Jannie Loubser - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Jannie Loubser
Oxbow Books, May 31, 2018
Oxbow Books, Feb 23, 2023
Archaeologists in Georgia have long debated the origins of rock mounds, rock walls, and rock encl... more Archaeologists in Georgia have long debated the origins of rock mounds, rock walls, and rock enclosures (referred to as rock features in this chapter) found throughout the northern portion of the state. In the early 1960s Smith (1962, 4) succinctly attributed the reluctance among archaeologists to study rock features to the fact that "they are not promising sites for recovering artifacts or other archaeologically identifiable specimens; and in addition, it is usually not easy to determine, by reason of their amorphous form and configurations, whether they are aboriginal or more recent works." Recent reviews (Loubser 2022a; Wettstaed 2022) have established that at least 58 sites are likely to be Native American. Many more sites may be present and unconfirmed or lost because of looting or development. Attention to this type of site by archaeologists has focused almost exclusively on the presence of burials but many have a ritual origin unrelated to burial. In this chapter we first present a brief history of rock feature research and a summary of the types of sites found. Subsequent discussion focuses on the Middle Woodland and Late Mississippian periods because most rock feature sites that have been dated were created during these periods. Following these discussions is a summary of ethnographic evidence relating to the creation and use of rock feature sites by Native Americans. Using Cherokee and Muscogee ethnography to interpret rock features in the region is justified, knowing that a fair number were constructed during post-contact times and some descendant communities still interact with rock features. The final section discusses the types of ritual activity that probably occurred at places with stone features. Overview of rock feature research Some of the best known 19th century antiquarian research in Georgia was focused on rock features, including reports by White (1849), Stephenson (1871; 1873), Jones (1873; 1879), and Whittlesey (1883). In many cases these remain the only descriptions we have of many of these sites. Beginning in the middle 20th century researchers again investigated these sites, including Moorehead (1932,
Narratives and Journeys in Rock Art: A Reader
Acknowledgements This chapter is derived from a CRM report on Phase III mitigation data recovery ... more Acknowledgements This chapter is derived from a CRM report on Phase III mitigation data recovery excavations at the Yellow River site (9Gw347) in Gwinnett County, Georgia. I thank the staff from New South Associates who did the fieldwork, particularly the crew chief, Theresa Hamby. I am grateful to Joe Joseph, president of New South Associates, for his constant encouragement and support for rock art studies in CRM. Leslie Raymer did the plant identification and analysis, while Lisa O'Steen identified the bone remains. Matt Watts-Edwards and Matt Gurley completed the laboratory analysis. Julie Cantley, Tracey Fedor, and Tony Greiner expertly completed the graphics. Douglas Frink commented on the soils. I thank John Worth, from the Coosawathee Foundation, for helping me with the ceramic identification. I am grateful to Tommy Hudson and Gordon Midgette for taking me to other cupule sites in Georgia. Beth Gannt's vital background information on the Phase II excavations at the Yellow River site is much appreciated. Dave Whitley, Fred Coy, Rex Weeks, Jean Allan, and Tommy Charles helped me with references. Any mistakes in identification, quotation, and interpretation are my responsibility, however.
Seeing and Knowing
BaCkground: informed and formal approaches in conjunction This chapter deals with the ethnographi... more BaCkground: informed and formal approaches in conjunction This chapter deals with the ethnographically informed interpretation and formal stratigraphic recording of the 'Great Murals' (Crosby 1984) within Cueva de El Ratón, central Baja California, northwestern Mexico (Figure 9.1). The premise of this chapter is that neither informed use of ethnography nor formal archaeological recording can, done in isolation, give an adequate picture of prehistoric rock art (Chippindale & Taçon 1998a), such as evidenced at El Ratón. Albeit essential in any empirical investigation, the mere adoption of rigorous methodologies in both informed ethnographic and formal archaeological studies is not sufficient to guarantee an accurat e picture of the past. It is only when treated in conjunction that informed and formal approaches reach their full potential. Although local ethnographic records are the most logically valid starting points for analogies, the archaeological record is not a one-toone reflection of the ethnography. Demonstrable pattern s observed in the rock art record, for example, sometimes contain information not directly mentioned in the ethnography. Instead of despairing that we cannot interpret the rock art due to a lack of a perfect 'fit' with the ethnographic record, such an ostensib le disjunction should be viewed more positively. Indeed, if all rock art neatly reflected the ethnography, then the best we could claim is to have learnt something about the rock art. However, if the rock art reveals convincing bits of information not Layer by layer: Precision and accuracy in rock art recording and dating JohanneS LouBSer (Stratum unlimited, alpharetta ga, uSa. rock art research institute, university of the witwatersrand, South africa) 9.
Archaeology in Montana, 2000
The two of us adopted an ethnographically informed cognitive approach for different reasons. Loub... more The two of us adopted an ethnographically informed cognitive approach for different reasons. Loubser grew up in South Africa, where, from early childhood, he daily interacted with indigenous Bantu-speaking people and later majored in Social Anthropology at the University of the Witwatersrand. Local Bantu-speaking people were Loubser's fi eld assistants during his excavations of Late Iron Age stonewalled settlements, some of whom knew the traditional customs and oral histories of the areas where he worked. The knowledge shared by these assistants not only helped Loubser with the identifi cation of sites, and areas within sites to excavate, but also with the interpretation of exposed features and recovered artifacts. Ashcraft grew up in western North Carolina and majored in Physical and Cultural Geography. He decided to shift his studies to archaeology after assisting with excavations of a site near the Cherokees' Qualla Boundary. His perception of the archaeological record changed following two separate incidents when indigenous Cherokee people implored the excavation crews to "stop digging up our people". These encounters at Late Mississippian period sites also changed Ashcraft's views on the relationship between living indigenous communities and archaeological remains, which kick-started his journey of exploration into indigenous perspectives on the past and their rendering in the archaeological record. Both Loubser and Ashcraft's experiences with rock art recording, interpretation, and conservation management in the mountains of northern Georgia and western North Carolina solidifi ed their affi liation with the beliefs, accounts, and actions of the region's indigenous peoples. Contrary to Bednarik's (2007 : 60) outright dismissal of all "humanistic preoccupations , such as what is depicted and why … and the abundance of meaningless claims about meaning" in the management and conservation of rock art, we argue that an ethnographically informed identifi cation of motifs and their culturally shared meaning has got everything to do with the management and conservation of rock art, particularly in areas where a link between the rock art and living communities can be demonstrated. To be effective and sustainable, rock art management and conservation must
... Cassandra Hill went to great lengths to provide me with illustrated explanations of human bon... more ... Cassandra Hill went to great lengths to provide me with illustrated explanations of human bones; some of her drawings are ... Jean Allan, Jean Clottes, Tommy Hudson, Joe Joseph, Mary Beth Reed, Tracey Fedor, Theresa Hamby, Tom Wheaton, David Whitley, Marcia-Anne ...
Wits University Press, Dec 1, 2010
Use of Harris Diagrams in analyzing and interpreting rock art.
A complex of piled stone mounds and walls, labeled site 9UN367, is located on a mountain slope 50... more A complex of piled stone mounds and walls, labeled site 9UN367, is located on a mountain slope 500 m southeast of the well-known Track Rock Gap petroglyph boulder complex (9UN3) in Union County of far northern Georgia (Figure 1). Both the stone feature complex and the petroglyph boulder complex are on land administered by the United States of America Department of Agriculture Forest Service. During an initial mapping of site 9UN367, Carey Waldrip and Jack Wynn (then of the Forest Service) identified a Lower and an Upper Concentration of stone features, although terraced walls link the two concentrations (Figure 2). Even though some of the stone walls and stone piles at 9UN367 resemble known historic period agricultural field clearing and terracing activities (see thorough overviews in Gresham [1990] and Ledbetter et al. [2006]), other stone features have no obvious analog in the historic record. For instance, the Lower Concentration contains two unusual meandering walls (the most pr...
Oxbow Books, May 31, 2018
Oxbow Books, Feb 23, 2023
Archaeologists in Georgia have long debated the origins of rock mounds, rock walls, and rock encl... more Archaeologists in Georgia have long debated the origins of rock mounds, rock walls, and rock enclosures (referred to as rock features in this chapter) found throughout the northern portion of the state. In the early 1960s Smith (1962, 4) succinctly attributed the reluctance among archaeologists to study rock features to the fact that "they are not promising sites for recovering artifacts or other archaeologically identifiable specimens; and in addition, it is usually not easy to determine, by reason of their amorphous form and configurations, whether they are aboriginal or more recent works." Recent reviews (Loubser 2022a; Wettstaed 2022) have established that at least 58 sites are likely to be Native American. Many more sites may be present and unconfirmed or lost because of looting or development. Attention to this type of site by archaeologists has focused almost exclusively on the presence of burials but many have a ritual origin unrelated to burial. In this chapter we first present a brief history of rock feature research and a summary of the types of sites found. Subsequent discussion focuses on the Middle Woodland and Late Mississippian periods because most rock feature sites that have been dated were created during these periods. Following these discussions is a summary of ethnographic evidence relating to the creation and use of rock feature sites by Native Americans. Using Cherokee and Muscogee ethnography to interpret rock features in the region is justified, knowing that a fair number were constructed during post-contact times and some descendant communities still interact with rock features. The final section discusses the types of ritual activity that probably occurred at places with stone features. Overview of rock feature research Some of the best known 19th century antiquarian research in Georgia was focused on rock features, including reports by White (1849), Stephenson (1871; 1873), Jones (1873; 1879), and Whittlesey (1883). In many cases these remain the only descriptions we have of many of these sites. Beginning in the middle 20th century researchers again investigated these sites, including Moorehead (1932,
Narratives and Journeys in Rock Art: A Reader
Acknowledgements This chapter is derived from a CRM report on Phase III mitigation data recovery ... more Acknowledgements This chapter is derived from a CRM report on Phase III mitigation data recovery excavations at the Yellow River site (9Gw347) in Gwinnett County, Georgia. I thank the staff from New South Associates who did the fieldwork, particularly the crew chief, Theresa Hamby. I am grateful to Joe Joseph, president of New South Associates, for his constant encouragement and support for rock art studies in CRM. Leslie Raymer did the plant identification and analysis, while Lisa O'Steen identified the bone remains. Matt Watts-Edwards and Matt Gurley completed the laboratory analysis. Julie Cantley, Tracey Fedor, and Tony Greiner expertly completed the graphics. Douglas Frink commented on the soils. I thank John Worth, from the Coosawathee Foundation, for helping me with the ceramic identification. I am grateful to Tommy Hudson and Gordon Midgette for taking me to other cupule sites in Georgia. Beth Gannt's vital background information on the Phase II excavations at the Yellow River site is much appreciated. Dave Whitley, Fred Coy, Rex Weeks, Jean Allan, and Tommy Charles helped me with references. Any mistakes in identification, quotation, and interpretation are my responsibility, however.
Seeing and Knowing
BaCkground: informed and formal approaches in conjunction This chapter deals with the ethnographi... more BaCkground: informed and formal approaches in conjunction This chapter deals with the ethnographically informed interpretation and formal stratigraphic recording of the 'Great Murals' (Crosby 1984) within Cueva de El Ratón, central Baja California, northwestern Mexico (Figure 9.1). The premise of this chapter is that neither informed use of ethnography nor formal archaeological recording can, done in isolation, give an adequate picture of prehistoric rock art (Chippindale & Taçon 1998a), such as evidenced at El Ratón. Albeit essential in any empirical investigation, the mere adoption of rigorous methodologies in both informed ethnographic and formal archaeological studies is not sufficient to guarantee an accurat e picture of the past. It is only when treated in conjunction that informed and formal approaches reach their full potential. Although local ethnographic records are the most logically valid starting points for analogies, the archaeological record is not a one-toone reflection of the ethnography. Demonstrable pattern s observed in the rock art record, for example, sometimes contain information not directly mentioned in the ethnography. Instead of despairing that we cannot interpret the rock art due to a lack of a perfect 'fit' with the ethnographic record, such an ostensib le disjunction should be viewed more positively. Indeed, if all rock art neatly reflected the ethnography, then the best we could claim is to have learnt something about the rock art. However, if the rock art reveals convincing bits of information not Layer by layer: Precision and accuracy in rock art recording and dating JohanneS LouBSer (Stratum unlimited, alpharetta ga, uSa. rock art research institute, university of the witwatersrand, South africa) 9.
Archaeology in Montana, 2000
The two of us adopted an ethnographically informed cognitive approach for different reasons. Loub... more The two of us adopted an ethnographically informed cognitive approach for different reasons. Loubser grew up in South Africa, where, from early childhood, he daily interacted with indigenous Bantu-speaking people and later majored in Social Anthropology at the University of the Witwatersrand. Local Bantu-speaking people were Loubser's fi eld assistants during his excavations of Late Iron Age stonewalled settlements, some of whom knew the traditional customs and oral histories of the areas where he worked. The knowledge shared by these assistants not only helped Loubser with the identifi cation of sites, and areas within sites to excavate, but also with the interpretation of exposed features and recovered artifacts. Ashcraft grew up in western North Carolina and majored in Physical and Cultural Geography. He decided to shift his studies to archaeology after assisting with excavations of a site near the Cherokees' Qualla Boundary. His perception of the archaeological record changed following two separate incidents when indigenous Cherokee people implored the excavation crews to "stop digging up our people". These encounters at Late Mississippian period sites also changed Ashcraft's views on the relationship between living indigenous communities and archaeological remains, which kick-started his journey of exploration into indigenous perspectives on the past and their rendering in the archaeological record. Both Loubser and Ashcraft's experiences with rock art recording, interpretation, and conservation management in the mountains of northern Georgia and western North Carolina solidifi ed their affi liation with the beliefs, accounts, and actions of the region's indigenous peoples. Contrary to Bednarik's (2007 : 60) outright dismissal of all "humanistic preoccupations , such as what is depicted and why … and the abundance of meaningless claims about meaning" in the management and conservation of rock art, we argue that an ethnographically informed identifi cation of motifs and their culturally shared meaning has got everything to do with the management and conservation of rock art, particularly in areas where a link between the rock art and living communities can be demonstrated. To be effective and sustainable, rock art management and conservation must
... Cassandra Hill went to great lengths to provide me with illustrated explanations of human bon... more ... Cassandra Hill went to great lengths to provide me with illustrated explanations of human bones; some of her drawings are ... Jean Allan, Jean Clottes, Tommy Hudson, Joe Joseph, Mary Beth Reed, Tracey Fedor, Theresa Hamby, Tom Wheaton, David Whitley, Marcia-Anne ...
Wits University Press, Dec 1, 2010
Use of Harris Diagrams in analyzing and interpreting rock art.
A complex of piled stone mounds and walls, labeled site 9UN367, is located on a mountain slope 50... more A complex of piled stone mounds and walls, labeled site 9UN367, is located on a mountain slope 500 m southeast of the well-known Track Rock Gap petroglyph boulder complex (9UN3) in Union County of far northern Georgia (Figure 1). Both the stone feature complex and the petroglyph boulder complex are on land administered by the United States of America Department of Agriculture Forest Service. During an initial mapping of site 9UN367, Carey Waldrip and Jack Wynn (then of the Forest Service) identified a Lower and an Upper Concentration of stone features, although terraced walls link the two concentrations (Figure 2). Even though some of the stone walls and stone piles at 9UN367 resemble known historic period agricultural field clearing and terracing activities (see thorough overviews in Gresham [1990] and Ledbetter et al. [2006]), other stone features have no obvious analog in the historic record. For instance, the Lower Concentration contains two unusual meandering walls (the most pr...
Handbook for Rock Art Research, 2001
A review of management planning as a process to conserve sites with rock imagery on a sustainable... more A review of management planning as a process to conserve sites with rock imagery on a sustainable basis.
This chapter (In Whitley, D. ed. 2001. Handbook of Rock Art Research, pp.80-115. Altamira Press, ... more This chapter (In Whitley, D. ed. 2001. Handbook of Rock Art Research, pp.80-115. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek) reviews conservation management of rock imagery in anthropological and historical perspective, formalist concepts in conservation and management, formalist procedure of conservation intervention, an outline of management plans, natural and cultural settings, assessment of significance values, condition assessment, intervention, graffiti removal, and site maintenance, assessment of conservation management context, and recommended management strategies.