Prehistoric Mortuary Practices in the Normandy Reservoir

by Tracy C. Brown

My M.A. thesis entitled Prehistoric Mortuary Patterning and Change in the Normandy Reservoir, Coffee County, Tennessee has just been scanned and uploaded to the TRACE System in the John C. Hodges Library at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). If you are interested, you may easily read it on-line or download it to your computer from TRACE. You may do the same by simply using the following link here at the blog:

TCB Thesis

A total of 127 human burials dating from the Late Archaic Ledbetter phase through the Mississippian Banks phase were recovered from sites in the Normandy Reservoir, Coffee County, Tennessee, and three nearby sites located outside the reservoir area. Formal comparative analyses of mortuary attribute states were performed on phase-level burial samples. These analyses resulted in the isolation of mortuary patterning phenomena involving body disposal; the spatial organization of burials on sites and their integration with community patterns; and the locations of burials on functionally differentiated site types within local settlement systems. In turn, these patterning phenomena were assessed for their possible social implications. The generation of detailed data on mortuary behavior for each burial-yielding phase of the Normandy prehistoric sequence allowed the development of a diachronic perspective on stability and change in local mortuary practices.

To the best of my knowledge, this thesis is still the definitive diachronic study of human mortuary practices in the southeastern Highland Rim region of Middle Tennessee. It was written 34 years ago, and I still get calls from people who need a copy for their research—most recently a request from a researcher at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois.

I have a hard copy master here at the house that was given to me by my thesis service in 1982.  Unfortunately, it has little snippets of text loosely Scotch-taped to numerous pages, which precludes fast-feeding the document into a copier. The numerous foldout pages have to be copied one at a time on special copier settings, and they have to be folded. The slick reflective surfaces on the photographs renders them almost entirely black even on the lightest copier setting. The acid in the paper of my copy master has yellowed and degraded the quality of the paper, and although it was stored in a dry place on a book shelf, the steel paper clips in it still managed to rust and leave large, dark, ugly rust marks on the paper.

The first time this thesis was requested by a researcher, I had to cancel a whole afternoon of my life to copy and assemble it. After that, I dreaded the thought of getting more requests for it and knew it would either cost me more afternoons of personal copying at my office or cost a small fortune for copying and assembly by a commercial copying service.  Even TRACE indicated this thesis was a real bear for them to scan and upload to their system. The original PDF file was very large (96 MB), but they managed to compress it electronically into a 10-MB file. Therefore, I was really grateful when TRACE kindly made a decision to make my thesis available electronically on the Internet.

An Unexpected Death in the Tennessee Anthropology Family

Dr. Michael H. Logan has died. Mike was an Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). He was one of my former cultural anthropology professors, a really nice guy, a good friend, a truly great teacher, and a really wonderful Friday afternoon beer buddy to many, many, many past anthropology students at UTK. Mike will be sorely missed by his many colleagues, friends, and former students. To this day our family cherishes the woven Mayan mat Mike and his wife gave us as a wedding present 37 years ago, and it is still prominently displayed on the wall in our upstairs library here at the house.  The obituary below was just forwarded to me a few minutes ago by archaeologist Donald B. Ball in Louisville, Kentucky.


Dr. Michael H. Logan passed away peacefully, surrounded by his loving family, on May 21, 2016. Born May 20, 1942 in Denver, Colorado, he was the son of Dorothy Dixon Logan and bandleader Warner “Happy” Logan. Dr. Logan received degrees in cultural anthropology from the University of Colorado (B.A.), San Diego State University (M.A.), and Pennsylvania State University (Ph.D.). He did extensive fieldwork in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and India. He was known for his wide-ranging expertise in Plains Indian culture and art, as well as research focused on ethnobotanical and ethnomedical practices.

Dr. Logan authored and coauthored over 70 scholarly articles, book chapters, and reviews.  He also edited the journal, Reviews in Anthropology, as well as serving on several editorial boards. He served as a Professor of Anthropology at UT from 1976 to 2014. He loved classroom teaching and mentored thousands of students on a wide range of topics in cultural anthropology. For teaching excellence he received a dozen prestigious awards, including the National Alumni Outstanding Teaching Award in 1993 and the Cunningham Award in 2004. The UTK Department of Anthropology’s annual award for outstanding graduate student teaching is named in his honor. In addition, he received awards for curating and co-curating six exhibits at the McClung Museum of Natural History and Culture, focusing mostly on Plains Indian Art and American Indian beadwork.

Dr. Logan was preceded in death by his parents, his older brother Warner, and niece Diane. Survivors include his wife of 45 years Elizabeth Brown Logan, daughters Kristen Logan Clark (Patrick Clark) and Kay Marie Logan, and many other beloved family members and friends. He will be remembered for his love for life, humor, wealth of knowledge, and giving spirit. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to the Tahosa Alumni Association (Camp Tahosa, Boy Scouts of America), P.O. Box 102938, Denver, Colorado 80250. A celebration-of-life gathering will be held on Wednesday, May 25th, from 3:00-5:00 p.m. at the McClung Museum of Natural History and Culture, located on the UTK campus at 1327 Circle Park Dr., Knoxville, Tennessee.

Hardly a Day Goes By…

Considering the fact that American archaeology is a pretty esoteric subject, we get a satisfyingly large number of visits and views each day here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog. With no doubt, some of our visitors are professional archaeologists; some are college anthropology students; some are artifact collectors; some are public school teachers; some are public school students; and some are just ordinary people in their homes or at work. WordPress provides us with a daily statistical package that summarizes limited data on visitations and views.  It does not tell us who visits the blog, but it sometimes tells us the search term an unnamed person has input to an Internet search engine to arrive at our blog.  Hardly a day goes by without getting one or more searches and visits by people looking for information on the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA).  Almost invariably, these people arrive at the first of our five main posts on this subject at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog.  That post is located at this link:

The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA (Part I)

We have no way of knowing, but we suspect most of our visitors who enter an “ARPA” search term are uninformed and confused artifact collectors. Now, why is that?  Well, a number of professional archaeologists visit or become members of artifact collector web forums such as Arrowheadology or just to read stories about interesting new artifacts that collectors have found and to keep up with the latest artifact collector news, opinions, and attitudes on varying subjects related to American archaeology.  Four of the major things I have noticed on my past visits to such forums are as follows:

(1)  Many artifact collectors, especially the casual collectors and novice collectors, have very little to zero knowledge of the various federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and ordinances that apply to artifact collecting on federal, state, and county/city lands.

(2) Many (but by no means all) life-time artifact collectors have learned through some magazine article, news story, or grapevine of friends that collecting artifacts on federal, state, and local government lands and in government waters is illegal, but they do not understand the finer nuts and bolts of the laws and regulations that make it illegal.

(3)  Although ARPA has been in effect for 37 years, this federal statute and the regulations promulgated under it have just about all artifact collectors significantly confused in one way or another—so much so that many artifact collectors actually think ARPA gives them special permission to legally collect arrowheads on all federal lands.  Yikes!!!

(4)  As a result of Items 1-3 (above), artifact collectors often get together on-line and try to discussively figure out the implications of these statutes and regulations for their collecting activities.  Each person brings the little bit he knows (or thinks he knows) about these laws and regulations to the discussion along with all sorts of misinformation, disinformation, noninformation, and personally held notions about how the American legal system works, usually wrong notions. These discussions sometimes degenerate into bitter arguments about the true nature of the laws they discuss, or they hatch one or more items of homespun legal theory about why it is really all right to collect artifacts on government lands or why a collector will not be arrested or be charged with a crime if they do so.  Field implementation of such homespun legal theories can be bad news when artifact collectors get arrested on federal lands and find out that their operationalized legal theory was nothing more than a home-made cow pie.

Considering how long (26 – 110 years) most of the cultural resource protection statutes and regulations have been on the books at the federal, state, and county/city levels, I often wonder if this important legal information pertinent to artifact collecting is really trickling down to the people in the artifact collecting community, especially here in the eastern United States.  As a professional archaeologist, it has always been my understanding that the primary purpose of these laws is to protect and preserve the cultural resources on publicly owned lands so they can be studied at some appropriate time in the future.  One way you do that is to protect them from artifact collectors who might dig for artifacts or surface collect for artifacts on government lands or dive for artifacts in government waters.  Personally speaking, I really do suspect that a lot of important federal, state, and local legal information pertinent to illegal artifact collecting never trickles down to a very large number of artifact collectors.  Consequently, artifact collectors are always doing Internet searches to find legal information that can potentially clear up all of their confusion about the legality and illegality of artifact collecting on public lands—but if and when they find it on-line—they often do not understand it because it is written in the foreign language known as legalese.

This is the juncture where many of my  fellow professional archaeologists would likely step in and say to me:

You know damned well that every last artifact collector in the United States is aware of the fact that it is illegal to collect artifacts on government lands and in government waters.  They all know it is illegal; they all know it destroys the archaeological record; and they all just go ahead and do it anyway because not a single one of them has any respect whatsoever for the law or for preserving the in situ material culture remains of our past.

Fine.  Yes.  I do indeed understand that this has long been your position.  Some artifact collectors are indeed that brazen about their illegal collecting, and their faces often show up on the front pages of newspapers when they get caught.  However, outside of those few artifact collectors with brass balls, I am not personally convinced that the above statement in italics is anything more than a long-held blanket intuitive assumption in the professional archaeology community—an assumption that has never been seriously tested in empirical terms.  In doing so, I will say the following until some colleague in the professional archaeology community supplies me with comprehensive, solid, indisputable information or data to the contrary:

Based on what I have seen, heard, and read in all sorts of different artifact collecting-related media over several decades and in talking with various artifact collectors throughout that period of time, it is fairly clear to me that many people in the artifact collecting community are either ignorant of or very confused about most of the cultural resource protection laws and regulations on the books at all levels of government. Lots of people—and I do mean lots of people—are either not getting the word about illegal collecting on government lands, or they do not get enough clear legal information to deter them from collecting on public lands.  Some have  even asked me why federal, state, and local government agencies do not come directly to them and teach them the fine nuts and bolts of these laws and regulations so they can finally understand them and know what the law allows them to do and does not allow them to do—so they can obey the law, stay out of trouble, and protect cultural resources. A person has to specifically know what a law says and does before they can obey it—and most people want to know the finer points of those laws so they can understand why it is important to obey them.

One day a couple of years ago, an artifact collector asked me a very serious and quite unexpected question that took me completely aback with surprise because I had never really thought about the issue he brought up—at least in his stated terms:

Why is it you professional archaeologists do not come to us artifact collectors and educate us about all of these laws that forbid us to collect in various places and circumstances?  It sounds to me like all professional archaeologists want to do is intentionally keep us ignorant of the these laws and the finer points of these laws so we will accidentally disobey one of them out of ignorance.  This then gives you guys an opportunity to arrest us; plaster our faces all over the newspapers; put another notch in the wooden stock of your agency enforcement gun; and make a big media deal out of it to scare other artifact collectors into stopping even legal collecting.  Do you people want us to remain ignorant and break the cultural resource laws out of our ignorance just so you can catch us and use it to raise a big ruckus?

Quite frankly, I had never thought of this issue in those terms, so I thought about it some. If I were a federal or state professional archaeologist responsible for a large parcel of public land, might I intentionally fail to educate the local population in my geographic area about the finer details of cultural resource protection laws so unwary citizens living nearby outside of my government lands would be sure to bumble onto these lands out of complete ignorance to do looting of government archaeological sites?  A strategy like this would then give me an opportunity to watch carefully over time and eventually jump out from behind a huge boulder and say:  “Gotcha!!!  You are under arrest!!!  I have to read you your rights now.”  After delivering them to the local jail, I could then put my feet on my desk and say:

“Man!!!  That is the third looting arrest I have made this month.  This “keep the locals ignorant” strategy  of mine is really working.  If I can make another couple of arrests, and get a few convictions, I should be up for promotion in no time.”

Like I said.  I just thought about it for a bit because the guy had brought up this unusual question. Personally speaking, I have no earthly idea whether anyone in the professional archaeology community has ever intentionally done anything along those lines. Such a strategy sounds thoroughly immoral and unethical to me.  In good conscience, I could never intentionally lay an ignorance trap like that for ordinary, unlearned citizens and feel good about it in my church pew on Sunday morning.

In my opinion, detailed education of current and potential artifact collectors on the various laws and regulations that affect artifact collecting is the correct answer to stopping most illegal artifact looting on public lands.  It is never enough.  Let me repeat that loud and clear. It is never enough to just simply say that “artifact collecting on  ____X____ parcel of government land is against the law.”  Some people will take just those 12 words seriously, but some people will not. Some people will say: “Well, I am not familiar with the words in that law, but somehow I doubt it applies in any way to me or anything I might ever do.”  Many people adhere to the notion that all laws and regulations have loopholes that may be to their benefit—and they will somehow get lucky like winning the lottery.  Some people assume the legal penalties must be small because it is “just a little ole arrowhead.” Some people assume the agency has a law in place, but it is not really serious about enforcement. Artifact collectors and ordinary people often think diverse sorts of other things when you say nothing to them but: “It is against the law.”

Current and potential artifact collectors want and need to know the detailed, in-depth legal specifics (and all the legal thinking) behind this simple “against the law” statement, or they are not going to take it all that seriously.  That is why I went to great lengths to explain  (above in the blue link) about the so-called Jimmy Carter clause in ARPA.  When you go into that kind of depth, spell it all out in clearly understandable spades, and slam every single door of hope, people understand that you are dead serious and they need to avoid collecting artifacts on government lands and in government waters. It is never enough to just say it is illegal to do so.  You have to show them the finer points of the law and explain why it is illegal in detail.  If you do this and do it several times per year in your geographic area, I think you will see a significant reduction in looting on government lands. This will happen mostly because people who collect artifacts and people who might be wanting to start collecting artifacts are often simply ignorant of the laws that forbid collecting on public lands.  More than one time in my life, I have had to explain such laws to people I thought would have surely known better.  They did not.

How would you go about doing this?  If it were up to me alone, I would identify every last person in my geographic area of responsibility who is either a known artifact collector or a person who is interested in local archaeology. (I can already hear my professional archaeology colleagues whispering: “How in the hell are you going to do that?”) Lifetime and long-term artifact collectors are not all that hard to find.  It just requires  a little leg work. Potential new artifact collectors are people who already have an interest in archaeology and make that interest publicly known to their school teachers, relatives, friends, and acquaintances.  Finding all these people is not as hard as you might think—if you grew up with artifact collectors all around you as I did—and learned a few things in the process.  You just need to know the right questions to ask and who to ask.  It might take some time and effort, but it can be done effectively.  And above all else, you have to inquire discreetly with the honest understanding that you are not asking in order to get people into trouble with the law—and you had better be totally, 150 percent honest about that fact.

When everyone is identified, you buy some doughnuts and coffee (even a catered buffet dinner), invite all the folks you have identified to a public meeting, and offer everyone a free PowerPoint presentation on the finer points of cultural resource  laws and how they affect the collecting of artifacts.  Tell people your purpose is not to get anyone into trouble with the law.  Your sole purpose is to admit to the people who show up that archaeologists have done a really bad job (and I think we have) of explaining these laws to the public.  Tell them your sole purpose is to rectify that situation by thoroughly explaining these laws in detail; how they can affect artifact collecting; and how the invited people can avoid getting into trouble with the law—and thereby—actually enlist their help in the preservation and protection of archaeological sites on government lands.  To do this properly, you will first have to know the laws and regulations inside out (including the finer points of the law and how they apply to hypothetical situations), and you will have to have a really good and fully developed program to present.  For those people who do not show up, you can put your presentation into a loose-leaf booklet format and mail them a detailed copy, always written and illustrated in such straightforward, simple, and understandable terms that even a grandpappy groundhog could understand it.

One other thing, and this is really important. You do not give this presentation just one time; write a look at me article about public archaeology in the agency public relations magazine, and then just walk away feeling as if you have done your duty and it is all over. It is not all over by a long shot. There are dynamics here.  New artifact collectors and potential collectors move into your geographic area, and they move out of it.  People forget what your presentation said with the passage of time. Small kids grow up, get interested in archaeology, and start collecting artifacts. Laws are revised and amended. New regulations are promulgated.  All sorts of crucial things change with time.  You need to learn how to surf that change and keep the information in your program up-to-date and always in front of the local public as time passes.  You cannot and must not just present—and walk away.  I would aim at the very least at four public laws/regulations presentations per year in your geographic area, depending on its size.

Sure. I agree.  Such detailed public education about cultural resource laws and regulations will not end looting by a handful of the most brazen looters.  Nothing deters the guys with brass balls, a few of which may be dangerous people with criminal records gained in other corners of American society.  However, I do think this approach to artifact collector education would end a lot of the looting on government sites that is done every year out of sheer ignorance—and I personally believe that is an awful lot of the looting that actually happens on government lands in any given year.

If you think I am wrong about all this, please let me know.  You can leave a response to this post here, or you can send me an e-mail message on the above Contact tab.

Flint Fishhooks: A Belated Update

On September 9, 2013, I wrote a blog post entitled Flint Fishhooks and Ivory Soap (Part I). For those of you who might be interested in this subject, I have written a brief explanation as to why I have not made more posts on it.  I really felt badly about keeping you in suspense.  Therefore, just a few days ago, I added some new, interesting, and informative text about what I have discovered so far in the process of examining the admittedly oddball subject of flint fishhooks.  Just click on this safe link and read the basic story so far:

Inadvertently Creating Your Own Ceramic Types in the Archaeology Laboratory

Part of the professional science community here in Oak Ridge is shut down for Good Friday, so I decided to go out to lunch at New China Palace today.  New China Palace is the oldest full-service Chinese restaurant in Oak Ridge. The food and service have always been excellent. New China Palace is approaching 50 years old, and it has already graduated to the enviable cultural status of historic culinary institution in the minds of many Oak Ridgers. After an excellent lunch today, I was pulling out of the New China Palace parking lot and thinking about some artifacts I had to wash a couple of weeks ago in my archaeology laboratory (a.k.a the bathroom with the long counter top just across the hall from my office).  Then I got tickled and began laughing at a fleeting thought about washing artifacts long, long, long ago.

The best way to wash artifacts is to place them under a partially open sink faucet or in a pan of water and let the water alone bleed the adhering soil from the surfaces of the artifacts, sometimes assisted by a gentle swishing motion with the fingers.  If needed, it is often okay to use a toothbrush with chert artifacts, but always a toothbrush with soft bristles.  It is not wise to use a toothbrush or any other kind of scrubbing device on softer lithic materials (e.g., limestone), ceramic sherds, and bone because the bristles can damage them.

New undergraduate students and citizen volunteers who begin archaeological laboratory work usually start out by washing artifacts.  The Archaeologist or Laboratory Supervisor has to teach them how to do it carefully so they will not damage the artifacts, but they cannot be in the laboratory every second if they have other things to do, like go to a class across campus.  Once in a great while, a student or volunteer will arrive late after everyone else has left the laboratory.  The new arrival knows he is there to wash artifacts, so he just picks some artifacts out of a labeled bag and starts washing them.  Sometimes this uninitiated student or volunteer may bring in their own toothbrush or scrub brush because general cultural conditioning has taught him that washing is all about scrubbing things down really good―like Mr. Clean does on TV.  Why is it always the hard bristles (sigh)?  Just in case you are wondering, this is the archaeology laboratory version of the new field archaeology student or volunteer who is told to bring their own trowel to the site and shows up with a 2-foot-long cement trowel.  Been there! Seen that!  I swear!!!

Everything will work out all right if this new laboratory person is just washing chert debitage and an occasional side scraper or pp/k.  Prehistoric ceramics are another matter entirely.  In equatorial areas with high rainfall and the humid subtropics, porous baked clay that has been sitting underground for 1,500 years is usually soft.  If an artifact washer goes after a decorated ceramic surface with a hard-bristled brush (or even a soft-bristled brush), the sherd is going to get damaged.  If the decorative surface is already hard to see, the brushing action may even erase all traces of the original decoration from the sherd, leaving behind only the brush marks from the washing.

Why was I laughing as I left the New China Palace parking lot?  Well, this is certainly nothing to laugh about in a serious archaeological laboratory environment.  However, it just occurred to me that artifact washers with hard-bristled brushes have the ability to create their own ceramic artifact types in the laboratory―and what if we were to formally name them:

Crest Bristle Marked

Colgate Brush Marked

Libman Swirl Incised

Clorox Surface Raked

Stanley Brush Plain (formerly Deptford Cord Marked)

Are you laughing too?   C’mon guys!!!  Get a sense of humor!!!  This oddball stuff that sometimes happens in real life archaeology is part of what makes American archaeology so much fun.  And yes, you always plan for, hope for, and pray that no such artifact-washing disasters occur―or you at least hope you or the Laboratory Supervisor make it back from class or the restroom before newbie Fred or Cyndi gets to the third or fourth sherd.

 You guys have a happy holiday weekend!!!

Jabberwock and an Issue With an Archaeological Site Name

by Tracy C. Brown

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” He chortled in his joy.

I am in the joyful process of analyzing a small collection of lithic artifacts from a multi-component archaeological site (40DV434) in Davidson County, Tennessee. Actually, the Jabberwock might argue it is really in Williamson County, but that would not be the only schizoid thing about this site. The lithic artifacts were collected from the ground surface of the site on August 17, 1972, which was about three days after deep plowing, disking, and a really good summer rain on 40DV434. The other schizoid thing about 40DV434 is its site name, and that is the subject of this post to the Archaeology in Tennessee blog. The primary purpose of this post is to set the record straight on the site name for 40DV434 so Middle Tennessee professional archaeologists, avocational archaeologists, and other folks will no longer be confused about the correct name.

About six months prior to this surface collection activity, several artifact collectors who lived in the Nashville area, led by Mr. Richard Norman (now a Nashville attorney) and Mr. Malcolm Parker (Director of The Parthenon), began excavation work on 40DV434. These were not 3-dimensional, spatially controlled archaeological excavations in the sense that we professional archaeologists apply today when excavating a site. However, this was also at a time when, for all intents and purposes, professional archaeology as we think of it today did not really exist in the Nashville area. Indeed, most of the known archaeological excavations and information concerning the Nashville area had been generated by 19th century and 20th century antiquarians, avocational archaeologists, and artifact collectors during the 150 years preceding 1972. Therefore, these 1972 excavations at 40DV434 were simply a continuation of that local archaeological investigation tradition.

The excavators at 40DV434 were interested in more than just taking home artifacts for their collections.  They actually took some notes on their excavations as they went along; paid for two of the first radiocarbon dates in Nashville area archaeology; prepared a short preliminary report on the site; made the report available to the public; and put many of the more interesting artifacts from the site on display in The Grotto Gallery at The Parthenon for public education purposes. This exhibit was present at The Parthenon for many years, and millions of local residents and tourists from all over the United States and much of the world viewed the exhibit.

After the excavations were completed, the preliminary site report was published (Parker 1974), and it has been cited occasionally by professional archaeologists and avocational archaeologists. In the years since 1974, it has become apparent that at least some professional archaeologists and avocational archaeologists are confused about the correct site name for 40DV434. Some have referred to this site as the Hart site. Some have referred to it as the Owl Creek site. Others have referred to it as the Hart site or Owl Creek site. This confusion is no doubt related to the card stock cover Malcolm Parker bound onto his written report. The top portion of his cover is a 1974 photograph of the backing in the exhibit case at The Parthenon. This photograph shows a hand drawing of an owl and reads as follows:


This was merely a reference to the various groups of ancient men, women, and children who occupied this site during prehistoric times―and nothing else. Below this photograph of the exhibit backing, the report cover reads as follows:


During the 1970s, I knew and frequently interacted with Malcolm Parker, Richard Norman, and several of the other people who were doing the excavations at 40DV434, so I know what I am about to say is an absolutely certain fact. Either informally or formally, 40DV434 was never named or referred to by the excavators as the Owl Creek site—not at any time whatsoever. From the very beginning, it was named the Hart site, and that name never evolved or changed at any time subsequent to when the excavations began in 1972. The site was named after Mr. Rodes H. Hart, the Brentwood, Tennessee, resident who owned the site in 1972 (Parker 1974). This naming of the site was both a courtesy and a memorial to the family of the man who provided permission to excavate the site and supplied some limited financial support for the excavation work. Therefore, henceforth and forevermore, professional archaeologists, avocational archaeologists, and other folks working with archaeology in Middle Tennessee and elsewhere should always refer to 40DV434 by its original and only correct name―the Hart site.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

How did the Jabberwock get mixed into this blog post?  In addition to being the Director of the Parthenon, the metropolitan museum of art in Nashville, Tennessee, Malcolm Parker was an occasional archaeological writer; a book reviewer for Nashville public radio and The Tennessean, an artist who enjoyed hand drawing with graphite and grease pencils, a published newspaper cartoonist with his own serial comic strip; a writer of feature stories for local newspapers; and a poet who wrote a substantial amount of very good poetry he chose not to publish for personal reasons. Lewis Carroll was one of his favorite writers, and he especially loved the Jabberwocky poem.


Carroll, Lewis 1983.  Jabberwocky. The Random House Book of Poetry for Children. Available at the Poetry Foundation website: Accessed February 9, 2016.

Parker, Malcolm 1974.  The Hart Site at Nashville, Tenn. 1972-1974.  Metropolitan Department of Parks and Recreation, Nashville, Tennessee.

Fighting Archaeological Theft and Vandalism

While surfing the Internet this evening, I ran into a really interesting article on fighting archaeological crime.  it was published in American Archaeology, which is the chief public relations publication of The Archaeological Conservancy. Some of the American archaeologists and Tennessee archaeologists who visit the Archaeology in Tennessee blog may have already read this article when it was first published in fall 2012.  For those assorted readers who have not read it, you may do so at the following link:

You will be really interested in the photograph on page 20.  What kind of bozo would do something like that?  If i were standing there in front of that panel, my first inclination would be to check whether I had fallen down a rabbit hole into some strange alter reality, and the following song would be playing in the background:

White Rabbit