEX CIVILIS MOLDAVIAE et VALACHIAE Jurisprud. et Legal.
    5512 HISTORIA IMPERATORUM TURCORUM Chronogr.
    9022 Joannes TZETZES Gramm. et Poeta
    9041 Demetrius PEPAGOMENUS Med.
    9046 Anastasius GORDIUS Epist. et Theol.

    0 0

    WASHINGTON — An enormous pyramid-like structure in Indonesia that may represent the remains of an...

    0 0

    On December 20-22, 2018, the Archaeological Society at Athens, the Epigraphic Museum and the Greek Epigraphic Society will co-organize a scholarly symposium in memory of Stephanos A. Koumanoudes (1818-1899).

    Secretary General of the Archaeological Society and Professor of Latin at the University of Athens, S. A. Koumanoudes is widely considered one of the best 19th-century epigraphists, having published hundreds of Greek and Latin inscriptions. A prolific archaeologist,  a superb lexicographer and a talented polyglot, Koumanoudes was a major force in the intellectual life of modern Greece. The symposium will include an array of papers on Koumanoudes’ archaeological, epigraphical and other intellectual work. The Saturday session will consist of a series of papers on new or recently re-discovered inscriptions. The detailed program in PDF can be found here (program).

    The post Epigraphic symposium in memory of Stephanos A. Koumanoudes appeared first on Current Epigraphy.


    0 0

     [First posted in AWOL 11 May 2017, updated 17 December 2018]

    Studia academica Šumenensia

    ISSN 2367-5446












    The main purpose of this periodical is to allow various topics of the history and archaeology of the Balkans and South– Eastern Europe which are quite often highly controversial to be discussed by the broader scholarly of the region. This is why the SAŠ is published entirely in international languages – English, German, French, Italian, Russian and Spanish. In order to broaden the range of the discussion, an interdisciplinary approach will be employed and historians, archaeologists, classicists, epigraphists etc. will be invited and most welcomed.
    Vol.
    Year
    Title
    Download
    1
    2014
    THE EMPIRE AND BARBARIANS IN SOUTH-EASTERN  EUROPE IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND EARLY MIDDLE AGES
    2
    2015
    CHRISTIANITY IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE (CIVILIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE)
    3
    2016
    TRANSITION FROM LATE PAGANISM TO EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE ARCHITECTURE AND ART IN THE BALKANS
    3
    2016
    PhD SUPPLEMENTUM
    4
    2017
    TRANSITION FROM LATE PAGANISM TO EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE ARCHITECTURE AND ART IN THE BALKANS. KRASSIMIR KALCHEV IN MEMORIAM (1954-2004)
    5
    2018
    CONTRIBUTION TO BYZANTINE SIGILLOGRAPHY


    0 0

    WASHINGTON — The history of maritime vessels in the U.S. is preserved in an unlikely place — at the...

    0 0

    This weekend I read Sara Perry and James S. Taylor recently published article “Theorising the Digital: A Call to Action for the Archaeological Community” from Oceans of Data: Proceedings of the 44th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. (Archaeopress 2018). On the Twitters, she asked her followers what they thought of the paper; so I figured that I’d oblige her by writing up my thoughts here on the ole bloggeroo.

    First, this paper raises an important question: what is the relationship between the ongoing conversations about digital  technology in archaeology and the rest of the discipline? More significantly, what does the recent outpouring of thoughtful theorizing in digital archaeology offer to the larger development of archaeological theory? At present, it would seem, digital theory – ranging from how archaeologists design and conceptualize data recording schemes to the tricky issue of digital ethics in an era of remote sensing – rarely appear in standard treatments of archaeological theory and even pressing conceptual and ethnical issues central to digital practice fall remain marginal to larger debates.

    While I suspect this larger trend is changing (note, for example, Giorgio Buccellati’s A Critique of Archaeological Reason (2016)), I think the point that Perry and Taylor make is still good. The relationship between the discourse in digital archaeology and the larger discipline remains ambiguous. As they note, this, in part, represents a view of digital technology as a set of tools that can be applied to accomplish particular goals within archaeology as any tool in any contexts. This approach regards digital tools as no different from, say, a trowel or grid or, maybe, a Harris Matrix, whose place within archaeology is largely defined by its immediate utility. Of course, most archaeologists do recognize that the tools that they use define the kinds of knowledge that we produce, but the line between very basic tools – like a trowel or a pick – and more complex tools – like an iPad – is relatively ill-defined. As a result, there seems to be a tendency to under theorize tools and field practices, in general. This tendency maps relatively neatly onto the dichotomy between physical work and intellectual work; the former is done by diggers and grounded in embodied and craft knowledge whereas the latter is done by project directors, supervisors, and specialists and grounded in science. This is a false dichotomy, of course, but one that remains only rarely unpacked (although see Edgeworth, Everill, and Ixchel M. Faniel et al.) or critiqued.  This isn’t a very satisfying situation, of course, and certainly one that a growing awareness of the impact of digital practices on archaeology in general could revise.  

    I also suspect that the role of digital tools in a theorized archaeology is a question of continuity in archaeological practice. For example, if digital tools represent another version of the modern, industrial tools and practices that arose alongside archaeology (e.g. photography, surveying tools, industrial organization, et c.), then they do not require any particular theorizing outside of the larger critique of archaeology as a modern discipline. On the other hand, if you see digital tools representing a “paradigm shift” or a “rupture” with earlier practices, tools, and methods, then this requires a new set of theoretical presuppositions. Disciplines rarely excel at making this kind of determining in part because they rely so heavily on fundamentally conservative institutional frameworks to produce knowledge that practitioners deem relevant. A greater attention to the contributions of digital practices and technologies to the nature of archaeological knowledge would not involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but in an era where “innovation,” “disruption,” and “acceleration” are closely associated with changes to long-standing economic and social relations, there is a well-founded reluctance to recognize transformational change in archaeological practice. In other words, if you see the much ballyhooed changes in technology as something that is leading to greater disparities of wealth, power, and security in the world, then there are real reasons to avoid imagining these same technologies in the same way in our field. I’m not saying that this is good, but I see it as a way to tame the potential of digital practices through the weight of tradition.

    This does, of course, push us to consider the place of archaeological practice within an increasingly specialized archaeological discipline. The emergence of specialists in digital archaeology with specialist journals, conferences, and institutions, has served to incubate a dense, practical, and (to my mind) fascinating discourse around technology in the field, the lab, and in publishing. At the same time, this specialization has isolated these conversations from other specializations within the discipline in the same way that specialists in lithic, pollen analysis, or even intensive pedestrian survey methods tend to exist within relatively specialized boundaries that only rarely offer the kind of practical or intellectual permeability that allows these sub-specialities to shape the larger field. The difference, however, for digital archaeology is that digital practices are both ubiquitous within the discipline and also demand new and distinctive sets of skills.

    The discipline is already navigating the tensions between familiarity and specialization through the appearance of more and more papers that use sophisticated digital tools in traditional archaeological environments. For example, a recent panel on Cyprus at the ASOR annual meeting included two papers that performed network analysis using a range of new and dynamic digital tools and practices. These papers were not sequestered to a digital panel, but occurred within the broader context of historical and archaeology research on Cyprus. One might hope that over time, digital practitioners and problems will appear more and more regularly at the usual range of meetings that attract topics on theoretical archaeology, ethics, and archaeological practices. It might even be useful to see a decline in the number of specialist journals and meeting dedicated to digital archaeology as archaeologists increasingly roll digital practices into ongoing discussions on methods. Of course, this implies a certain continuity and commensurability between long-standing practices and digital techniques and technologies and that loops me back to the start of this post.

    Perry and Taylor’s article is a good read and thought provoking and parts of it strike to the core of what it means to do digital archaeology or to think about technological mediated practices in the field. It asks us to reflect critically on how we locate within the discipline certain specialties, which are, in and of themselves, a consequence of modern disciplinary practices that fragment the whole into smaller parts.   

     

     

     

     


    0 0

    Mizan: Journal for the Study of Muslim Societies and Civilizations
    E-ISSN: 2472-5919

    Mizan is a digital initiative dedicated to encouraging informed public discourse and interdisciplinary scholarship on the culture and history of Muslim societies. We provide a platform for exploring and engaging with important topics pertaining to Muslim societies past and present.

    Our Vision

    Mizan is dedicated to fostering public scholarship and supporting and promoting research on Muslim societies across the world. We bring a fair, unbiased perspective to bear on current events and contemporary debates concerning all aspects of Islamic history, religion, and culture. We seek to encourage and contribute to informed public discourse by providing academic resources and accessible commentary on subjects of contemporary relevance and abiding significance.
    The Mizan initiative is distinguished by the broad-ranging interdisciplinary approaches we foster; the scholarly expertise we bring to commentary on current events and the study of the Islamic world; and the breadth of cultural expressions from Muslim societies we investigate, commemorate, and celebrate. We seek to make research into the background to Islam’s emergence as a global civilization and the history, texts, and classic cultural expressions of Muslim identity relevant for a contemporary audience. Features and articles on Mizan bridge past and present, drawing classical literature, visual culture, law, and devotional forms into conversation with the popular culture of modern Muslim societies.
    We seek to approach the history and culture of Muslim societies in an unbiased way, without preference for any sectarian perspective, and to avoid essentialism and the privileging of any particular orthodoxy or orthopraxy. We seek to promote an appreciation for transregional and cosmopolitan perspectives and promote pluralism and open dialogue. By fostering objective, responsible, balanced discussion and scholarly inquiry, we seek to contribute to improving online discourse about Muslim societies and culture.
    The results of our inquiry are published under a Creative Commons license, as we believe that making the results of scholarly research and discussion openly available to educators, researchers, the media, and the general public is the best way for us to maximize our impact on scholarship and public discourse.

    Volume 2   Diamond Graphic

     2017  /

     Issue 1

    The Evolution and Uses of the Stories of the Prophets


    Volume 1   Diamond Graphic

     2016  /

     Issue 1

    The Islamic State in Historical and Comparative Perspective


    0 0

    Bâle-Gasfabrik est l’un des sites d’Europe majeurs pour la fin de l’époque de La Tène. Sur le nouveau site Web, vous trouverez tous les projets de recherche et de la littérature scientifique publiée jusqu’à présent: www.basel-gasfabrik.ch

    0 0

    [First posted in AWOL 18 August 2016, updated 17 December 2018]

    MNAR Digital (Museo Nacional de Arte Romano)
    ISSN: 2341-1554

     publicaciones

    MNAR Digital es una publicación online dedicada a la divulgación de temas de museología y museografía, que pretende dar a conocer al público en general la actividad cotidiana de nuestro Museo. MNAR Digital tiene una periodicidad trimestral. Con un formato digital, la accesibilidad a los contenidos de la publicación es abierta y total, haciéndose realidad a través de la web del MNAR o suscribiéndose a la misma, mediante correo electrónico a la dirección mnar.digital@gmail.com.
    Boletín 0 MNAR Digital0. Febrero de 2014. Mérida, 2014.


    0 0
  • 12/17/18--12:00: Call for Papers (CCC 2019)
  • 28.02.2019: [PANEL 1] What’s (new) in a name.


    0 0

    This object study focuses on two pairs of moccasins, similar in structure and style, collected in 1891 from Blackfeet (also called Blackfoot) artisans.[1] The moccasins have a closed-toe design, cloth ankle flaps, leather ties, and beaded floral motifs. They were constructed using a one-piece pattern stitched together with a vertical seam at the heel before adding a rawhide sole. An extended ankle flap, fitted with drawstrings, is sewn on separately.[2] As shoes, these are both practical and beautiful.

    (left) Blackfeet moccasins, object #45-15-435, photo by Lili Gurry. (right) Rawhide sole of moccasins showing traces of hair, photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    One pair, catalogued as object 45-15-435, has a tan buckskin leather upper with a rawhide sole. The upper is hand-beaded in a colorful, symmetrical, slightly abstracted floral design with glass seed beads in light blue, green, yellow, pink, copper, and dark blue colors. A red flannel ankle piece includes a sewn-on canvas flap with ties. Upon first glance, the moccasins look seemingly new, with little to no signs of wear; the rawhide soles retain small bits of hair (likely mule deer or elk) that were never fully scraped away. The object card indicates that these shoes were a “Gift of Crow Eyes,” but did the recipient of the gift ever actually wear them?

    Another pair of moccasins, object 45-15-436, also has a rawhide sole, with an upper of buffalo hide. This beaded floral design is also symmetrical and slightly abstracted, utilizing glass seed beads in light blue, dark blue, green, yellow, pink, dark pink, copper, white, and black colors. A black cotton corduroy strip is sewn onto the edge of the wide canvas ankle flaps. Similar to the first pair, these moccasins also show little to no signs of wear, and the soles still retain some traces of hair. The size of these moccasins implies that they were made to be worn by adults rather than children.

    Blackfeet moccasins, object # 45-15-436. Photo by Lili Gurry.
    Big Beaver and John Gun Up on the Blackfeet Reservation in 1891. Note the moccasins with floral motifs on their feet. Photo by Charles H. Stephens. Image #24462, courtesy of the Penn Museum Archives.

    Sketching Stephens’ Moccasins

    These moccasins were collected by Charles Hallowell Stephens (1855-1931), a Philadelphia illustrator, art teacher, and amateur collector who spent several decades acquiring roughly 2000 objects from the Apache, Lakota (Sioux), and Blackfeet cultures. He collected these moccasins during the summer of 1891, when he spent several months living with Native Americans of the Piegan band on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in northwestern Montana. Stephens routinely sketched objects, made notes, and photographed the people he met with, making his records relatively reliable.[3] He recorded where and when he received these shoes, and also identified a number of Blackfeet people by name. Notes on the back of his sketch card state:

    “Moccasins, ornamented with conventional flowered design, made to my measure by ‘Crow Eyes’ wife [and] presented by Crow Eyes, Piegan, Montana. . . Moccasins, shank pattern, conventional flowered design, black flap around ankle, made [by] “Skunk Cap’s’ mother.”[4]

    Stephens’ notes tell us a little about his Blackfeet friends. He records that Native women were making these moccasins: one pair (45-15-435) was crafted by Crow Eyes’ wife, and the other pair (45-15-436), made by Skunk Cap’s’ mother, was acquired from a man named “Big Beaver.” One pair was specifically “made to my measure,” likely meaning custom-made to fit Stephens’ feet. On closer examination, both pairs are the same size and neither show signs of having been worn. Did Stephens request specific Blackfeet designs, or did his friends offer these as gifts? Did he ever intend to wear them?

    Stephens did not identify the female artisans by name, but they are listed in an 1898 Census Report that identifies Crow Eyes’ wife as Running Rattler, and Abel Skunk Cap’s mother as Last Strike.[5] Although Stephens’ files include photographs of many of the Blackfeet people he met with, there are no images of these women. There are, however, pictures of men wearing the same style of moccasin with similar floral motifs. This photograph, for example, shows two men, Big Beaver (Chatterbox) and (Jappy) John Gun Up, both wearing the same style of moccasins. Stephens’ caption also notes that “Jappy carries a rattle which he presented to me.”[6]

    Stephens recorded these and other details on scraps of paper while he was traveling and collecting. Later in life, as he began cataloguing his collection, he gathered up his receipts and notes and documented these moccasins and other objects on individual sketch cards with detailed drawings. Between 1945-1947, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology acquired these moccasins and the accompanying sketch cards, along with roughly 1,700 other objects and photographs from the Stephens collection.[7]

    Charles Stephens’ moccasin sketch card in the Stephens Papers. Photo courtesy of the Penn Museum Archives.

    Blackfeet Beadwork

    Both pairs of moccasins use similar colors in the glass beadwork and symmetrical patterns of floral designs. In general, Blackfeet artisans, whether working in paints or in beads, preferred a color palette of red, yellow, blue, green, black, and white, along with light blue and pink. [8] Beads were typically pre-strung before being spot-stitched or appliqued to a leather garment.

    Detail shows beads top-stitched to the upper. Photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    Like other Native nations on the Great Plains during the 1800s, the Blackfeet utilized trade materials (glass beads, cloth, ribbon, etc.) to replicate or add to their traditional artistic styles in dress and ornamentation. After the 1850s, small glass seed beads were regularly acquired through trade with white settlers, and they became highly desirable and widely used, especially in moccasins, garments, and pouches. Although geometric patterns predominate in older beadwork of the region (as is seen in the other moccasins in Stephens’ collection) floral motifs were common in the late 1800s, so these moccasins are consistent with the region’s adaptable artistic taste. Since patterns in beadwork designs changed over time, one can sometimes determine the era from which an object derives based on the size and pattern of beads.[9]

    The beads came from European sources, but the color selections and designs came from Indigenous artisans and traditions. Some designs were decorative, others evoked traditional stories or historical events, and still others reflected symbols that carried protective power.[10] The art of crafting Indigenous beadwork on clothing, as an artistic form, reached through time and across generations, incorporating meaningful and beautiful styles of adornment.[11] One could also say, in the case of these moccasins, that it reached across cultures, since Running Rattler and Last Strike gifted Charles Stephens with fine examples of handsome moccasins that any Blackfeet person would have been proud to wear on their own feet.

    Footnotes:

    [1] The Blackfoot Confederacy includes four bands or tribal nations in the Great Plains region, including: Siksika or Blackfoot; Kanai or Blood;  Apa’tosee or Northern Pikuni; and Blackfeet or Amskapi Pikuni. The name, said to derive from either the black hooves of the buffalo or the blackened soles on well-worn moccasins, is also reflected in the name Siksika, which literally translates to “black foot.” Jack McNeel, “10 Things You Should Know About the Blackfeet Nation,”Indian Country Today, April 6, 2017. Also see Hugh A. Dempsey, “Blackfoot Confederacy,”Canadian Encyclopedia, 2010.
    [2] The “one-piece” design indicates that the upper is cut from a single piece of leather that is wrapped to fit the foot. Clark Wissler, “Material Culture of the Blackfoot Indians,” in Clark Wissler, ed., Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. V (New York, NY: Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History, 1910), 129.
    [3]Charles H. Stephens Papers 1081. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Museum Archives.
    [4] Notes from card archived in Charles H. Stephens Papers 1081, Series IV: Collection Material.
    [5] See “Census of the Piegan Indians of Blackfeet Agency, Montana, taken by Thomas P. Fuller, United States Indian Agent 1898,” in National Archives Microfilm Roll M595-4, Indian Census Rolls 1885-1940, Blackfeet Agency, 1897-1906.
    [6] Stephens’ caption reads: “Big Beaver (Chatterbox) and (Jappy) John Gun Up. Jappy carries a rattle which he presented to me (Stephens). Blackfoot reservation, Montana, 1891.” Archived in Charles H. Papers 1081, Series VIII Photographs: Box PA 68, University of Pennsylvania, Penn Museum Archives.
    [7] Biography/History for Charles H. Stephens Papers 1081, Finding Aid.
    [8] Elizabeth Mae McCoy, A Descriptive Analysis of Blackfeet Indian Beadwork, Masters’ Thesis. Montana State University, 1972, 22, 50. For discussion of other regional styles in Blackfoot beadwork, see Laura Peers and Alison K. Brown, Visiting With the Ancestors: Blackfoot Shirts in Museum Spaces (Edmonton, Alberta: Athabaska University Press, 2015).
    [9] Ibid, 48-49. For comparative examples of specific regional and tribal beadwork motifs, see Lois S. Dubin, Floral Journey: Native North American Beadwork (Los Angeles: Autry National Center of the American West, 2014).
    [10] Janet Catherine Berlo, “Creativity and Cosmopolitanism: Women’s Enduring Traditions,” in Identity by Design: Tradition, Change, and Celebration in Native Women’s Dresses, Emil Her Many Horses, ed. (New York, NY: Harper Collins in association with Smithsonian Institution, 2007), 107, 120.
    [11] Michelle Lanteri, “Beads: A Universe of Meaning: Wheelwright Museum of the American Indian.”First American Art Magazine. September 18, 2017. For a stunning example of art by a contemporary Blackfeet beadworker, see Dominique Godreche, “The Intricate Beadwork of Jackie Larson Bread,”Indian Country Today, January 30, 2014.

    Sources Cited:

    Berlo, Janet Catherine. 2007. “Creativity and Cosmopolitanism: Women’s Enduring Traditions,” in Identity by Design: Tradition, Change, and Celebration in Native Women’s Dresses, Emil Her Many Horses, ed. New York, NY: Harper Collins in association with Smithsonian Institution.

    Dempsey, Hugh A. 2010. “Blackfoot Confederacy,”Canadian Encyclopedia.

    Dubin, Lois S. 2014. Floral Journey: Native North American Beadwork. Los Angeles: Autry National Center of the American West, 2014.

    Godreche, Dominique. 2014. “The Intricate Beadwork of Jackie Larson Bread,”Indian Country Today, January 30, 2014.

    Lanteri, Michelle. 2017. “Beads: A Universe of Meaning: Wheelwright Museum of the American Indian.”First American Art Magazine. September 18, 2017.

    McCoy, Elizabeth Mae. 1972. A Descriptive Analysis of Blackfeet Indian Beadwork. Masters’ Thesis. Montana State University.

    McNeel, Jack. 2017. “10 Things You Should Know About the Blackfeet Nation.”Indian Country Today. April 6, 2017.

    Peers, Laura, and Alison K. Brown. 2015. Visiting With the Ancestors: Blackfoot Shirts in Museum Spaces. Edmonton, Alberta: Athabaska University Press.

    Charles H. Stephens Papers 1081. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Museum Archives.

    Wissler, Clark. 1910. “Material Culture of the Blackfoot Indians.” In Clark Wissler, ed., 1-176, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. V. New York, NY: Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History.


    This object analysis was conducted for the Fall 2018 University of Pennsylvania course “Anthropology of Museums.” Students are examining Native American objects in the American Section of the Penn Museum by combining material analysis (elements, construction, design, condition, etc.) with documentation (texts, photographs, ethnographic data, etc.). Since some objects have minimal provenance data, we seek out and consider similar materials, research articles and archives, Indigenous knowledges and histories, and non-material evidence (oral traditions, ecosystems, museum memories, etc.) that might illuminate these objects. This research is designed to expand our understandings of object lives, using insights and information gathered from inside and outside of the Museum.

    For more blogs from the 2018 Anthropology of Museums class, see the following articles, edited by Margaret Bruchac:
    • With Erica Dienes. “The Salmon Basket and Cannery Label.”
    • With Erica Dienes. “Choctaw Beaded Sash: Crossing Histories.”
    • With  Liliana Gurry. “Moose Hair Embroidered Birchbark Trays: French, Native, or Both.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Investigating a Pipe Tomahawk.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Tlingit Raven Rattle: Transformative Representations.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “The Kaskaskian Beaver Bowl.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “Children Among the Caribou: Clothes for a Young Innu.”
    • With Leana Reich. “Lady Franklyn’s Quilled Mi’kmaq Box.”
    • With Leana Reich. “The Mysterious Beaded Collar.”



    0 0

    Op donderdag 20 december organiseert het Gallo-Romeins Museum in Tongeren de Spraakwater-lezing ‘Het gegraveerd mammoetbeen van Schulen. Toch het oudste muziekinstrument van Noordwest-Europa? ’. Spreker is prof. Philip Van Peer.

    In de collectie van het Gallo-Romeins Museum bevindt zich een mysterieus mammoetbeen waarop een reeks parallelle inkervingen te zien zijn. Het werd meer dan 40 jaar geleden opgebaggerd uit het Schulensbroek in Schulen (Herk-de-Stad, Limburg), waarna het in een privaatcollectie belandde. Begin jaren 1990 werd het bot onderzocht door Dirk Huyge, die het identificeerde als een soort ratel of muziekrasp, gemaakt door neanderthalers die zich toen in onze regio bevonden. Het bot van Schulen werd daarmee een van de oudste muziekinstrumenten ter wereld, en zodoende een uniek stuk werelderfgoed. Maar enige tijd later viel het object van zijn voetstuk. Zonder het ooit in handen gehad te hebben, degradeerden een aantal critici het tot een door een hyena beknaagd been. 

    In 2018 werd het bot opnieuw onderzocht. Dat onderzoek is nog niet afgelopen en nog niet alle resultaten zijn verwerkt, maar één ding is intussen al wel duidelijk: het bot van Schulen is wel degelijk een door prehistorische mammoetjagers gemaakt object en dus van groot historisch belang. Tijdens deze lezing stelt prof. Philip Van Peer de onderzoeksresultaten voor het eerst voor aan het publiek. Het wordt een fascinerende speurtocht naar de ware betekenis van een absoluut topstuk.

    De lezing vindt plaats donderdag 20 december om 20u00 in het auditorium van het museum. Meer info op www.galloromeinsmuseum.be.


    0 0

    The provenance story of this “American Indian beaded collar” (object # 2000-16-1) begins with a mystery: it was made by an unknown artisan for an unknown purpose at an unknown time, likely in the 19th century. In 1972, Robert W. Preucel received it as a gift from his high school friend, Tucker Hentz. Hentz noted, “All I recall is that an elderly friend of my mother gave it to me when she learned of my interest in Indian artifacts.”[1] In 2000, Preucel, who was by then a Professor of Anthropology at Penn, gifted the aforementioned collar to the Penn Museum, where it was categorized as “Leni Lenape or Delaware” and placed into storage in the collections.

    In 2018, when an interested student initiated an object study, she realized, after an exhaustive search, that there appears to be no information online relating to Delaware beaded collars in general, and no information that might illuminate this collar in particular. Is this object, in fact, Lenape/Delaware in origin? Where did it come from, and what does it signify? The student set out to answer those very questions.

    Material Details

    The first step, in attempting to identify the mysterious traveling collar, is to examine its stylistic attributes. The collar is horseshoe-shaped, measuring 50.40 centimeters in length and 36 centimeters in width. When worn around the neck and shoulders, it takes the form of a closed oval, rather like a horse collar. At the bottom, four strips of red grosgrain ribbon are tied together, likely to secure it in place around the neck of the wearer. All around the perimeter, black ribbon triangles are decorated with alternating pieces of red and yellow grosgrain ribbon. The main body of the collar is made of black woven wool fabric, stitched to a red and white striped cotton ticked fabric that wraps around to form the red edge of the collar. The floral designs on the collar are composed of top-stitched (appliqued) strands of opaque and translucent glass seed beads in white, yellow, blue, orange, dark green, and several shades of pink.[2]

    Beaded collar, object #2000-16-1. Photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    The black wool is intricately beaded with different floral motifs that are bilaterally symmetric. From the bottom to the top of the collar, these motifs are composed of small glass beads arranged as follows on each side: a large eight-petaled pink flower with orange center; three small yellow circular flowers; two dark green leaves with yellow veins; three orange and yellow tulip-shaped two-petaled flowers; three small orange circular flowers; one four-petaled flower (with yellow center and petals in shades of pink); and three blue and orange heart-shaped two-petaled flowers. At the top (the neck of the collar), there is an asymmetrical design of a single four-petaled flower (in shades of pink with a yellow center), flanked by three teardrop-shaped blue flowers on one side, and three red and yellow tulip-shaped two-petaled flowers on the other side. All of these flowers are connected by white vines or stems made of two parallel rows of beads with short lines resembling thorns jutting out from the center.

    Beadwork close-up. Photo by Leana Reich.

    The beadwork is intricate, distinct, and surprisingly intact, given that the collar is in very rough condition and moth-eaten. The careful beadwork of the floral designs contrasts with the very uneven stitching that once held a layer of yellow silk to the top of the collar. The silk, which was likely a decorative edging, is all but vanished now. Perhaps it was added later by a less-skilled artisan. Perhaps it was a bad repair. It is difficult to speculate about the construction or significance of the fabrics, colors, or designs on this collar without any knowledge of the specific time period or culture from which this object came.

    Comparing Beaded Garments

    We have not found any historical evidence of Lenape/Delaware people traditionally wearing beaded collars of this shape, but there is evidence of intricate decorative beadwork in other garments and accoutrements, such as bandolier bags. One such example is currently on display in the “Infinity of Nations” exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC.[3] The style of beadwork on these bags is markedly different from this collar. While the collar utilizes floral motifs on a wool background, the bandolier bag style tends to be fully beaded with repeating geometric, abstract, and/or floral shapes.

    In recent communication, Preucel suggested that this collar might be from “one of the Great Lakes tribes (Iroquois or Anishinaabe).”[4] Gerry Biron, a fine artist who has conducted research on historic Iroquois and Wabanaki beadwork, agreed, noting that, after checking some sources, “I am more inclined to attribute it to the Great Lakes, and likely Ojibwa.”[5]

    Cover of Floral Journey by Lois S. Dubin. Photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    A stunning example of Ojibwe beadwork which bears surprisingly similar floral shapes and color choices to the collar can be seen on the cover of Floral Journey: Native North American Beadwork by Lois S. Dubin.[6] The cover depicts an Ojibwe dance apron/breechcloth collected in 1885 from Wisconsin Dells and housed in the Southwest Museum of the American Indian Collection, Autry Museum of the American West. This article of clothing has a similar selection of glass beads arranged into distinctive white vines/stems with thorn-like protrusions, the same round four-petaled flowers, and the same tulip-shaped two-petaled flowers on a black background. Another point of similarity between the two works is the symmetry: both can be divided down the middle into two perfectly matching halves (with the exception of one stray flower in the center of the breechcloth). The reverse of the breechcloth is plaid cloth rather than striped cloth, but the edging of grosgrain ribbon is essentially the same on both.

    The Autry Museum also holds a pair of beaded leggings dating from 1860-1870. These leggings contain beaded floral motifs which are bilaterally symmetrical and stitched onto black wool with a red ribbon edging.[7] These same floral motifs on a black background are also seen on a vest in the same museum, which was photographed in the 1880s being worn by a Winnebago man. [8] These examples show that Great Lakes beadwork (Ojibwe, Chippewa, Winnebago) is stylistically very close to the beadwork on the collar, but there is one concern: there do not seem to be any examples of Great Lakes people wearing collars like this.

    Beaded collar, object #37-23-5. Photo courtesy of the Penn Museum.

    So, if we just isolate the stylistic attributes of the floral beadwork it is easy to attribute the collar to the region of the Great Lakes. If we focus instead on the fact that it is a collar, the picture becomes fuzzier.

    The most prominent examples of Native American beaded collars are the Wabanaki beadwork collars made to be worn on or over leather coats and woolen broadcloth “chief’s coats.” These collars, typically made with a cape at the back and lapels draped down the front, are still being made and worn by the Penobscot and other Wabanaki nations today.[9] This style, called a “ceremonial cape” or “chief’s collar,” is well-represented in museum and tribal collections. The Penn Museum, for example, has a “Penobscot Ceremonial cape” (object #37-23-5) dating from the mid-1800s, that was collected by Gabe Paul and gifted to the Museum by Samuel Fernberger. This collar, adorned with beaded plant motifs worked in round and tubular glass beads, is said to have been made around 1870, and was worn by Peter Nicola when he served as Chief from 1911-12.[10] The shapes of these bear no resemblance to the collar in question, which is shaped more like a horse collar.

    Kahnawake Mohawk man, c. 1910. Photo courtesy of Gerry Biron.

    A number of late 19th and early 20th century photographs show Mohawk people in Quebec and New York state wearing elaborately beaded collars.[11] The mystery deepens when it becomes apparent that these historic photographs often show Native people in the context of late 19th century “Wild West” performances and medicine shows. [12] These collars were made in a variety of shapes and sizes, but none of the ones documented thus far resemble the shape or motifs on the one in question.

    During the era when this collar was constructed, Native people were routinely borrowing motifs and patterns from various locales for their own decorative purposes. The Kahnawake Mohawk man pictured at left, for example, is wearing an elaborately beaded collar with floral motifs over a leather jacket with brass-studded cuffs and a Western Plains style turkey feather headdress. Such cultural mixing was (and is) often seen in Native regalia from the 19th century to the present. [13]

    With the information in hand thus far, there is no certainty that this beaded collar is associated with any one specific culture, even though the style of the floral beadwork is consistent with Native American artistry and aesthetics, and is, apparently, characteristic of the Great Lakes region. Was this collar a traditional item of clothing? Was it some combination of traditional and decorative show garb? At present, there is no way of knowing. Thus, the process of looking for answers about the origins of this mysterious traveling collar—passed down from friend to friend to friend as a gift with neither documentation nor evidence—continues, leaving us with more questions than answers.

    Footnotes:

    [1] Robert Preucel, email communication “Re: Beaded Collar at the Penn Museum,” November 5, 2018.
    [2] By the mid 19th century, Native American and First Nations artisans across the continent had embraced the use of glass seed beads imported from Venice and other parts of Europe, and assimilated them into existing decorative practices, sometimes utilizing glass beads to replace colored paint or quill work. See Lois Dubin, Floral Journey: Native North American Beadwork (Los Angeles: Autry National Center of the American West, 2014): 40.
    [3] “Delaware Bandolier Bag,” Infinity of Nations: Art and History in the Collections of the Museum of the American Indian, National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, DC.
    [4] Robert Preucel, email communication “Re: Beaded Collar at the Penn Museum,” November 5, 2018.
    [5] Gerry Biron, email communication “Re: Beaded Collar at the Penn Museum,” November 25, 2018
    [6]  Lois S. Dubin, Floral Journey: Native North American Beadwork, 56. The dance apron/breechcloth, identified by the museum as either Ojibwe or Chippewa, was collected in 1885 from Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, and donated to the Southwest Museum of the American Indian Collection by Donna Held. The apron was highlighted in a 2014-2015 exhibit at the Autry.
    [7] Dubin, Floral Journey: 55.
    [8]  Steven D. Hoelscher, Picturing Indians: Photographic Encounters and Tourist Fantasies in H.H. Bennett’s Wisconsin Dells (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2008). The photograph of Ha-zah-zoch-kah (Branching Horns) taken by H.H. Bennett, c. 1905 is archived as LC-USZ62-115038 in the Library of Congress.
    [9]  See, for example, Jennifer Sapiel Neptune’s work in Robin Clifford Wood, “Anthropologist Artist Brings Penobscot Artifact to Life,”Bangor Daily News, June 5, 2015. Also see Rhoda Besaw, “Chief’s Coats,”Traditional and Contemporary Wabanaki Beadwork, Artist’s website.
    [10]  Nancy T. Prince, exhibit co-curator, “Brilliantly Beaded: Northeastern Native American Beadwork – Regalia.” On-line exhibit, Hudson Museum, University of Maine.
    [11]  Gerry Biron, “The Iroquois and Wild West Shows #2,” March 11, 2011, Historic Iroquois and Wabanaki Beadwork Research Blog.
    [12] Gerry Biron, 2011, “The Iroquois and Wild West Shows #1,” March 8, 2011, Historic Iroquois and Wabanaki Beadwork. Research Blog.
    [13] See Richard W. Hill, Sr., “Patterns of Expression: Beadwork in the Life of the Iroquois,” in Dan L. Monroe ed., Gifts of the Spirit: Works by Nineteenth Century and Contemporary Native American Artists (Salem, MA: Peabody Essex Museum, 1996). Also see Ruth Phillips, Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast, 1700 – 1900, (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press; Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990).

    Sources Cited:

    Besaw, Rhonda. n.d. “Chief’s Coats.”Traditional and Contemporary Wabanaki Beadwork. Artist’s website.

    Biron, Gerry. 2011. “The Iroquois and Wild West Shows #2.” March 11, 2011, Historic Iroquois and Wabanaki Beadwork Research Blog.

    Biron, Gerry. 2011. “The Iroquois and Wild West Shows #1.” March 8, 2011, Historic Iroquois and Wabanaki Beadwork Research Blog.

    Hill, Richard W., Sr. 1996. “Patterns of Expression: Beadwork in the Life of the Iroquois.” In Dan L. Monroe ed., Gifts of the Spirit: Works by Nineteenth Century and Contemporary Native American Artists. Salem, MA: Peabody Essex Museum.

    Phillips, Ruth. 1990. Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast, 1700 – 1900. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press; Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Prince, Nancy T. n.d. “Brilliantly Beaded: Northeastern Native American Beadwork – Regalia.” On-line exhibit, Hudson Museum, University of Maine.

    Wood, Robin Clifford. 2015. Interview with Jennifer Sapiel Neptune. “Anthropologist Artist Brings Penobscot Artifact to Life.”Bangor Daily News. June 5, 2015.


    This object analysis was conducted for the Fall 2018 University of Pennsylvania course “Anthropology of Museums.” Students are examining Native American objects in the American Section of the Penn Museum by combining material analysis (elements, construction, design, condition, etc.) with documentation (texts, photographs, ethnographic data, etc.). Since some objects have minimal provenance data, we seek out and consider similar materials, research articles and archives, Indigenous knowledges and histories, and non-material evidence (oral traditions, ecosystems, museum memories, etc.) that might illuminate these objects. This research is designed to expand our understandings of object lives, using insights and information gathered from inside and outside of the Museum.

    For more blogs from the 2018 Anthropology of Museums class, see the following articles, edited by Margaret Bruchac:
    • With Erica Dienes. “The Salmon Basket and Cannery Label.”
    • With Erica Dienes. “Choctaw Beaded Sash: Crossing Histories.”
    • With Lilianna Gurry. “Moose Hair Embroidered Birchbark Trays: French, Native, or Both.”
    • With Lilianna Gurry. “Blackfeet Moccasins: Gifts for Charles Stephens.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Investigating a Pipe Tomahawk.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Tlingit Raven Rattle: Transformative Representations.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “The Kaskaskian Beaver Bowl.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “Children Among the Caribou: Clothes for a Young Innu.”
    • With Leana Reich. “Lady Franklyn’s Quilled Mi’kmaq Box.”



    0 0
  • 12/17/18--12:35: ADEDE zoekt archeoloog
  • Ter versterking van het team is ADEDE bvba op zoek naar een gemotiveerde archeoloog (m/v) met minstens 2 jaar ervaring voor het uitvoeren van veldwerk en de verwerking ervan.
    Met het oog op een langdurige samenwerking biedt ADEDE contracten aan voor onbepaalde duur. Geïnteresseerd? Stuur dan je motivatiebrief en CV naar info@adede.com.



    0 0

    In 1901, during the Wanamaker Pan-American Expedition, Penn Museum Curator Stewart Culin purchased a selection of Choctaw objects from Louisiana.[1] The collection included two elaborately beaded red wool sashes—objects #38472 and object #38473—which were identified, in the Choctaw language, as ska-bo-chai.[2] The coiled designs evoke ancient motifs seen in Eastern Woodland Mississippian and Early Historic period pottery. Those motifs have persisted, influencing a southeastern beadwork style that is immediately recognizable as distinctive to Choctaw traditional regalia.[3]

    Choctaw beaded sashes, objects #38473 and 38472. Photo courtesy of the Penn Museum.

    The sashes were purchased by Culin for $2.50 in 1902. The Museum catalogue card identifies them as Muskogean Choctaw, “purchased from Ernest Faure – a half-breed – and his wife. Wife was the daughter of Prince Pisa, a Choctaw.” The catalogue card notes that there are two photographs of Native men wearing these specific sashes (also called bands or baldrics): one photograph taken in the late 1800s shows Prince Pisa; the second shows Ernest Faure.[4]

    Pisatuntema in 1909. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, BAE GN 01102B20 0622900.[7] 
    Historically, sashes like this were typically worn by male leaders in tribal communities, to reflect the roles they played and the respect they received.[5] Women sometimes also wore these sashes, as can be seen in a 1909 photograph of Prince Pisa’s daughter Pisatuntema wearing a similar beaded sash. She was, at that time, well-known as a traditional storyteller and the oldest woman in her Choctaw band in the Louisiana marshes.[6]

    Ernest Faure in 1902. Penn Museum Archives 13975.

    When Stewart Culin met with Pisatuntema in 1902, he noted that “she had the ornamented blue calico shirt and the baldrics (ska-bo-chai) of red flannel, ornamented with white bead work in characteristic scroll design, which her father had worn for his picture.” Her husband Ernest then “kindly put on the costume and allowed me to photograph him.”[8] 

    These two sashes were intended to be worn together, one across the chest and one around the waist, as seen in the photograph taken by Culin. The sash worn across the shoulder is currently on display in the Native American Voices exhibition at the Penn Museum, but the other sash rests in collection storage. Although the sashes are related, their story is disconnected when they are not presented together.

    Patterns of Choctaw Identity

    In addition to the spiraling designs, the sashes display a unique beading style that distinguishes them from other Native American beadwork: each stitch holds one horizontal bead and one vertical bead, in what Cherokee artisan Martha Berry calls a “two-bead line stitch” that resembles the patterns of stepping in a traditional stomp dance.[9] Most of these Choctaw sashes were made with a red wool background and thin strips of blue wool placed between the rows of white pony beads. No other bead colors were used. A few sashes have a dark blue wool background with red strips between the rows of white beads. One of these—object #E25410 in the collections of the Peabody Essex Museum—was collected by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions near the Choctaw school on the Yalobusha River in Mississippi.[10]

    From a mixed European and Choctaw perspective, these sashes were meant to be worn by a leader or a warrior, signaling Choctaw identity in a way that is highly visible from a distance. Similar shapes of sashes were made and worn during the 19th century by men from other southeastern tribes, including the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole. A Seminole contemporary artisan, Brian Zepeda, notes that “the easiest ones to pick out are Choctaw. . .They use red [wool] and white beads, with white spirals.” The sashes reflect the adaptability of cultural cohesion over time, weaving together old symbols with new materials.[11]

    The designs seem playful and decorative, but they are more than mere adornments. From the Indigenous perspective, they evoke Choctaw beliefs about relations with other-than-human beings. Choctaw contemporary artisan Jerry Ingram, who makes modern versions of these sashes, says that the designs represent “two snakes always uncoiling and recoiling.”[12] The coiled spiral design evokes the “Great Serpent, Sinti Iapitta,” a powerful being known throughout the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Similar coiled designs can be seen in some of the mounds constructed in ceremonial landscapes in the Choctaw homeland in Mississippi.[13] To provide cultural context for the sash on display, the Penn Museum exhibition text explains these beliefs as follows:

    “A Choctaw man wore this strap for special occasions. The white-beaded coil design represents the horned serpent from the mythologies of Southeastern tribes. The motif was often inscribed on prehistoric Mississippian ceramics during the same era. The horned serpent is thought to represent the great spirit of the underworld.”[14]

    Typically, two sashes were worn, crossed over each other.[15] On a practical level, the sashes could be used as shoulder straps to attach to shot bags or powder horns, or simply worn across the chest to signal the status and identity of the wearer.[16] The sashes reflect both Indigenous styles and European influence: the red and brown colors resemble the bandoliers/cartridge belts worn by 18th and 19th century British and French soldiers in combat, while the spiral designs clearly communicate a distinct Choctaw identity.

    Detail of coiled beadwork designs on Choctaw sash, object #38472. Photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    Alliances and Entanglements

    Historically, the relations among European settlers and the Choctaw over time were complicated. Southeastern Native communities were disrupted by successive waves of Spanish, French, and English settlers, and those pressures led to civil wars within and among Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek nations, disrupting older kinship ties.[17] By the 1740s, the Choctaw had decided to ally with the French leaders of Louisiana colony. One of Louisiana Governor Vaudreuil’s officers, Jadart de Beauchamp, went so far as to suggesting that fighting for the French was a perfect outlet for Choctaw expressions of masculinity and prowess, stating that if they are “men today,” “it is to the French alone that they are obliged for it.”[18] Perhaps these sashes were adopted to emulate the bandoliers worn by their French allies?

    During the early 1800s, most of the Choctaw rejected Tecumseh’s offer to join his Indian Confederacy and fight against Euro-American settler colonials; this choice was likely motivated by survival instincts. Yet, as seen historically in the relations between colonial settler nations and Native peoples who chose to join them during times of war, the respect that Native people gave was rarely the same as the respect ­they received. During their alliance with American colonial leaders, the Choctaw were enticed to sign their lands over to the federal government, and after Mississippi was designated as a state, the Choctaw were pressured to relocate. In 1830, during the negotiations around the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, most of the Choctaw elders, both women and men, spoke against removal, but a few leaders welcomed the opportunity to claim land in Oklahoma.[19] In the end, despite American promises to reserve traditional Native homelands in Mississippi, the Choctaw were among the first Native people to be removed from the south and pushed to the west.[20]

    Full length view of Choctaw sash #38472, which was worn as a belt. Photo by Margaret Bruchac.

    What was the Choctaw motivation in emulating European dress and forming an alliance with these colonial settlers? Did they want to be seen, like their European allies, acquiring respect in battle, or did they strategically utilize these sashes as a means to assert Choctaw identity while fighting against removal? These sashes tell their stories, not solely through the objects themselves, but through the people who wore them, how they were respected, and the roles they played within their community. The blended European materials and Choctaw designs represent honor and military prowess, while also suggesting negotiated survival and assimilation. The Choctaws were warriors and willing to fight alongside white settlers, perhaps trusting that they would not be displaced as a result. Yet, the European soldiers who wore bandoliers changed the way of life for the entirety of the Choctaw nation. These sashes must be interpreted as more than merely decorative clothing in order to fully convey the tangled crossings of these histories.

    Footnotes:

    [1] John Wanamaker, was one of the financiers and founders of the Archaeological Museum that evolved into the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum). See Joseph H. Appel, John Wanamaker Founder and Builder: America’s Merchant Pioneer from 1861 to 1922 (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1940), 404.
    [2] Stewart Culin, 1901, “Archaeological and Ethnological Trips, Louisiana and Arizona: New Orleans; Keams Canyon; Canyon Diablo; First, Second & Third Hopi Mesas; Oraibi; Walpi. Choctaw; Hopi. Brooklyn Museum.
    [3]“Choctaw Beadwork,” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians website.
    [4] Notes on Penn Museum Catalogue Card.
    [5]“Traditional Clothing of Choctaws,” Choctaw Nation Store. Also see “Choctaw Sash,” Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Cultural Services website.
    [6] See David I. Bushnell, Jr. “Myths of the Louisiana Choctaw,” American Anthropologist New Series, 12 (4) (Oct. – Dec., 1910): 526.
    [7] The photograph is captioned: “Pisatuntema in Partial Native Dress with Native Hairstyle and with Ornaments.” Photograph number BAE GN 01102B20 0622900 in the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Another photo, taken at the same time, shows a Choctaw man named “Ahojeobe or Emil John” wearing the same sash (photograph number BAE GN 01102B13 06226200).
    [8] Culin appears to have interchangeably identified these objects as “bands” or “sashes” or “baldrics.” Stewart Culin, 1901, “Archaeological and Ethnological Trips, Louisiana and Arizona: New Orleans; Keams Canyon; Canyon Diablo; First, Second & Third Hopi Mesas; Oraibi; Walpi. Choctaw; Hopi. Brooklyn Museum.
    [9] Martha Berry, quoted by America Meredith, “Stitches in Time: The Rebirth of Southeastern Woodlands Beadwork,”First American Art Magazine, March 27, 2015.
    [10] A very similar Choctaw sash, dated 1835-1850 and collected by John and Marva Warnock, is pictured on-line in “Splendid Heritage: Treasures of Native American Art.” Another very similar Choctaw sash was collected in Arkansas in the early 20th century, and sold at a Cowan’s Auction in 2011. The National Museum of the American Indian has 17 Choctaw sashes in its collection, most of which were collected by Mark Raymond Harrington; see, for example, this Choctaw sash collected in 1908 from Agnes Wallace.
    [11] Brian Zepeda, quoted by America Meredith, “Stitches in Time: The Rebirth of Southeastern Woodlands Beadwork,”First American Art Magazine, March 27, 2015.
    [12] Sean Everette Gannt, Nanta Hosh Chahta Immi? (What Are Choctaw Lifeways?): Cultural Preservation in the Casino Era, Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico, 2013, 8.
    [13] Donna L. Akers, Culture and Customs of the Choctaw Indians (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2013), 146. For a detailed discussion of the beliefs and practices that informed the pre-colonial mound-building ceremonial complex, see James Vernon Knight and Vincas P. Steponaitis, eds., Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom: Chronology, Content, Contest (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 2007).
    [14]Native American Voices: The People – Here and Now, Penn Museum exhibition text.
    [15] Rayna Green with Melanie Fernandez, The British Museum Encyclopedia of Native North America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), 17.
    [16] Patricia Galloway and Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaw in the East,” in R.D. Fogelson, ed., Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast, vol. 14 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2004), 507.
    [17] John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931), 4-6. There is also evidence that the Choctaw and Chicksaw were closely linked before separating into two distinct tribal nations before Europeans arrived. See Patricia Galloway, Choctaw Genesis, (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1995). Also Richard Green, “Beyond the Divide: Chickasaw-Choctaw Warfare,” on the Chickasaw Nation website, August 13, 2014.
    [18] Matthew J. Sparacio, In Time of Iron-Age: The Choctaw Civil War and the Southern Frontier, Ph.D. thesis, Auburn University, 2018, 90, 97-99.
    [19] John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931), 4-6.
    [20] James T. Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 2003).

    Sources Cited:

    Akers, Donna L. 2013. Culture and Customs of the Choctaw Indians. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

    Appel, Joseph H. 1930. John Wanamaker Founder and Builder: America’s Merchant Pioneer from 1861 to 1922. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

    Bushnell, David I. Jr. 1910. “Myths of the Louisiana Choctaw.” American Anthropologist New Series, 12 (4) (Oct. – Dec. 1910): 526-535.

    Carson, James T. 2003.  Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

    Culin, Stewart. 1901. “Archaeological and Ethnological Trips, Louisiana and Arizona: New Orleans; Keams Canyon; Canyon Diablo; First, Second & Third Hopi Mesas; Oraibi; Walpi. Choctaw; Hopi. Unpublished report in Series 2.1: Collecting expeditions 1898-1928, Brooklyn Museum.

    Galloway, Patricia. 1995. Choctaw Genesis. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Galloway, Patricia and Clara Sue Kidwell. 2004. “Choctaw in the East.” In Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast, edited by R.D. Fogelson, 499-519. Vol. 14. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

    Gannt, Sean Everette. 2013. Nanta Hosh Chahta Immi? (What Are Choctaw Lifeways?): Cultural Preservation in the Casino Era. Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico.

    Green, Rayna, with Melanie Fernandez. 1999. The British Museum Encyclopedia of Native North America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Green, Richard. 2014. “Beyond the Divide: Chickasaw-Choctaw Warfare.” Chickasaw Nation website. August 13, 2014.

    Knight, James Vernon and Vincas P. Steponaitis, eds. 2007. Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom: Chronology, Content, Contest. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

    Meredith, America. 2015. “Stitches in Time: The Rebirth of Southeastern Woodlands Beadwork.”First American Art Magazine (March 27, 2015).

    O’Brien, Greg. 2008. Pre-removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Sparacio, Matthew J. 2018. In Time of Iron-Age: The Choctaw Civil War and the Southern Frontier. Ph.D. thesis, Auburn University.

    Swanton, John R. 1931.Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


    This object analysis was conducted for the Fall 2018 University of Pennsylvania course “Anthropology of Museums.” Students are examining Native American objects in the American Section of the Penn Museum by combining material analysis (elements, construction, design, condition, etc.) with documentation (texts, photographs, ethnographic data, etc.). Since some objects have minimal provenance data, we seek out and consider similar materials, research articles and archives, Indigenous knowledges and histories, and non-material evidence (oral traditions, ecosystems, museum memories, etc.) that might illuminate these objects. This research is designed to expand our understandings of object lives, using insights and information gathered from inside and outside of the Museum.

    For more blogs from the 2018 Anthropology of Museums class, see the following articles, edited by Margaret Bruchac:
    • With Erica Dienes. “The Salmon Basket and Cannery Label.”
    • With  Lilianna Gurry. “Moose Hair Embroidered Birchbark Trays: French, Native, or Both.”
    • With  Lilianna Gurry. “Blackfeet Moccasins: Gifts for Charles Stephens.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Investigating a Pipe Tomahawk.”
    • With Kayla A. Holmes. “Tlingit Raven Rattle: Transformative Representations.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “The Kaskaskian Beaver Bowl.”
    • With Ben Kelser. “Children Among the Caribou: Clothes for a Young Innu.”
    • With Leana Reich. “Lady Franklyn’s Quilled Mi’kmaq Box.”
    • With Leana Reich. “The Mysterious Beaded Collar.”



    0 0

    Health and Wellbeing in the Ancient World 

    https://ugc.futurelearn.com/uploads/images/7c/5a/promo_large_7c5a198e-88f4-464c-af37-3264936902b2.jpg
    About the course

    What did being healthy in ancient Rome or Greece look like? How can we tell what wellbeing meant in ancient times? This course will help you investigate the health of people in ancient Greece and Rome, using both literary and archaeological evidence to uncover details of real life in ancient societies.

    Explore ancient life through primary evidence

    This course is designed to challenge simplistic approaches which apply modern distinctions to the ancient world. Instead you’ll go back to the start and look at the primary evidence on which all modern assumptions are based. You’ll examine different objects closely, learning what each item can tell us about life in ancient times.

    Understand ancient theories by examining the body

    On the course we’ll divide the body up into organs and systems, using each as a starting point to explore ancient theories of the structure and function of the human body, and other aspects of ancient life.
    We’ll discover ancient Greece and Rome in full, from the public to the personal, and from army and urban life to the lived experience of women and children. Using the evidence on the hair and face, the eyes, the digestive system, the organs of reproduction and the feet you’ll explore topics with which our society still wrestles, including the location of the ‘self’; the relationship between mind and body; identity; food and drink; sanitation; sexuality, ageing and gender.

    Improve your critical and analytical abilities

    Through the course you’ll develop some of the skills needed in the study of classics and history including:
    • Improving your ability to critically analyse primary sources
    • Learning to analyse complex problems based on fragmentary evidence
    • Developing your ability to engage with contemporary interpretations and scholarly debates.
    For a taste of what will be covered in this course, read this post from Lead Educator, Helen King.

older | 1 | .... | 6130 | 6131 | (Page 6132) | 6133 | 6134 | .... | 6176 | newer