User:Cakerkela: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Developing new page, Dennis E. Puleston is up, time for Colha |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{newpage}} |
{{newpage}} |
||
== |
== Colha, Belize == |
||
Dennis E. Puleston (1940-1978) took [[archaeology]], [[biology]], and [[ecology]] and developed an approach to understanding human interactions with nature that is inspirational and instructive more than thirty years after his tragic passing. Through the lens of his works, an image of innovation and inspiration can be developed for young scientists who aspire to take on these issues. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Dennis’s work is illustrated in the picture on the left (used with permission from [http://www.puleston.org puleston.org]). Dennis challenged traditional archaeological methods by finding a different perspective. Whether through experimenting with reconstruction and usefulness testing of [[Chultun|chultuns]] or raised fields, building a traditional [[Aboriginal Dugout Canoes|dugout canoe]] and using it to investigate otherwise unreachable areas (as seen on the right), or challenging the status quo belief that the [[Maya civilization|Ancient Maya]] subsisted on a [[milpa]] agricultural complex – [[maize]], beans, and squash, Dennis made an indelible mark on the field of archaeology in a short time. Dennis’s untimely and extraordinary death was shocking, both literally and figuratively. Consider the following excerpt from Dennis’s obituary, written by Harrison and Messenger and published in [[American Antiquity]] Volume 45 from April, 1980: |
|||
:On June 29, 1978, atop [[El Castillo, Chichen Itza|El Castillo]] at [[Chichen Itza]] a mid-morning bolt of lightning struck and killed Dennis E. Puleston, just ten days after his thirty-eighth birthday. In a single instant the Maya world lost one of its most affable and innovative scholars. |
|||
The unique nature of Dennis’s passing is only overshadowed by the unique nature of his life and career. A brief synopsis of some of his studies is included below, but more detail can be found at [http://www.puleston.org www.puleston.org] for those who are inspired to learn more. |
|||
== |
== Archaeological History == |
||
Born June 19, 1940 to noted [[ornithologist]] and environmentalist, Dennis Puleston , and his wife Elizabeth, Dennis (Denny to friends and family) learned a love of adventure, the outdoors, and science. “These influences provided a map for Denny’s own career” (Harrison and Messenger 1980) and how could they not. Denny’s father’s Wikipedia page paints a picture of his adventurous nature. Consider the following excerpt from this page and consider the impact that growing up with such a man could have: |
|||
:He saved enough money to purchase a sailing boat and in 1931 left England to spend the next six years sailing around the world. One obituary recorded: |
|||
::On his travels, he ate human flesh with cannibals in [[New Guinea]], flirted with virgins in [[Samoa]], managed a derelict coconut plantation in the [[Virgin islands]], adopted a pet boa constrictor, tattooed his arm with sharks' teeth, searched for sunken treasure off [[Santo Domingo]], was shipwrecked on [[Cape Hatteras]] and gave his pet cockatoo to the [[Emperor of Japan]]. Eventually he was captured in [[China]] by Japanese soldiers fighting the [[Sino-Japanese war]]. When Puleston received a handwritten letter from the Emperor thanking him for the cockatoo, his captors were so impressed that they packed him back to Europe on the [[Trans-Siberian railway]]. |
|||
:He wrote about his adventures in his first book, Blue Water Vagabond: Six Years' Adventure at Sea, published in 1939. By that same year Puleston had moved to the [[United States]], and in 1942 he took [[American citizenship]]. |
|||
With role models like this, how could Dennis settle for a mundane life? Dennis’s father’s love of travel was not lost on him. According to puleston.org, “he lived and worked in such places as the Canadian wilderness, the island of [[Moorea]], [[Society Islands]], and the tropical forests of [[Central America]] which he came to love deeply.”His early adoption of the family’s passion for science and outdoor adventure led to success in the classroom. Dennis attended high school at [[Bellport High School]], in [[Brookhaven, New York]], and upon graduating embarked on his own adventures. A great illustration of his adventures and eventual decision to become an archaeologist is found in the following excerpt from Harrison and Messenger’s obituary: |
|||
:Before beginning formal study of biology at [[Antioch College]], he [Dennis] spent a season working with the [[National Film Board of Canada]] as assistant in the production of a cinematic study of [[Tundra|tundra ecology]]. During the years of study at Antioch, Denny’s interest in archaeology developed through a series of contacts and field experiences. In 1960 he worked as a student assistant under Roland Force and [[Paul S. Martin]] in the [[Chicago Natural History Museum]]. It was Paul Martin who arranged a visit for Denny and a classmate to [[Tikal]] in [[Guatemala]] via a letter of introduction to Edwin S. Shook, then director of the project. When they arrived in Guatemala the pair found tickets to Tikal waiting for them and a warm welcome at the site. For Denny the visit stretched into the 1961 field season, then another, and another…. |
|||
Puleston’s career was intimately tied to Tikal. He spent his years of Graduate school studying at Tikal with [[William Haviland]] under the direction of his advisor, [[William R. Coe (archaeologist)|William Coe]]. A large majority of his published works were specifically oriented to his research at Tikal, although he did research at several other sites. |
|||
== Family Life == |
|||
Dennis’s Parents are Dennis and Elizabeth (Betty) Puleston. He has one brother, Peter, and two sisters, Sally and Jennifer. As a graduate student at the [[University of Pennsylvania]], Dennis met and married Olga Stavrakis (a short biography of Olga can be found at www.travelwitholga.com) . Dennis and Olga had a son, Cedric, and a daughter, Lyda (see family picture on the left). During many of Dennis’s adventures his family would accompany him. Many of the images at puleston.org, the source of all the images included here (by permission of Olga Stavrakis), include Dennis’s family. Whether it was Olga and Peter helping collect ramon nuts or Cedric and Lyda interacting with the team, archaeology for Dennis was a family affair. |
|||
== Dennis’s Unique Approach to Archaeology == |
|||
While several of Puleston’s contemporaries were concerned with human interactions with nature, Dennis’s approach was novel in its ability to juxtapose the micro and macro perspectives of these environments into one coherent argument. While many of his resultant hypotheses are controversial, one would be hard pressed to attribute the problematic areas of these hypotheses to [[methodological]] errors, scientific veracity, or a lack of [[Data archaeology|data]]. Dennis seemed to embrace this controversy. Many of his hypotheses seem to have intentionally challenged the status quo. While traditional archaeological methods rest on theory interpreted through anthropological observations and repetition of artifactual data from site to site, this approach does not bring satisfying answers to the questions that Dennis was most interested in. Therefore, he set forth to test many of his theories through experiments in the environment. [[Experimental archaeology]] is rare today. A wave of such approaches was evident in the aftermath of Puleston’s death, as evident in the book, Maya Subsistence, which was written as a tribute to Puleston in 1982. Unfortunately, Arguments of environmental change since the “collapse” of Lowland Maya societies have been convincing and have been used to undermine the approach to the point that it is now rarely practiced. Consequently, there is a waning in the study of ecology and archaeology through these experiments. But, If Dennis was still around, it would be easy to imagine his creative style would have found a way to counteract the detractors of experimental archaeology and his continued work would be invaluable to the field. Below are brief synopses of three of his most influential works in experimental archaeology. |
|||
== Dennis and Chultuns == |
|||
Chultuns are man-made holes in the ground and are found in many parts of Mesoamerica. They come in several forms, but they are all called by the same moniker. In 1971, Puleston wrote an article entitled, An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic Maya Chultuns. Within this article, he shows that, despite the common name, there are several different types of chultuns and he suggests that these different styles were indicative of differing uses (see figure on left from this article for some styles documented by Puleston). Dennis asserted that while the first chultuns documented where single chambers with plastered walls for holding and collecting water, the chultuns in the Tikal region were different in shape, not plastered, and did not hold water. |
|||
Dennis conducted three experiments to test the chultuns. First, he filled a chultun with water and watched it drain away quickly. This lent credibility to his assertion that chultuns of this region were not for water storage. Next, Puleston built a chultun. To do so he created [[stone tools]] similar to those that would have been used to construct one 1,000 years ago. Upon completion, in 1966, Puleston filled the chultun with a diversity of locally produced dietary contributions, like maize, beans, squash, and [[cassava]]. Every two weeks, Dennis would pull the items out and document their state of preservation. These items were weighed, examined, and photographed. The observations were then compared to a [[control group]] that was store above ground. However, the control group was quickly consumed by rodents and insects. While the chultun stored produce was not consumed, the end products were also not consumable. Upon completion of this 11 week experiment, Puleston (1971) noted that, “while the chultun apparently offered valuable protection from vermin, it evidently could not be used for the storage of maize, beans, or squash” (330). The following year Dennis tried the experiment once more, but this time he added a nut from a local tree – the Brosium Alicastrum (ramon) to the mix. [[Orator F. Cook|O.F. Cook]] (1935) is cited in Puleston’s article as the originator of the idea that chultuns could have been used to store ramon nuts, however, without Puleston’s experiment this assertion had never been taken seriously. What Puleston found would change the opinion of ramon utilization indelibly. Not only did the ramon nuts survive the 13 week experiment that once again devastated the comparable crops, after 13 months, ”they were still in excellent condition and completely edible”. Puleston will draw on these experiments for further work on the ramon as an alternative staple in the Maya diet. The resultant argument can be seen in a number of the linked articles below, and a synopsis of his findings is included below. |
|||
== Dennis and Brosium Alicastrum (Ramon) == |
|||
The [[Ethnohistory|ethnohistoric]] record and [[Ethnographic|ethnographic data]] from the observation of Maya populations since the [[Spanish colonization of the Americas|conquest]] lead archaeology to adopt the theory that ancient Maya populations were reliant on [[Swidden agriculture|swidden]] (slash and burn) agriculture. This swidden hypothesis continued, relatively unchallenged, for hundreds of years. More recently, however, the realization that many [[Classic Maya|Classic Period Maya]] sites were too large in population to be supported with such subsistence technologies has combined with the observations of numerous physical manifestations of agricultural intensification to unseat the swidden hypothesis from its thrown. However several sites are extremely problematic due to their high populations and the lack of clear evidence of localized intensification processes. Tikal is probably the most problematic of these sites. |
|||
Many ascribe to the hypothesis that Tikal, as a major state level society in the Peten, would have used military force and diplomacy to demand [[tribute]] to alleviate [[Overpopulation|population pressure]] on their localized subsistence base. A subsistence base that Puleston note as seeming “to provide an environmental antithesis of what might be expected to produce civilization on the basis of the other examples” (Puleston 1982: 353). While there is a significant case to be made for such assertions during times of power in Tikal, every Maya site cycles between times of prosperity and recessionary periods, both economically and politically. Tikal was no exception. Tikal’s “hiatus” in the Late Classic Period, after a series of defeats at the hands of [[Caracol, Belize|Caracol]], [[Naranjo]], and [[Calakmul]], would have put a significant barrier up against Tikal’s ability to extract tribute. Therefore, another source of sustenance would be needed in Tikal. |
|||
Following the above mentioned experiments with the chultuns of Tikal, Puleston began to investigate the Brosium Alicastrum (ramon) tree as an alternative to the traditionally accepted Maya triad (maize, beans, and squash) for staple level utilization and to address the sustenance issue mentioned above. Once again Puleston sets out to use experimentation to challenge long accepted theories. Consider the following excerpt from The Role of Ramon in Maya Subsistence: |
|||
:It is my intention here to suggest that our view on the relationship between ancient Maya culture and its environment, particularly with regard to subsistence practices, has been totally wrong. Perhaps heavily biased by our own agricultural heritage, Western archaeologists have been extremely slow to question long-accepted basic assumptions about the Maya. Far from being "the least desirable environment for human occupation in Mesoamerica," the tropical forests of the Maya Lowlands, in fact, seem to have offered certain specific resources which, because they were utilized skillfully, permitted the rise of a state society, which was sustained by one of the highest regional population densities in the preindustrial world. |
|||
The assertions he makes here are both instructive and ambitious. Puleston makes a strong argument for the possibility of Ramon utilization as a staple in a number of his articles. However, mainstream archaeology can get mired in debate, especially when long-held assumptions are challenged as blatantly as it was in the article cited above. Many times this self-regulation can be of great benefit to the field, but in some cases it marginalizes alternative viewpoints. Puleston’s work with the Ramon tree and its fruit have been utilized in recent agricultural programs in [[Southern Mexico]], like those in [[Petén|Peten, Guatemala]], where according to [[Rainforest Alliance|Rainforest Alliance’s]] article, [http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/publications/newsletter/ramon-nut A Little Nut with Big Possibilities], “the world's first ramón nut-based school lunch program, Healthy Kids, Healthy Forests is helping to feed more than 8,000 children from 46 rural communities, while providing jobs for women and offering a real incentive for forest conservation”. Unfortionatly, it has been marginalized in the field due to a number of problem areas that Dennis did not live long enough to explain. |
|||
Problem areas aside, Puleston’s work with ramon showed promise as an alternative source of calories for sites with no clearly observable alternatives for intensification. According to Puleston, “Three features made the ramon stand out: (1) it showed a close association with sites, (2) it was an edible staple, and (3) it was storable” as seen in the chultun experiments above. Based on these features, Dennis’s team, originally consisting of Dennis, Jeffrey Parsons, and Richard Blanton, began to collect data on Ramon productivity. Results were astonishing. Consider this excerpt from Puleston(1982) for demonstration: |
|||
:I set up a grid on a 900 [square meter] plot of forest floor at Tikal. This plot was divided into 100 3[square meter] plots from which a sample of 25 was randomly selected for systematic collection and weighing of the seed fall during the fruiting season. This was done over a period of three years, during which time the plots yielded an average of 1,763 kg/ha/year. This was despite the fact that the trees were untended and in full competition with other non-food producing species that crowded around them. (1982: 361) |
|||
When contrasted with his observation that “maize under the best of conditions and minimum fallowing periods can yield little more than an average of 324 kg/ha/year”(1982: 361), wild untended ramon is shown to be more than 5 times more productive than maize per unit of land. Puleston’s experiments also analyzed the nutritional quality of ramon nuts and compared them with alternative crops available to the Maya (see charts in his thesis link below). In many cases ramon scored higher than these alternatives. In fact his research showed that, ramon is advantageously comparable to maize in the quantity and quality of its protein content, as well as its content of [[calcium]], iron, [[niacin]], vitamins A and B, and the desperately deficient element of the traditional Maya diet, [[tryptophan]] (1982, 161-162). Finally, Puleston’s team evaluated the efficiency of labor input needed to cultivate and harvest the ramon nuts. Citing Carter (1969), Puleston assumes the figure of 2000-3000 man-hours needed to maintain a traditional maize field at a level that produces sufficient food for an average Maya family. His experiments at Tikal in 1973 produced data that indicated the same family could be supplied for the year with the more easily stored ramon seeds in less than 100 Man-hours (1982: 362). Therefore an investment of 3% to 5% of the time spent conducting slash and burn agriculture could supply the caloric needs of the same family through ramon-based tree cropping. |
|||
It is clear that much more research is needed on the analysis of ramon proclivity in other Maya environments. Ethnographic studies have shown that ramon nuts are seen as a drought or [[poverty food]] by contemporary Maya populations. If this was the case in Classic Period Maya society, one would expect higher abundance of ramon at sites that, like Tikal, seem to have high social stratification than those with a smaller gap between the elite populations and the average citizens. There also must be an analysis of the geographical and botanical variables involved in natural diaspora of the Brosium Alicastrum in the region. Nevertheless, Puleston’s argument deserves considerable renewed attention. |
|||
== Legacy == |
|||
As a teacher, colleague, and visionary, Dennis E. Puleston was instrumental in the wave of investigation of subsistence ecology that followed his demise. A book, Maya Subsistence, was written in dedication to Dennis and his passion. Many of Dennis’s friends and colleagues contributed to this book, in 1982. But the story did not end there. While there is a dwindling amount of study on ecological aspects of archaeology and even less utilization of experimental archaeology in the field today, there are some who remain dedicated to the pursuit of these answers and for these scientists Puleston is a great example and inspiration. Furthermore, the spirit of Dennis E. Puleston lives on in the lives of his friends and family, many of which still rely on Denny’s work for support in their professional pursuits. |
|||
== Publications == |
|||
Several of Dennis E. Puleston's published articles are listed here. However, much more of his and related articles, both published and unpublished can be found at [http://www.puleston.org www.puleston.org]. |
|||
Dennis E. Puleston |
|||
1973. [http://www.puleston.org/writings-dissertation.html Dissertation: Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Madels] |
|||
1967. [http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/9-3/Defensive.pdf Defensive Earthworks at Tikal] |
|||
1977. [http://www.puleston.org/documents/The%20Art%20and%20Archaeology%20of%20Hydraulic%20Agriculture%20in%20the%20Maya%20Lowlands.pdf The Art and Archaeology of Hydraulic Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands] |
|||
1978. [http://www.puleston.org/documents/A%20New%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Geography%20of%20Power.pdf Terracing, Raised Fields, and Tree Cropping in the Maya Lowlands: A New Perspective on the Geography of Power] |
|||
== Formative Period == |
|||
Don S. Rice and Dennis E. Puleston |
|||
== Preclassic Period == |
|||
1978. [http://www.puleston.org/documents/Ancient%20Maya%20Settlement%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Peten,%20Guatemala.pdf Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns in the Peten, Guatemala] |
|||
== Classic Period == |
|||
Peter D. Harrison and Phyllis E. Messenger |
|||
== Postclassic Period == |
|||
(6)1978. [http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/openurl?volume=45&date=1980&spage=272&issn=00027316&issue=2& Obituary: Dennis E. Puleston (1940-1978).] |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 15:03, 18 November 2011
 | This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Cakerkela (talk | contribs) 13 years ago. (Update timer) |
Colha, Belize