Paleonet: When is it a "dig"?

Tue Jun 17 15:51:11 UTC 2014

Thanks--I've been thinking about it since you posted the question.

Good idea for the book, Roy.   Probably the biggest misconception I run
into every time I give a public talk, which is on the average nowadays of 2
a week, someone equates archaeology with paleontology.  The best response I
have is that archaeologists study the things humans left behind, while
paleontologists study the organisms, including humans that are very old, at
least.  In the Cooper Center we are divided into those two parts chiefly
because of curation and preparation methods, but I keep reinforcing the
idea that we study the history of life in Southern California and
make little distinction between the dinosaurs (very few) and humans
(millions over the years) that lived there.  In fact, archaeo and paleo
overlap in that some of the archaeo occurs with some of the extinct
organisms and both are Pleistocene.  On the other end, archaeology now
includes anything older that 50 years, thus including you and me and most
of our colleagues.

Another one you might address in your book is what is a fossil.  The most
common response I believe is that any organisms over 10,000 old is a
fossil.  But I like Jim Valentine's definition (paraphrased here):  If I
don't know how it came to be where I found it, then it's a fossil.  I like
this definition because it is processed based both on the side of the
organisms' remains and how we approach the problem.   I also like it as a
paleontologist who spends about half my time looking at living organisms
and how they might fossilize.  So a shell lying on a beach might be
considered a fossil.   The years ago definition is arbitrary.

What are microfossils?  Another one.  And actually the definition most
commonly used includes everything--i.e. that a microscope is necessary for
studying them.  Again, a senseless definition if we are truly interested in
organisms and their fossil record.  We should not talk about microfossils
but rather phylogenetic groups, so that microfossils include mostly
microbial eukaryotes, thus excluding ostracods and conodonts which go back
into metazoans.  Same for all the photosynthetic groups.  Bacterial fossils
are all together too.

I could go on, but I have to go to work, unfortunately not in the field but
in the lab which is second best.  Keep us posted on your book and future
problems you may run into.

Take care,   Jere

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Roy Plotnick <plotnick at uic.edu> wrote:

> Jere:
> What a great response!  I am always gratified when I ask a question and
> people put so much thought into the answer.  FYI, one of the reasons I
> asked is that I am in the initial phases of writing a book for the general
> public on what paleontologists actually do.  Part of this is clearing up
> misconceptions of what we don't do (dig up pots, fight Nazis, date Jennifer
> Aniston, etc.). - Thanks again. - Roy
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Jere H. LIPPS wrote:
>
> We use a lot of terms in our fields that are not precisely defined for us
> and that must be defined by context or activity, sometimes after the fact.
>
> Dig is one of those.  Archaeologists use the term very commonly but it is
> not restricted to them.  I've been on vert paleo and invert paleo digs
> where the overburden was removed cm by cm to get to a bone or shell bed or
> accumulation which was then excavated very carefully with grid systems,
> photographed, each specimen labeled and carefully removed--in comparison to
> an archaeologic dig or two that I was on, no difference.   A dig when used
> in these ways seems to me to mean a planned activity that takes some time.
> Contrast that to when I was prospecting for dinosaurs, we found a huge bone
> and the expert decided to remove it.  Took 4 or 5 days and that was a real
> tough dig but we didn't call it that.  Had we planned to come back to it
> with a field crew, especially of volunteers, we might have called it a
> dig.  Seems that the public responds to a dig more positively than field
> work or something else.
>
> Excavation:  A careful removal of items in the dirt or rocks.
>
> Field Trip:  Any planned trip to show others something in the field or a
> museum.  Or if you are a kid in school, a field trip is going anywhere you
> don't have to sit in the classroom.  Like a bakery, library, park,
> business, and so on.
>
> Field work:  Work in the field usually of scientific nature and that is
> fun when we use it but when a phone company employee does field work, they
> are at work for money and probably not having a lot of fun.
>
> Prospecting:  Searching in rocks for something special--like fossils,
> gold, crystals, etc.  Great fun!
>
> Sampling:  This is what I do when I collect microfossils from an outcrop.
> Some outcrops are very short; others very long.  I have sampled outcrops by
> taking one sample, others by collecting the entire exposed section in 500+
> samples, usually in this case, sampled at some interval (m, lithologic
> changes, etc).
>
> Mitigation:  To remove fossils or artifacts in advance of construction
> that will destroy them.  Sometimes these things look like digs with bones
> all neatly exposed or holes with square sides dug into the ground to find
> humans and their stuff.
>
> Blasting:  Once we decided to blow the over-burden off a huge vertebrate
> in a cliff with dynamite.  That almost ended our careers as paleontologists
> in several ways, but in the end, no one died or got arrested, and then we
> proceeded to dig the damn thing out of the remaining rocks.  We never
> thought about calling that experience anything other than "Oh, s--t". But
> the pictures of us diving under the trucks as the overburden came falling
> down all around us are really great!
>
> So, I guess we can call these things anything we think is OK.  You might
> have to explain it to another person, but that is ok too.
>
> Would I use the term dig in a scientific paper--no, because we are
> supposed to be serious and precise.  Maybe "excavation" is better? Or we
> dug the stuff out of the ground.   In any case, the Methods section will
> explain it all, just the way it happened.  Right?
>
> Would I use the term dig for the public?  Yes, if I thought it would
> attract them to join a team of volunteers or if they were going to pay for
> it.  Dig has a certain image in that context that field work does not.
> Expedition would be better but then you might have disappointed people if
> your expedition failed to find anything.
>
> In the end, I hope we don't define any of these terms too much.  We can
> always figure out what we mean by the context or a question.
>
> I wouldn't worry about it Roy.
>
> Jere
> now  Director of the J. D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological
> Center in Santa Ana, CA, where we all use those words and seldom have any
> precise idea of what we mean.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Lane, Harold R. <hlane at nsf.gov> wrote:
>
>>  I like that definition but would include Physical Anthropology and I
>> would not restrict it to just humans but would include large reptiles,
>> large mammals and lagstaetten of any variety.
>>
>>  Rich
>>
>> Unassigned
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, "Britt Leatham" <BLeatham at csusb.edu> wrote:
>>
>>   So a "dig" might be a specialized type of "field work" associated with
>> Archaeology, which is a specialization of Paleontology dealing with the
>> interpretation of past behavior based on human trace fossils (i.e.
>> artifacts)?
>> :)
>>
>> Britt
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Paleonet [paleonet-bounces at nhm.ac.uk] on behalf of Eliana [
>> leli2_epc at yahoo.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2014 6:49 PM
>> *To:* PaleoNet
>> *Subject:* Re: Paleonet: When is it a "dig"?
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>  I think that in "Jurassic Park" they call the dinosaur excavation a
>> "dig", actually the men that finds amber says that "Grant is like me. A
>> digger" or something like that. That could help to confuse the people.
>>
>>  Eliana
>>
>>
>>   El día lunes, 16 de junio de 2014 22:03, Roy Plotnick <plotnick at uic.edu>
>> escribió:
>>
>>
>> Try to Google "Dinosaur dig" and a lot of sites, some professional, come
>> up:
>> http://paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/interactives/dig/dinodig.html
>>
>> So - it this just pandering to the public?
>>
>> - Roy
>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Weil, Anne wrote:
>>
>> > I think the question reflects a basic confusion between archeology and
>> paleontology.  Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, "dig" as a noun
>> usually refers to archeological excavation.  When I explain this I almost
>> always get in answer, "What is the difference between archeology and
>> paleontology?"
>> >
>> > Anne
>> > ________________________________________
>> > Anne Weil, Ph.D.
>> > Dept. of Anatomy and Cell Biology
>> > Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences
>> > 1111 W. 17th St.
>> > Tulsa, OK 74107
>> >
>> > ofc. phone: (918) 561-8266
>> > lab phone: (918) 561-8485
>> > e-mail: anne.weil at okstate.edu
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Paleonet [mailto:paleonet-bounces at nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
>> Novack-Gottshall, Philip M.
>> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:54 AM
>> > To: PaleoNet
>> > Subject: Re: Paleonet: When is it a "dig"?
>> >
>> > No idea, although I've never used (or really even heard firsthand
>> another geologist or paleontologist say) "a dig." And I don't recall seeing
>> it used in the literature I read this way.
>> >
>> > Here's a quick and non-scientific survey using Google Scholar, limited
>> to articles published since 2000 to limit effort:
>> > Paleobiology: 14 articles, all appear to refer to fossorial behaviors
>> or some unrelated root (digit, digital, etc.)
>> > J.Paleo: 1 article, both as digit and fossorial digging behavior.
>> > JVP: 41 articles: many as digit or fossorial digging behavior, but
>> several uses refer to a quarry/excavation/sampleID in the colloquial usage
>> Palaeontology(and some others with this spelling, such as J. or
>> Palaeo./Australian J. Palaeo/etc.): 27 articles, all apparently
>> fossorial/digit/tps-DIG, etc. and non-colloquial
>> >
>> > Based on this very cursory examination, it's at least more commonly
>> used in the colloquial sense in vertebrate articles (although I sense it's
>> more an informal euphemism said "in the field" rather than written down.)
>> >
>> > But this discussion reminds me of another semantic usage I see used
>> > idiosyncratically: a "find." I often hear (and read) the word used as a
>> noun, as in "we examined the locations of fossil finds in a stratigraphic
>> section." I sense this is also used more frequently by my vertebrate (and
>> archeological?) colleagues, where a lot more hinges on the discovery of a
>> single or closely collected set of fossils, "the"
>> > singular "find" that brings the study to light. But is this another
>> "cultural" usage? (I have a hang up that I only use the word as a verb,
>> using "discovery," "collection/sample/fossil", or other term for the noun.)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/15/2014 8:17 PM, Roy Plotnick wrote:
>> >> Paleofolks:
>> >> As an invertebrate paleontologist, I often tell people I don't go on
>> >> "digs" but conduct "field work."  I know archeologists use the term
>> >> "dig," and I often see the term associated with dinosaur work, but I
>> >> was wondering if anyone has ever discussed when collecting fossils at
>> >> a locality becomes a "dig."  Is it indeed discipline based?  Comments
>> >> appreciated - Roy _______________________________________________
>> >> Paleonet mailing list
>> >> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> >> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Phil Novack-Gottshall
>> > Associate Professor
>> > Department of Biological Sciences
>> > Benedictine University
>> > 5700 College Road
>> > Lisle, IL 60532
>> >
>> > pnovack-gottshall at ben.edu
>> > Phone: 630-829-6514
>> > Fax: 630-829-6547
>> > Office: 332 Birck Hall
>> > Lab: 107 Birck Hall
>> > http://www1.ben.edu/faculty/pnovack-gottshall
>>
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Paleonet mailing list
>> > Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Paleonet mailing list
>> > Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paleonet mailing list
>> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>>
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>> Paleonet mailing list
>> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paleonet mailing list
>> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
>> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.paleonet.org/pipermail/paleonet/attachments/20140617/70506c73/attachment.htm>