MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1582876396

The Work of Tribal Hands: Southeastern Split Cane Basketry

2008· article· en· W1582876396 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew T. Bradley

Notice bibliographique

RevueSoutheastern Archaeology · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArchaeology and Natural History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCaneIndigenousArchaeologyHistoryState (computer science)WeavingAmazon rainforestEngineeringEcology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Work of Tribal Hands: Southeastern Cane Basketry. DAYNA BOWKER LEE and HIRAM F. GREGORY (eds.). Northwestern State University Press, Natchitoches, LA, 2006. xviii + 229 pp., 147 illus., biblio. $30.00 (paper), ISBN: 0917898273. Reviewed by Matthew T. Bradley This volume is the result of the Southeastern Indian Basketry Gathering held at Northwestern State University May 2002. While the basketmakers present at the gathering worked with the range of materials used across the Southeast, it quickly became apparent that what seemed most ancient, most indigenous, to Southeastern Indian people was the use of river cane and the weaving of split cane (p. v). This fact, along with the general paucity of literature addressing cane basketry, motivated the creation of this collection. Tim Oakes's contribution, Native Cane Conservation Guide: Arundinaria gigantea ssp. tecta, Traditionally Known as Swamp Cane, seems somewhat misplaced as the fourteenth and final substantive chapter of the collection. This essay on the ecology of canebrakes and the collaborative efforts of the Mississippi Choctaw and various public agencies to ensure their survival is informative and well-written but would have seemed a natural to lead off the collection rather than to close it. As is, the essays commence with a version of The Chitimacha Origin of Basket Weaving as told by Chief Benjamin Paul (whether the tale has been translated or was originally recounted Chitimacha is not indicated). An endnote thanks the Chitimacha Cultural Department for the use of the story; beyond a photo of Chief Paul and his sister dated ca. 1930s, no further contextualizing information is provided. It is thus difficult to situate the chapter, a difficulty shared by all of the essays this collection to a greater or lesser degree: Some thematic information is provided a four-page introduction by Gary White Deer, but the book would be improved by clearer thematic structuring. In the same vein, the biographical information regarding the academics, weavers, culture resource professionals, and arts and crafts retailers contributing to the collection would have been much more helpful had it been presented a blurb preceding each individual chapter rather than appendixed as the final chapter titled Contributors. These formatting issues are the book's only real shortcomings and they do not negate the valuable information which it presents. But they do make that information more difficult to access, and increased accessibility could have been purchased with relatively minor effort here. All of the contributions engage the past to some degree. Marshall Gettys's, Sarah Hill's, Dustin Fugua's, and one of Dayna Bowker Lee's chapters each deal with an event or tradition that is in the past. Gettys discusses the transfer of Choctaw basketry technology to Oklahoma and its eventual abandonment, which he attributes to the loss of the traditional foodways associated with the basketry. This is concurrent with the lack of development of a local art market basketry. Hill uses the life history of Cherokee metis Rachel Davis as a backdrop to discuss Cherokee double-weave cane basketry. Fugua presents the case of seven cane baskets held the Cane River Creole National Historic Park. He brings evidence to bear on the unknown tribal affiliations of the pieces while also making an implicit request for aid conserving them. Lee's Five Caddo Baskets from Indian Territory uses the Caddo baskets collected by M. R. Harrington to illustrate a now extinct tradition. Robert Neuman's Split Cane Items Louisiana: A View from Archaeology and Ethnology has the greatest time depth of any selection, presenting archaeologically recovered data from Mississippian sites. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,646
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,991

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,011
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSoutheastern ArchaeologyMême sujetArchaeology and Natural HistoryTravaux en français237 207