SpringMango7379

This weekend, I had the pleasure of reading Grace Erny’s very recent article from the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, “Statistical Approaches to Small Site Diversity: New Insights from Cretan Legacy Survey Data.” It represents yet another significant contribution to the study of intensive pedestrian survey data and to the potential of reasonably well-published legacy “data.”

Erny’s article looks at the result of seven intensive surveys in Crete and compares the rural sites dating to the Geometric to Hellenistic period documented by these surveys. Her arguments are complex, nuanced, and quantitative. She argues, among other things, that the over 300 small sites documented by these survey on Crete demonstrate considerable variation in artifact diversity even when controlling for variables that might impact site formation and variation in documentation practices. For example, Erny demonstrates that diversity seems to be independent of site size. At the same time, she notes that from larger samples (i.e. total number of artifacts) we should expect greater diversity of artifacts and that this relationship is logarithmic. In other words, diversity should plateau as sample size increases. While Erny admits that she does not know the total number of artifacts recovered from any of the sites that she studies, she plausibly argues that larger sites seem likely to have produced more artifacts (especially since increased artifact density is a factor for defining sites on these projects). This allows her to observe that diversity appears independent of site size.

(As an aside, it is interesting to note that many years ago, David Pettegrew, Dimitri Nakassis, and I made a similar argument, albeit in a less elegant way. We suggested that especially diverse assemblages of artifacts from units with low visibility [and correspondingly low artifact densities and small assemblages] may well reward greater attention [in part to compensate for the small sample size produced by inadequate surface visibility]. Erny notes that by limiting her sample to sites, this controls to some extent for the vagaries of both post-depositional processes [i.e.. the sample of visible sites on the surface represents a subset of all the sites in a region that remain discoverable] and recovery practices [i.e. since the study is based on sites qua sites, we needn’t get lost in the murky realm of site definition].)

This suggests that hierarchical interpretations of rural sites which assume most of these small sites represented primary production in the countryside. Instead, Erny’s argument, which is grounded on the survey data itself, indicates that rural sites likely served a wide range of functions or reductive categories like “primary production” or “habitation” or “farmsteads” are inadequate to capture the diversity of activities in the countryside. This tends to support recent observations made by projects like the Roman Peasant Project which excavated 8 rural sites and discovered that only one them appeared to be a farmstead.

More significantly, it offers a valuable reminder that our view of the countryside is as detailed as it is incomplete. The landscape hinted at by Enry’s analysis may well reflect a significant degree of change over time, functional dynamism, and perhaps nibbling along the edges some of the challenges for systematic documentation of rural sites whose size make them particularly susceptible to various formation processes.

As another aside, it is especially refreshing to see a new wave of analysis of “rurality” built on data collection from intensive survey. At some point in the last 20 years, handwringing over matters of methodology seemed to distract archaeologists from the potential of intensive survey data to contribute to broader historical (and archaeological debates) about the character of the Greek countryside. Erny shows that by using legacy data from the vast number of surveys completed over the last forty years that it is possible to find new ways of thinking about the Greek landscape. This is a very welcome development, indeed!

Excavations in the choir area at Exeter Cathedral led by cathedral archaeologist John Allan have uncovered foundations of a Christian high altar dated to the early twelfth century, according to a BBC News report. Several burials found in the area are thought to belong to bishops of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Two empty tombs are thought to belong to bishops Robert Warelwast, who was a Norman cleric, and William Brewers, who participated in the Sixth Crusade (1228–1229). Their remains are known to have been moved in 1320. A deep backfilled area behind the altar may be an eleventh-century Norman crypt, dating to the period when the cathedral was founded, Allan explained.

An article published on July 31 in Nature Ecology & Evolution reveals that Luzio, the oldest human skeleton found in São Paulo state (Brazil), was a descendant of the ancestral population that settled the Americas at least 16,000 years ago and gave rise to all present-day Indigenous peoples, such as the Tupi.

https://archive.ph/CzFW0

"It's just this awful feeling of being imprisoned," said 96-year-old Lily, who was stuck in hospital for nearly a year while waiting for care support to become available. She is just one of thousands of people in the UK who have been stuck in hospitals or at home due to long waits for care assessments. Lily was delayed in being discharged despite her being "medically fit", and because her council had difficulty finding carers to support her at home. The BBC has found 23% of councils in the UK who provided data had average delays of over a month for care assessments, with some people waiting years for care. The Local Government Association (LGA) said the figures showed a "chronically underfunded system and the pressures councils continue to face". The UK government said waiting lists were down but there was "more to do".

DOVER, Del. (AP) — Lawmakers in the Delaware House of Representatives have approved legislation authorizing a small town in the southern part of the state to allow business entities, including corporations and limited liability companies, to vote in municipal elections.

Lawmakers voted 35-6 on Friday for the measure, which was sent to the Senate on the final day of this year’s legislative session. The Senate declined to take up the measure, although it could be revisited when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

The bill authorizes a charter change for the city of Seaford, one of more than a dozen municipalities in Delaware that already allow nonresident property owners to vote. At least four allow corporate entities and trusts to vote in municipal elections, while others restrict such entities to voting in special elections such as annexations, referenda or bond issues.

Charter changes requested by local governments in Delaware are typically approved in the General Assembly in perfunctory fashion without debate or controversy. Seaford’s charter change, which sets no precedent, nevertheless drew national attention because of media campaigns by opposition groups including Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union. The criticism resonated with progressive House Democrats, who refused to vote for the measure. “This is not a new thing,” Republican Rep. Danny Short, a former mayor of Seaford and chief sponsor of the bill, said Thursday before a failed vote on the bill. “I don’t know why people would criticize a simple charter bill.”

The bill was resurrected Friday following closed-door deal-making by GOP lawmakers and majority Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature. Passage of the measure cleared the way for a final vote Friday on a $1.4 billion capital budget for the fiscal year starting Saturday.

The charter change would allow nonresident voting by both a natural person or an artificial entity, the latter including corporations, partnerships, trusts and limited liability companies established in Delaware. Any such entity would have only one vote, no matter how many properties it might own.

A business entity or trust would cast its vote by power of attorney, corporate resolution or affidavit authorizing a designated legal representative to vote on its behalf. A person voting on behalf of a business entity or trust would have to be a resident of Delaware.

In order to vote, an artificial entity would be required to certify the identities of all beneficial owners. Those names would be cross-referenced with voter registration lists to guard against multiple votes on behalf of related entities with common ownership.

According to a survey by the Delaware League of Local Governments, at least 15 municipalities allow nonresident property owners to vote in elections, and at least 12 allow voting by entities such as corporations, trusts and limited liability companies. That list includes Rehoboth Beach, where President Joe Biden has a summer home. Rehoboth is known as “The Nation’s Summer Capital” because of its popularity among denizens of Washington, D.C., some of whom own vacation homes in Delaware.

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 11 states allow nonresidents to vote in local, municipal, or special elections. Connecticut, Tennessee and Delaware allow nonresident voting in certain municipal or town elections.

Short said the charter change is aimed at helping economic recovery efforts in Seaford, a town of about 8,000 situated on the banks of the Nanticoke River. Seaford was once home to a thriving DuPont manufacturing facility and known as the “Nylon Capital of the World.” DuPont sold the plant in 2004, and the town lost thousands of jobs.

Seaford town officials, who approved the charter change in April, say business owners who have invested in the town through entities like LLCs and partnerships should have a say in local affairs.

Claire Snyder-Hall, executive director of Common Cause Delaware, criticized the House vote, saying corporations have no place in elections.

“In a state with more registered businesses than residents, this bill gives wealthy outsiders the power to override the actual people of Seaford,” she said in a news release.

According to the minutes of the April town council meeting, only two members of the public commented on the proposed charter change, one for and one against. In an election three days later, the resident who spoke in favor of the charter change defeated an incumbent councilman who voted against it.

In an interview earlier this week, Short said critics of the charter change are putting out erroneous information and don’t understand what’s going on in Seaford.

“This is outside people trying to control an entity that actually has home rule,” he said. “In fact, it’s almost hypocritical what they’re doing.”

Edit: Thanks @Jearom for providing the paywall free link!