User:A116erin/sandbox

WEEK 7/8 updated draft
- Hey this is my final draft for the section.

Kalinga Ceramic Production, Exchange, and Variation :

William A. Longacre and Taylor R. Hermes analyzed the exchange of pottery, and household rice farming in Dangtalan that took place from 1975 to 1976 in their study. The study involves the analyzation of non previously published data from the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project. Data from the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project contains information about the exchange of pottery between different levels of rice farming households. Longacre et.al (2015) argue how the exchange of pottery provides evidence of a Dangtalan household’s craft specialization as well as agricultural intensification. In a 2015 research study William Longacre and Taylor Hermes conducted analysis of pottery exchange in Dangtalan, which includes datasets from household material culture inventory that contains ceramic vessels. Longacre's inventory of the Kalinga barrio, Dangtalan, consisted of fifty households, four hundred ninety four ceramic vessels, and two hundred and fifty-seven people. Longacre et.al (2015) argue that there was a correlation between the net trade of ceramic vessels, and the household rice productivity amongst people in Dangtalan. More specifically, the households that had very little rice productivity frequently gave away their pots, and households that had immense rice productivity would retrieve the ceramic vessels from the households with low rice productivity. According to Longacre et.al (2015), these findings suggest that the exchange of pottery arbitrated each household's labor in the rice fields as "a function of cooperative work through social relations." The trading of pottery centered on specific households that specialized in the making of pottery, and households that specialized in rice cultivation. The exchange of pottery between the two groups surfaces the existence of specialization in both pottery, and rice cultivation.

In the Kalinga society, pottery serves as an extra source of income, and is made by women. The women use their hands to form the vessel, and do not use a wheel. Instead, the potters use coil and scrape techniques as well as paddle and anvil techniques. The clay that is used to form the vessels is local, and often mined by males in the society. Male traders in the Dalupa and Dangtalan villages sometimes barter resin and ocher collected from upland forests, but women prepare the clay as well as shape and fire the pottery. The women learn how to make pots from their mothers, and often make ceramic vessels in groups rather then alone. The pottery is not only made for exchange, but also is made for household needs. The most common household pots are those made for water storage, and cooking rice as well as meat. These types of pots consist of similar decorative features. Pots made for cooking and water jars often are coated with organic resins to reduce water permeability, and also are decorated with red ochre. Open fire is used to fire the pots, and the pots are also air dried. The gifts, such as pottery, that are given are often reciprocated with rice in the Kalinga culture. In addition, the women are responsible for  the exchange of pottery that takes place outside of the household, and the amount of uncooked rice that a vessel can hold determines the value of that vessel.

In another study, Miriam T. Stark, Ronald L. Bishop, and Elizabeth Miksa analyzed ceramic variations in the pottery producing villages of Dalupa and Dangtalan in the Philippines. Dalupa and Dangtalan are kalinga villages located in the Pasil river valley. Dalupa and Dangtalan are involved in a single exchange network. During the 1970s and 1980s. the Dalupa village had a larger population of around four-hundred residents while the Dangtalan village consisted of around three-hundred to three- hundred and fifty city residents. The Dalupa potters are part-time ceramic specialists, and the women in Dangtalan produce ceramics less often. The women potters in both villages provide residents in the Pasil region with earthenware ceramics, and both villages consist of women that are not active in the production of pottery. Earthenware ceramics are used for storing water in earthenware jars, and also, are used for cooking food such as meat. Earthenware ceramics are also used to cook vegetables. Large earthenware pots are utilized during communal events such as weddings. Pasil potters made a cooking vessel for meat/vegatables, a cooking vessel for rice, a storage vessel for water, and sometimes made a wine storage jar. However, changes occurred in the mid -1980s. During the mid-1980s, not a lot of potters in either village made wine storage earthenware jars. During this time, the Dalupa potters began making stylistic and technological changes such as modifying the surface decorations of the storage jars, and utilized nontraditional ceramics. The Dalupa nontraditional ceramics (ay-ayam) included a wide range of forms that included flower pots, ashtrays for photographic plaques, and animal sculptures. Both Dangtalan and Dalupa ceramics have differences in style and morphology. The Dangtalan potters paint red ocher on the shoulder of the cooking vessels but the Dalupa potters do not do this. Dangtalan cooking pots have wider mouths, and are shorter than Dalupa cooking pots.

Pottery production was utilized for economic necessity. While Dalupa women produced pottery for economic needs, the Dangtalan women did not focus as much on producing pottery as their spouses gained employment beyond the Pasil region. The scale of pottery production in Dalupa is much higher than in Dangtalan today. Factors that include market demand, environmental stress, and younger women, with a lack of experience, entering the Dalupa pottery field contributed to the changes described. The Dalupa women also expanded the distribution of the ceramics, and traveled to more distant markers to sell a wider range of ceramic products. Despite expanding the distribution of ceramics, the Pasil system is not a market oriented industry. Dalupa ceramic production is more intensive than in Dangtalan, but both communities engage in varying degrees of part time specialization.

Week 7: Updated Draft.
- Kalinga Ceramic Production, Exchange, and Variation :

William A. Longacre and Taylor R. Hermes analyzed the exchange of pottery, and household rice farming in Dangtalan that took place from 1975 to 1976 in their study. The study involves the analyzation of non previously published data from the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project. Data from the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project contains information about the exchange of pottery between different levels of rice farming households. Longacre et.al (2015) argue how the exchange of pottery provides evidence of a Dangtalan household’s craft specialization as well as agricultural intensification. In a 2015 research study William Longacre and Taylor Hermes conducted analysis of pottery exchange in Dangtalan, which includes datasets from household material culture inventory that contains ceramic vessels. Longacre's inventory of the Kalinga barrio, Dangtalan, consisted of fifty households, four hundred ninety four ceramic vessels, and two hundred and fifty-seven people. Longacre et.al (2015) argue that there was a correlation between the net trade of ceramic vessels, and the household rice productivity amongst people in Dangtalan. More specifically, the households that had very little rice productivity frequently gave away their pots, and households that had immense rice productivity would retrieve the ceramic vessels from the households with low rice productivity. According to Longacre et.al (2015), these findings suggest that the exchange of pottery arbitrated each household's labor in the rice fields as "a function of cooperative work through social relations." The trading of pottery centered on specific households that specialized in the making of pottery, and households that specialized in rice cultivation. The exchange of pottery between the two groups surfaces the existence of specialization in both pottery, and rice cultivation.

In the Kalinga society, pottery serves as an extra source of income, and is made by women. The women use their hands to form the vessel, and do not use a wheel. Instead, the potters use coil and scrape techniques as well as paddle and anvil techniques. The clay that is used to form the vessels is local, and often mined by males in the society. Male traders in the Dalupa and Dangtalan villages sometimes barter resin and ocher collected from upland forests, but women prepare the clay as well as shape and fire the pottery. The women learn how to make pots from their mothers, and often make ceramic vessels in groups rather then alone. The pottery is not only made for exchange, but also is made for household needs. The most common household pots are those made for water storage, and cooking rice as well as meat. These types of pots consist of similar decorative features. Pots made for cooking and water jars often are coated with organic resins to reduce water permeability, and also are decorated with red ochre. Open fire is used to fire the pots, and the pots are also air dried. The gifts, such as pottery, that are given are often reciprocated with rice in the Kalinga culture. In addition, the women are responsible for  the exchange of pottery that takes place outside of the household, and the amount of uncooked rice that a vessel can hold determines the value of that vessel.

In another study, Miriam T. Stark, Ronald L. Bishop, and Elizabeth Miksa analyzed ceramic variations in the pottery producing villages of Dalupa and Dangtalan in the Philippines. Dalupa and Dangtalan are kalinga villages located in the Pasil river valley. Dalupa and Dangtalan are involved in a single exchange network. During the 1970s and 1980s. the Dalupa village had a larger population of around four-hundred residents while the Dangtalan village consisted of around three-hunded to three hundred and city residents. The Dalupa potters are part-time ceramic specialists, and the women in Dangtalan produce ceramics less often. The women potters in both villages provide residents in the Pasil region with earthenware ceramics, and both villages consist of women that are not active in the production of pottery. Earthenware ceramics are used for storing water in earthenware jars, and also, are used for cooking food such as meat. Earthenware ceramics are also used to cook vegetables. Large earthenware pots are utilized during communal events such as weddings. Pasil potters made a cooking vessel for meat/vegatables, a cooking vessel for rice, a storage vessel for water, and sometimes made a wine storage jar. However, changes occurred in the mid -1980s. During the mid-1980s, not a lot of potters in either village made wine storage earthenware jars. During this time, the Dalupa potters began making stylistic and technological changes such as modifying the surface decorations of the storage jars, and utilized nontraditional ceramics. The Dalupa nontraditional ceramics (ay-ayam) included a wide range of forms that included flower pots, ashtrays for photographic plaques, and animal sculptures. Both Dangtalan and Dalupa ceramics have differences in style and morphology. The Dangtalan potters paint red ocher on the shoulder of the cooking vessels but the Dalupa potters do not do this. Dangtalan cooking pots have wider mouths, and are shorter than Dalupa cooking pots.

Pottery production was utilized for economic necessity. While Dalupa women produced pottery for economic needs, the Dangtalan women did not focus on producing pottery as their spouses gained employment beyond the Pasil region. The scale of pottery production in Dalupa is much higher than in Dangtalan today. Factors that include market demand, environmental stress, and younger women, with a lack of experience, entering the Dalupa pottery field contributed to the changes described. The Dalupa women also expanded the distribution of the ceramics, and traveled to more distant markers to sell a wider range of ceramic products (302). Despite expanding the distribution of ceramics, the Pasil system is not a market oriented industry. Dalupa ceramic production is more intensive than in Dangtalan, but both communities engage in varying degrees of part time specialization.

Week #6 Draft assignment: Ceramic section for group essay " Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project"
The following is the draft for my section of the paper.

Kalinga Ceramic Production, Exchange, and Variation :

William A. Longacre and Taylor R. Hermes analyzed the exchange of pottery, and household rice farming in Dangtalan that took place from 1975 to 1976 in their study. The study involves the analyzation of non previously published data from Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project. Data from the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project contains information about the exchange of pottery between different levels of rice farming households. Longacre et.al (2015) argue how the exchange of pottery provides evidence of a Dangtalan household’s craft specialization as well as agricultural intensification. In a 2015 research study William Longacre and Taylor Hermes conducted analysis of pottery exchange in Dangtalan includes datasets from household material culture inventory that contains ceramic vessels. Longacre's inventory of the Kalinga barrio, Dangtalan, consisted of fifty households, four hundred ninety four ceramic vessels, and two hundred and fifty-seven people. Longacre et.al (2015) argue that there was a correlation between the net trade of ceramic vessels, and the household rice productivity amongst people in Dangtalan. More specifically, the households that had very little rice productivity frequently gave away their pots, and households that had immense rice productivity would retrieve the ceramic vessels from the households with low rice productivity. According to Longacre et.al (2015), these findings suggest that the exchange of pottery arbitrated each household's labor in the rice fields as "a function of cooperative work through social relations". The trading of pottery centered on specific households that specialized in the making of pottery, and households that specialized in rice cultivation. The exchange of pottery between the two groups surfaces the existence of specialization in both pottery, and rice cultivation.

In the Kalinga society, pottery serves as an extra source of income, and is made by women. The women use their hands to form the vessel, and do not use a wheel. Instead, the potters use coil and scrape techniques as well as paddle and anvil techniques(37). The clay that is used to form the vessels is local, and often mined by males in the society. Male traders in the Dalupa and Dangtalan villages sometimes barter resin and ocher colllected from upland forests, but women prepare the clay as well as shape and fire the pottery. The women learn how to make pots from their mothers, and often make ceramic vessels in groups rather then alone. The pottery is not only made for exchange, but also is made for household needs. The most common household pots are those made for water storage, and cooking rice as well as meat. These types of pots consist of similar decorative features. Pots made for cooking and water jars often are coated with organic resins to reduce water permeability, and also are decorated with red ochre. Open fire is used to fire the pots, and the pots are also air dried. The gifts, such as pottery, that are given are often reciprocated with rice in the Kalinga culture. In addition, the women are responsible for  the exchange of pottery that takes place outside  of the household, and the amount of uncooked rice that a vessel can hold determines the value of that vessel.


 * Hi, I went over the content and here are my thoughts:
 * Make sure that you do a lot of research on the topic. You have one source so far, which you rely on fairly heavily. It's also a study, so be very careful when bringing in information and conclusions from the report. The reason for this is that this journal article is a primary source for the research and conclusions that the authors created, so you will need to have some secondary sourcing to back up those claims. I believe that the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology should be indexed by Web of Science, which is one of the easiest ways to find authors who have used it as a reference/citation. Google Scholar has a few as well, but of course Web of Science would be the better of the two. If your library has it and if you've never used it, your university's reference librarian will be able to go over this with you. In any case, getting the secondary source will help show that the research is good and that it's a major enough study to focus on in specific. This is one of the biggest ways that Wikipedia differs from traditional research writing assignments, TBH. However if the study does a literature review or refers to pre-existing research, that is something that can absolutely be used. It's anything new to this journal article that would need to have a secondary source.
 * Avoid words like "furthermore" and "thus", as these are seen as persuasive terms. Basically, on Wikipedia we're summarizing existing research rather than arguing a point. It also needs to be summarized a bit more to remove some repeating terms - for example, you don't really have to keep referring to Longacre. This should be more on the brief side, but more on that in a bit. With the references, you need to specify the page numbers in the source itself. I'll fix this for you so you can see what I mean.
 * When mentioning someone for the first time, make sure to write out their full name so that people have a better idea of who you're referring to and so you can link to their article if needed. Also, you may want to summarize the info about the study a little since the main focus here is ceramic production. You can give a brief overview of when it was published and what they analyzed, but it shouldn't have a huge amount of information about the study unless there's enough coverage to justify going into a bit more depth.
 * This is overall good as far as writing goes, it just needs a little more work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Week #5: Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Projects sources, notes, and contribution:
- I feel adding a section that focuses on the Kalinga ceramic technology and design will help add more detail to the article.

Beck, M. (2006). Midden Ceramic Assemblage Formation: A Case Study from Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity, 71(1), 27-51.

- I feel the Beck Article will be a useful source for the article edits.

- I also found these articles on the ceramic technology.

Longacre, William. Hermes, Taylor. Rice farming and pottery production among the Kalinga: New ethnoarchaeological data from the Philippines. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 38. 35-45.
 * The link does not link my sandbox to the grouo sandbox. Thus, I copy and pasted my notes and sources to the group page.

Week#4 " Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project" sources
These are some of the sources that I feel could add important information to the article.

Beck, M. E. (2009). Counting pots in Kalinga, Philippines: short- and long-term change in household assemblages. Ethnoarchaeology: Journal of Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Experimental Studies, 1, 79–106.

Aronson, M., Skibo, J. M., & Stark, M. T. (1994). Production and use technologies in Kalinga pottery. In W. A. Longacre & J. M. Skibo (Eds.), Kalinga ethnoarchaeology: expanding archaeological method and theory (pp. 83–112). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Beck, M. E. (2007). Midden formation and intrasite chemical patterning in Kalinga, Philippines. Geoarchaeology, 22, 453–475.

Beck, M. E. (2006). Midden ceramic assemblage formation: an ethnoarchaeological case study from Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity, 71, 27–51.

Week #4 assigment: Choose your topic/what I plan to contribute.

 * I plan to add more details to the background information for the article  " Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project"
 * Also the article does not have many sections. It consists of only a "purpose"  and "Background" section.
 * I feel there should be a section for specific finds. The article does not list specific information about the Kalinga collections.
 * I will add more details about the Kalinga collections. I feel the article needs to list the finds in certain categories and describe in more detail.
 * I also feel there needs to be a more descriptive introduction.

Linking group sandbox
User:Tagropp/sandbox

Notes for adding to an article week #3
Notes for adding to article.

The Malays culture had brought iron weapons,pottery, and glass beads that were made locally around 300 and 200 B. C.(  Soleheim,1953:156)

The Iron age consisted of a phase called the "Porcelain Age," and porcelain in this phase entered the Philippines around the nineteenth century A.D. along with "glazed stoneware" from Southeast Asia.

Article Evaluation
Hello. I enjoyed reading the article "Archaeology of the Philippines."However,I noticed that some of the references links did not work.For instance,the reference titled "The Philippines: Archaeology in the Philippines to 1950" by Alfredo Evangelista did not work. Also, the reference link for "Researchers discover fossil of human older than Tabon man" by Howie G. Severino did not work. Thus, I feel that the source links not working may cause the reader to question if the claims in the article are accurate. To avoid this questioning, I suggested on the articles talk page that the links for the references should be updated. I feel that the reference links not working may be the reason why the article was "nominated for deletion" as stated on the articles talk page. Also, I feel that the title is slightly vague. The article discusses colonialism frequently, and thus, I feel the article could improve by being more specific about what will be discussed in the article. I also felt that the article did not go into enough detail about the Rizal-Bulacan Archaeological Survey.I feel that providing more sources for this section would help make the article stronger.The link for the article I evaluated is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_the_Philippines. A116erin (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)