september 2007 • volume 7 • number 4 -...

S O C I E T Y F O R A M E R I C A N A R C H A E O L O G Y

SAAarchaeological recordthe

SEPTEMBER 2007 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 4

Editors Corner

Letters to the Editor

From the President

In Brief

Archaeopolitics

Vancouver in 2008

RPA: The Issue of Commercialism: Proposed Changesto the Registers Code of Conduct

Archaeologys High Society Blues: Reply to McGimsey

Amerind-SAA Seminars: A Progress Report

Email X and the Quito Airport Archaeology Controversy: A Cautionary Tale for Scholars

in the Age of Rapid Information Flow

Identifying the Geographic Locations in Need of More CRM Training

Can the Dissertation Be All Things to All People?

Networks: Historic Preservation Learning Portal: A Performance Support Project for

Cultural Resource Managers

Interfaces: 12V

Heritage Planning

In Memoriam: Jaime Litvak King

Calls for Awards Nominations

positions open

news and notes

calendar

2 Andrew Duff

3

6 Dean R. Snow

7 Tobi A. Brimsek

8 Dan Sandweiss and David Lindsay

9 Dana Lepofsky, Sue Rowley, Andrew Martindale, and Alan McMillan

10 Jeffrey H. Altschul

11 Lawrence E. Moore

15 John A. Ware

20 Douglas C. Comer

24 German Loffler

29 John D. Rissetto

33 Richard C. Waldbauer, Constance Werner Ramirez,and Dan Buan

35 Harold L. Dibble, Shannon J.P. McPherron, and Thomas McPherron

42 Yun Shun Susie Chung

47 Emily McClung de Tapia and Paul Schmidt

48

52

54

56

The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 7, No. 4September 2007

Probing during cemetery

delineation in Coweta

County, Georgia.

Photo by Ron Hobgood.


2 The SAA Archaeological Record September 2007

The SAA Archaeological Record (ISSN1532-7299) is published five times a yearand is edited by Andrew Duff.

Deadlines for submissions are: Decem-ber 1 (January), February 1 (March),April 1 (May), August 1 (September),and October 1 (November); send toAndrew Duff, The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord, Andrew Duff, Department ofAnthropology, Washington State Uni-versity, Pullman, WA 99164-4910, (509)335-7828, or email [email protected]. Man-uscript submission via email or by diskis encouraged. Advertising and place-ment ads should be sent to SAA head-quarters, 900 Second St., NE #12, Wash-ington, DC 20002, (202) 789-8200.

Associate editors include:Gabriela Uruuela [Exchanges, Mexico& Central America]email: [email protected] Luis Lanata [Exchanges, SouthernCone]email: [email protected] Vawser [Government]email: [email protected] Duff [Insights]email: [email protected] Aldenderfer [Interface]email: [email protected] Hoopes [Networks]email: [email protected] Pinter [Public Education]email: [email protected] Brandon [Recent Past]email: [email protected] Dongoske [Working Together]email: [email protected]

Inquiries and submissions should beaddressed directly to them. The SAAArchaeological Record is provided free tomembers and institutional subscribers toAmerican Antiquity and Latin AmericanAntiquity worldwide. The SAA Archaeologi-cal Record can be found on the Web in PDFformat at

www.saa.org/publications/thesaaarchrec/index.html.

Past issues of the SAA Bulletin can befound at

www.saa.org/publications/saabulletin/index.html.

Copyright 2007 by the Society for American Archaeology.

All Rights Reserved

Manager, Publications:John Neikirk

Design: Victoria RussellPapertiger Studio Washington, DC

Production: Peter LindemanOakland Street Publishing Arlington, VA


The Magazine of the Society forAmerican Archaeology

Volume 7, No. 4September 2007

EDITORS CORNER

EDITORS CORNER

Andrew Duff

Andrew Duff is an Associate Professor of anthropology at Washington State University.

Iam grateful for the opportunity to serve as editor of The SAA Archaeological Record,a publication that I find has become increasingly useful as a forum for the commu-nication of ideas and issues important to the discipline, its practitioners, and thelarger public. As I prepared to compile my first issue, I took the opportunity to reviewmy collection of past issues of its predecessor, the SAA Bulletin, and The SAA Archaeo-logical Record. My collection begins in 1991 and the first thing that struck me was howthis publication has grownin size, but especially in content. My predecessors, JohnKantner and Mark Aldenderfer, with the help of their assistants and Associate Editors,have done a remarkable job in building this from a publication that largely communi-cated committee reports and other Society business to a vibrant forum for debate, newideas, practical advice, and research, while still conveying necessary and timely Societybusiness. The most significant developments seem to me to be the several regularcolumns established by Mark Aldenderfer in the mid-1990s and the regular thematicissues John Kantner initiated soon after the Bulletin became The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord. I see no need for dramatic changes and plan to build on the strong foundationthese two have provided.

One change I have decided to make is to develop a new regular column titled RecentPast. Its intent is to provide a regular forum for research, concerns, and discussions relat-ed to historical archaeology, and to encourage greater dialogue with, and inclusion of, his-torical archaeology. Jamie Brandon, research station archaeologist with the ArkansasArchaeological Survey and assistant professor of anthropology at Southern Arkansas Uni-versity, will serve as the columns Associate Editor. Related to this, I plan to continue pro-ducing thematic issues and welcome ideas for future issues. Jamie and I would like tobegin by soliciting contributions for the January issue organized around the theme ofArchaeology and Historical Memory. If you have a contribution, please send it to me orJamie by December 1. Watch this column for future thematic issue topics.

Most of the Associate Editors have agreed to continue, for which I am grateful. CoryBreternitz, who has served as Associate Editor of the Insights column since 2002, hasstepped down. Id like to thank him for his work over the past several years and I amworking to find his replacement. My thoughts are to identify two people to serve asAssociate Editors for this column. If you have a contribution or an idea that you thinkwould fit with one of the regular columns, please contact or submit materials directlyto the relevant Associate Editor. You can always send material directly to me. Contactinformation for all of us appears in the column adjacent to this. At present, the Associ-ate Editors are:

Exchanges Gabriela Uruuela Ladron de GuevaraJos Luis Lanata

Government Anne Vawser

>EDITORS CORNER, continued on page 9

3September 2007 The SAA Archaeological Record

Natural History

I was disappointed to read the under-signed letter recently submitted to TheSAA Archaeological Record by archaeolo-gists affiliated with the American Muse-um of Natural History. I understand thatthey are upset with Natural History mag-azine for its publication of a story byCraig Childs in March of this year.Unfortunately, the undersigned partychose to level most of their criticism atMr. Childs, a decision that seems unfairand ungracious, particularly if theychose not to communicate with himfirst.

Childss article was excerpted from hisrecently published book, House of Rain.Had the undersigned taken the troubleto read House of Rain, or even justchunks of it, they probably would nothave tried to paint Craig Childs as dis-respectful and dishonest. Instead, Ihope that they would have seen hisefforts as a service to archaeologists andthe ancient societies that we study.Childs worked with many archaeologiststo inform his understanding of the cur-rent archaeological debate surroundingthe movements and histories of pre-Hispanic peoples in the Southwest. Hissummary of this debate covers a lot oftheoretical ground, but his book alsoreveals the human side of the archaeolo-gists doing the work. He paints us as arespectful and sincere bunch, but alsoallows that most of us are not puritans.

A recent review of House of Rain in alocal Four Corners newspaper illustrateswhat the undersigned have missed orignored in Craig Childs. The reviewer,who is not an archaeologist, states, Thisis no boring textbook of Southwestarchaeology that proves impossible toplow through. Instead, Childs writinggives factual knowledge made lively byhis own treks through desert wildernessin pursuit of a people who made thesame moves 800 years ago. One of themost important points of the book, thereviewer notes, is that the Anasazi

never mysteriously disappeared as pop-ular opinion declares, but insteadmigrated en masse over hundreds ofmiles and centuries of time (quotesexcerpted from Marilyn BoyntonsHouse of Rain Makes the Past ComeAlive in Four Corners Free Press, Vol. 4,No. 10, pp. 1819. Cortez, Colorado).

And, yes, House of Rain grapples withthe term Anasazi. It strikes me asabsurd that we should expect the gener-al public to, overnight, abandon a termthat archaeologists themselves used fordecades. Further, it is silly to think thatweve found a flawless, politically correctterm in Ancestral Pueblo. I challengeany of the undersigned to use that termcomfortably with the archaeologists, his-torians, or politicians of the NavajoNation.

As a profession, we do a poor job of rep-resenting ourselves to the public. Weneed the voices of people like CraigChilds, voices that awaken not just themind, but the soul.

Jonathan TillArchaeologist, Colorado Plateau

The Emergence of Geoarchaeologyin Research and Cultural ResourceManagement: Response to Dickinson and Green

I was pleased to read the comments ofDickinson and Green (The SAA Archaeo-logical Record 7:3[3-4]) to my two-partarticle on Geoarchaeology. Both areesteemed academicians whose long-term interdisciplinary contributionsonly underscore the growing influenceof our specialty. Their commentaryattempted to expand and refine thedomain of what we have called geoar-chaeology and, perhaps more impor-tantly, to caution against blurring themethodological lines that bring workersin both disciplines together. My com-ments are directed to these two issues

because they highlight the contexts inwhich we work (what is geoarchaeology?)and the changing environment in whichgeoarchaeology finds its niche.

The authors claim that [g]eoarchaeolo-gy is archaeology pursued with a geolog-ical bent using geological methods,while archaeological geology is geologypursued with archaeological problemsin mind but NOT using archaeologicalmethods (emphasis added). I find thisdistinction logically puzzling and theirrecommendation that yet a third subdis-cipline, geological archaeology, beintroduced confounds the issue still fur-ther. My original premise that geoar-chaeology simply marks the interfacebetween geology and archaeologyimplicitly expands the scope of both dis-ciplines. We cull and integrate methodsfrom each based on the specific ques-tions posed at sites and landscapeswhere natural and cultural inputs con-tribute to the archaeological record. Pro-fessionals allied with both fields haveweighed in on the argument, but thegrowth and maturation of a unique sub-field has resulted in the following claim(P. Goldberg and R. MacPhail, Practicaland Theoretical Geoarchaeology, Black-well , Oxford 2006:2):

Does it really matter how wecategorize research that isaimed at studying postdeposi-tional dissolution of bones at asite? . . . this research wouldfall into both camps, but doesit help us to know if we aredoing geoarchaeology or geo-logical archaeology or archaeo-logical geology? For the sake ofbrevity, we employ the simpleterm Geoarchaeology.

The point is that exponential method-ological advances in archaeology andgeology are blurring the distinctionsbetween them, to the point where geoar-chaeology, irrespective of modifier andnoun, is approaching a level of matura-

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


tion reflected in its unique and growingutility. Again, turning to the Goldbergand MacPhail volume, I would note thatone of its most ubiquitous contributionsis Part II, entitled Non-traditional geoar-chaeological approaches, that concen-trates on archaeological sediments,sensu latto, or deposits that are the prod-uct of human activity. It can be arguedthat weathered human debris requires,in equal measure, knowledge of humanactivity (accounting for its deposition;archaeological question) and the physi-cal, chemical, and biological processes ofdisaggregation (geological question).Reconstituting site formation drawsupon a hybridized knowledge base span-ning archaeological and geological tech-niques and methods. It follows that,depending on project objectives, eitherthe project geologist or archaeologist cantake the lead in analysis, interpretation,and report preparation.

A final point on the geoarchaeology vs.archaeological geology polemic concernsthe question of a practitioners discipli-nary identification. I would take issuewith Dickinson and Greens claim thatnone of the members of the Archaeolog-ical Geology Division of the GeologicalSociety of America would own up tobeing archaeologists. Without benefit ofmembership numbers I am aware of atleast a dozen who have completed aPh.D. in anthropology and anotherdozen who have the geology doctorate.Many others have M.A.s or M.S.s in onefield and pursued a second degree in theother. In sum, the disciplinary distinc-tions between geology and archaeologyare muted for geoarchaeologists andtheir training will generally predisposethem to the types of projects for whichthey will assume principal roles. My callfor standards in the training of geoar-chaeologists simply emphasizes that in achanging archaeological environment,the traditional pathways for academictraining are approaching obsolescence ata time when interdisciplinary goals arethe raison dtre of a project. To empha-

size the point, the classic anthropologicalorientation underpinning archaeologicalpractice in North America is eitherreduced or absent from training modelselsewhere in the world. Increased global-ization coupled with a shifting balancefrom research archaeology to (applied)cultural resource management onlyunderscores the parochialism of theNorth American model and renders iteven less applicable.

In my presentation I enumerated therange of earth sciencerelated disci-plines that contribute to productivegeoarchaeological ventures. The NewYork City example (Figures 5 and 6) isthe most striking. In that study, I uti-lized historical cartography, stratigraph-ic observations, eighteenth- to twentieth-century literary accounts, and archaeo-logical notes and records to formulate amodel of dynamic landscape change andhuman ecology. Perhaps the most sin-gular contributions were the pristine(pre-urban) landscape descriptionsrecounted by the Dutch, British, andearly Colonial diarists that were readilyreconciled with the limited stratigraphicexposures made available in confinedtrench boxes. The orientation derivesfrom my own training in physical geog-raphy and archaeology at the Universityof Chicago under Karl Butzer. A moreconventional interdisciplinary approachmight have brought together a Late Qua-ternary geologist and a historical archae-ologist. While this combination wouldhave been eminently appropriate for thetask, my guess is that the analytic andinterpretive parameters would have var-ied significantly.

While I am not necessarily champi-oning the reconfiguration of traditionalgraduate training programs, I cannotemphasize more strongly the need formore, rather than less, rigorous train-ing, across if not within both fields.More critically, the divide separatinggeology and archaeology needs to bedeemphasized, and a program of geoar-

chaeology, sensu stricto, could allow forthe proper training of professionalswho can serve as Principal Investigatorson projects that breach the disciplinarygap. It is unfortunate that Dickinsonand Green doubt whether specially for-mulated academic programs combiningthe two will in fact eventuate, evenincrementally as realistic mainstreamoptions. I would argue that main-stream geoarchaeology is currently driv-en NOT by pure academic pursuits, bethey geological or archaeological. Theyare increasingly mandated by thepreservation ethic that sustains culturalresource management (in the UnitedStates) and cultural heritage protocols(in most other countries of the world).If this were not the case, I would agreewith Dickinsons and Greens claim thatboth fields are large and complexenough in themselves to mitigateagainst the crossover of disciplinaryexpertise. However, the direction of ourprofession in the future is unmistak-able. The performance of geoarchaeolo-gy will increasingly be undertaken byfiat and not by design. Whether we likeit or not, the prevalence of long-termvenues with large teams of researchspecialists is a thing of the past. In thiscontext, the term researchers shouldprobably be replaced by the term prac-titioners. This is not to disparage theneed for maintaining the highest levelsof scientific sophistication irrespectiveof objectives. However, the researchuniverse will increasingly be imposedfrom the outside rather than selected bypractitioners. Flexibility and versatilityare replacing specialization as the call-ing card for our field as in others. Theneed is growing for up and cominggeoarchaeologists to master as manydiverse methodologies as they can in aworld that demands more skills and willaccommodate fewer specialists for ven-tures that require mitigation rather thanknowledge for knowledges sake. Thesooner we learn this, the betterequipped we will be to train and pro-duce geoarchaeologists for the chal-



lenges that face them in the twenty-firstcentury and beyond.

Joe SchuldenreinPrincipal and PresidentGeoarchaeology Research Associates

An Open Letter to the Archaeological and Anthropological Communities

During the past few weeks we havereceived several concerned emails andtelephone calls regarding the cover ofour recently published Archaeology andAnthropology Toolbook.

Regrettably the cover image does,indeed, depict human remains. Accord-ing to the information that weve beenable to compile from the photographer,

the image was taken in the summer of2000 and is from an ancient Iron Ageexcavation in Auvergne, France. Our sin-cere intention was to utilize a recogniza-ble image that could directly identify thetype of professionals that this brochureand the products therein would relate to.

By no means, and in no manner, wouldForestry Suppliers intentionally disre-spect these or any remains, nor wouldwe intentionally offend you, the profes-sionals, whom we intended to petition.

Forestry Suppliers has a long history ofservice to the Archaeological andAnthropological communities and wesincerely regret any offense or percep-tions of insensitivity that our coverimage selection may have inadvertentlycaused. Furthermore, Forestry Supplierssincerely apologizes if we have in any


fashion caused any anguish or impedi-ment to archaeologists, anthropologists,or the people and cultures that youserve.

We truly appreciate the comments andcriticism that has been offered, and wewill certainly adhere to the suggestionsprovided by solemnly pledging that allfuture cover designations will be thor-oughly reviewed by a professional focusgroup to ensure that no semblance ofimpropriety exists.

Lastly, it is our genuine hope and desirethat you will forgive our indiscretion,and allow us the privilege of serving youin the future.

Forestry Suppliers, Inc


Dear Colleagues:

The annual SAA election gives SAA members theopportunity to actively participate in SAA gover-nance. In an effort to facilitate the election process,the Board of Directors has approved the move to anelection conducted via the web by a third-partyprovider who specializes in web-based elections. Thischange will benefit both the Society in its cost effec-tiveness and benefit its members in its ease of use.You no longer need to wait to receive candidatesstatements and ballots in the mail, pay for returnpostage, or make a trip to the mailbox. The Society will also real-ize tremendous cost savings on printing and postage, not tomention the time spent counting the paper ballots. Theseadministrative dollars can be shifted to the Societys substantiveprograms. Additionally, the election will also be conducted in amore compressed time frame. The Board specifically approvedthe following motion in April 2007:

Motion 118-27.1 The Board approves the conversion toa solely web-based election, beginning with the 2008 elec-tion. In order to accommodate a member requiring apaper ballot, SAA staff will send a paper ballot andpaper copy of the candidate statements to any member ingood standing who telephones or faxes (not emails) theSociety requesting that accommodation.

Voting via the web is quick, easy, and secure. TheSociety has utilized this web-based election option aspart of the hybrid election system for the past twoyears, and it has generated a significant amount ofpositive feedback from our members. In early Janu-ary 2008, all SAA voting members will receive anemail that contains a link to the candidates state-ments, as well as a link to the official ballot site. If theSociety does not have your valid email address, or ifthe email to you bounces back, a postcard withdetailed information on how to access the candi-dates statements and vote via the web will be mailed

to you via the postal service. The key to maximizing the effi-ciency of this process is the accuracy of your email address. Wewould appreciate it if you would take a moment to update youremail information in the Members Section of the SAAweb(www.saa.org). The SAA staff is also happy to assist you withthis. Please email them with your updated/current emailaddress at [email protected]. Thank you for being an activeparticipant in the Society for American Archaeology.

Dean R. SnowPresident

FROM THE PRESIDENT

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dean R. Snow

Dean R. Snow is President of the Society for American Archaeology.

U.S. CITIZENS TRAVELING TO CANADAU.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada must have a valid passport. This is a result of the Western HemisphereTravel Initiative. For specifics on this initiative, see the website from the Department of Homeland Security:http://www.dhs.gov.xtrvlsec/crossingborders.

If you do not have a passport and need to apply for one, you may wish to note that passport processing times have dramatically increased due to the volume of requests. If you need a passport, you may wish to consult the website from the Department of State: http://travel.state.gov/passport for instructions.


Earlier Than UsualSAAs 2008 Annual Meeting!

The 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archae-ology will be held March 2630, 2008 in Vancouver, BC, Canada.Because the meeting falls in late March, the deadline foradvance registration is Friday, February 22, 2008. Please markyour calendars! The Preliminary Program will be posted on theweb in mid-December and will be mailed in late December. Wehope to see you there!

Please remember passport requirements for Canada. If you donthave one, dont delay!

More on SAAs 2008 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC

The headquarters hotel for the 73rd Annual Meeting in Vancou-ver will be the Hyatt Regency Vancouver with two overflowproperties, the Renaissance Vancouver Harbourside and theMarriott Vancouver Pinnacle Downtown. In addition, there aretwo properties exclusively for students, the Days Inn VancouverDowntown and the Ramada Limited Downtown Vancouver.Both of the student properties include a continental breakfastwith the rate. Complete reservation information for all of theSAA properties is available on SAAweb, and of course, will beincluded in the Preliminary Program available in December.Click on the 2008 Meeting Hotel Information button on SAAshomepage (http://www.saa.org) to see this information now.Please pay particular attention to the different cut-off dates forthe various properties! Updated information on hotel availabili-ty will always be posted here on SAAweb.

A Chance for a Free One-year Membership in SAA

Register for a room at any of the meeting hotels for the SAAmeeting by January 7, 2008, and your name will be entered intoan SAA drawing for an incomparable prizea one-year mem-bership in SAA! Make your room reservation today! There willbe a drawing for each of the five SAA hotels.

An Invitation to Nonmember Canadian Archaeologists

As Canada is the host country to SAAs 73rd Annual Meeting,March 2630, 2008, the Society for American Archaeologywould like to invite all nonmember Canadians (including stu-dents) to register at special discounted rates for this meeting.Details are included in the Preliminary Program. Please checkit out!

Staff Transition

At the end of July, staff said farewell to Tom Weber, coordinator,Financial and Administrative Services, and welcomed MeghanA. Tyler as his replacement on July 16. The overlap betweenTom and Meghan provided for a smooth and effortless transi-tion. Meghan is a recent graduate of James Madison Universitywith a BBA.

Did You Know.....

That 91.33% of the current SAA membership have providedtheir email address to the Society? That is 6,589 members of7,214 members (as of July 31, 2007). A good thing, too, as it isthe most cost-effective and efficient way to communicate. Didyou also know that SAA has a policy that prohibits using emailto market to SAA members? Emails are used solely for com-munications, never distributed outside the Society, and startingin January, to provide the link to SAAs web-based election.Please check out the letter from SAAs President, Dean Snow inthis issue that details the new election process. Please ensurethat SAA has a current email address in your record. It willnever be used for any purpose other than communication. Youcan do it yourself or simply email SAA at [email protected] let staff do that for you. Help us help you stay connected!

IN BRIEF

Tobi A. Brimsek

Tobi A. Brimsek is executive director of the Society for American Archaeology.

IN BRIEF


The antiquities trade has long threatened archaeologicalsites and the critical information they contain abouthumanitys past. The roots of the problem are deep andcomplex, mired at least partly in the extreme poverty of the loot-ers, who are often the direct descendants of the people whomade the ancient artifacts now traded on the world market.Only in the twentieth century did such trade become illicit;although some nations such as Peru passed legislation pro-hibiting the export of their antiquities in the first half of thatcentury, international agreements are even more recent. It hasbeen only 37 years since the UNESCO Convention on theMeans of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export,and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and twenty-four years since the U.S. began formal participation in the Con-vention with the passage of the Cultural Property Implementa-tion Act. The latter allows the U.S., as part of bilateral agree-ments with nations experiencing looting, to impose importrestrictions on specific categories of materials from those lands.The agreements must be reviewed for effectiveness, andrenewed periodically.

Over the years, the U.S. has slowly constructed a network forthe protection of antiquities and other threatened cultural arti-facts by entering into agreements with a number of nations.1987 marked the beginning of the process, with the impositionof an emergency ban on pre-Columbian materials from theCara Sucia region of El Salvador. As more nations sufferedextensive looting of their cultural patrimony, further importrestrictions were added to the list: Bolivia in 1989; Peru in 1990;Guatemala in 1991; Mali in 1993; Canada in 1997; Cambodiaand Cyprus in 1999; Nicaragua in 2000; Italy in 2001; Hon-duras in 2004; and Columbia in 2006. Over the years, many ofthese agreements were broadened to include additional cate-

gories of materials, and all but onewith Canadahas beenrenewed.

The scale of the looting problem often seems to dwarf theresponse. But these agreements are about much more than justimport restrictions. In many ways, they are an integral part ofthe United States efforts to preserve and protect internationalcultural heritage, and increase the worlds knowledge about thepast. Depending upon the specific situation each nation is fac-ing, the documents lay out steps for increasing the protectionsfor, and scientific examination of, cultural resources in thenations experiencing looting. Further, they provide a vitalmeans of establishing relationships for knowledge-sharing andcultural exchange by ensuring international scientific access tothe affected resources.

SAA stands strongly against commercialization of the archaeo-logical record, and recognizes the critical role that the bilateralagreements play in the fight against looting. They are a vital tooland represent the front line in the struggle against interna-tional smuggling. When the State Departments Cultural Prop-erty Advisory Committee meets to discuss proposed agreementsand review existing, SAA and other archaeological organiza-tions ensure that expert witnesses are available to inform thepanel about the need for the agreements and their effectiveness.In recent years, witnesses have appeared or submitted testimo-ny on behalf of SAA during consideration of the agreementswith Colombia, Nicaragua, Peru, and other nations.

SAA will continue to work to preserve these vital agreements,and support requests for the creation of new ones, so that thiseffective combination of deterrence and scientific discovery canbe employed in other nations suffering from looting.

ARCHAEOPOLITICS

STEADY PROGRESS IN BUILDING PROTECTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL ANTIQUITIES

Dan Sandweiss and David Lindsay

Dan Sandweiss is the chair of the SAA Committee on the Americas. David Lindsay is manager, Government Affairs for the Society for American Archaeology.


Reading over past articles from the SAA Local AdvisoryCommittee, it struck us that many of the articles sharethe same message: Come to our beautiful city wherethere is great scenery, wonderful food, a variety of musical andart experiences, etc., etc. Anyone who knows Vancouver knowsthat all this applies in spades to our city. However, Vancouverhas something to offer archaeologists that they cannot get whenvisiting many other cities: the chance to be introduced to FirstNations with a direct, unbroken connection to the local archae-ology.

In true Canadian style, this years Local Advisory Committee ismade up of four people who have participated equally in allaspects of the committee. Each of us is a long-time resident ofthe region and has worked in various parts of British Columbia.A fundamental component of our work is that we collaboratewith the First Nations communities whose past we are studying.The organizing we have done for the 2008 meetings in Vancou-ver reflects our experience and our passionate belief in theimportance of working closely with Indigenous communities.

Meeting participants can look forward to three tours that high-light First Nations views of and involvement in local archaeolo-gy and heritage more broadly. Well provide more details aboutthese in the next issue, so stay tuned.

In addition to the tours, youll have other opportunities to get aglimpse at local First Nations culture. If you are arriving to Van-couver by air, your introduction to First Nations heritage and artbegins at the airport, particularly if you are coming throughinternational arrivals. In the Customs Hall you will find thework of Susan Point, Debra Sparrow, Robin Sparrow, and otherMusqueam artists and weavers. This area recognizes the factthat the Airport is on the traditional land of the Musqueam Indi-an Band. Make sure you locate Bill Reids Haida masterpiece inbronze, The Spirit of Haida Gwaii, before you leave the air-port. Once in Vancouver, youll be able to visit the Museum ofAnthropology at University of British Columbia or one of theseveral galleries which feature First Nations art (well provide a

list). We have arranged for SAA participants to get a discount ontheir admission to the Museum. Vancouver has an excellent bussystem, so its easy to get around the city to see all these things.

Its not too early to start thinking about traveling to Vancouverfor the SAA annual meeting next spring and perhaps even plan-ning your family holiday around the trip. And by the way, did wemention that Vancouver is a beautiful city with great scenery,wonderful food, a variety of musical and art experiences?

73RD ANNUAL MEETING

VANCOUVER IN 2008

Dana Lepofsky, Sue Rowley, Andrew Martindale, and Alan McMillan

Dana Lepofsky, Sue Rowley, Andrew Martindale, and Alan McMillan are the members of the 2008 Local Advisory Committee.

Insights Open- interim Andrew DuffInterface Mark AldenderferNetworks John HoopesPublic Education Teresa PinterRecent Past Jamie BrandonWorking Together Kurt DongoskeWhere are they Now? Hester Davis

We can only publish interesting and relevant articles andcolumns if people continue to submit material. High resolutionimages (2700 x 3300 pixels) for the front cover are always wel-comed, whether or not they relate to the issue. Please keep thematerial coming and feel free to contact me with any questions.

EDITORS CORNER, from page 2 MOORE, continued on page 32


At the 2002 SAA meetings in Denver, Barbara Mills and Isat down with SAA President Bob Kelly to discuss a prob-lem that I suspect has been experienced by many of our

society members. How many times have you participated insymposia and presented papers at the annual meetings andwere frustrated by the lack of opportunity at the meetings to dis-cuss and debate important issues and exchange ideas of mutu-al concern with other panelists? Time constraints for sessions atthe SAAs simply do not allow the kind of sustained interactionthat occurs in a seminar over several days, and very few SAAsymposia papers are assembled and edited for publication afterthe meetings.

Barbara and I had a partial solution to propose: The AmerindFoundation would assemble a panel of senior SAA members toselect an outstanding symposium at the annual meeting of theSAA. We would then bring the participants to the AmerindFoundation in Arizona the fall following the meetings to partic-ipate in an intensive four-five day seminar where the kinds ofintensive discussions that are so elusive at the annual meetingcould take place. The Amerind would coordinate the work of theindependent panel, pay for all seminar expenses, and then com-pile the papers at the end of the seminar so that they could bepublished by a major academic press. The SAA would assist bycosponsoring the program and the SAAs Washington officewould provide advance copies of seminar proposals in the fall sothat our panel could select a short list of symposia for the annu-al meeting.

Bob Kelly saw immediately that the proposal would be a win-win for both the SAA and the Amerind. The quality of SAA sem-inars would be enhanced by competition for an Amerind grantand the results of important SAA symposia would be synthe-sized and made available to a much larger audience. TheAmerind would be assured of high-quality advancedseminarsan important part of our recently expanded scholar-ly programsas well as a steady stream of quality publicationsthat would benefit both the Amerind and the profession.

Over the next two years the SAA board approved the concept ofa competitive seminar program and the Amerind Foundationassembled a panel of six senior SAA members who would servethree-year staggered rotations on the panel. Panel memberswere selected for their professional standing as well as topicaland geographical areas of expertise. Barbara Mills served as thepanels first chair and our first meeting was in the fall of 2003 toselect five finalist symposia for the Montreal SAA meetings.Applying for an Amerind Seminar grant couldnt be easier, sinceformal proposals are not necessary. All you have to do is checkthe appropriate box on the Session Abstract form (Form E)when application for a symposium is made in September. Ses-sion proposals are then forwarded to Amerinds panel whichconvenes in the fall to review proposals and select five finalistsymposia to be evaluated at the spring meeting. Symposia pro-posals are each reviewed, discussed, and finally ranked, andthen five finalists are selected on the basis of the significanceand timeliness of the symposium theme, the quality of individ-ual contributions, how well individual contributions address thecore theme, and in the judgment of the panel, to what extent thesymposium would benefit from the sustained interaction of anAmerind symposium.

At the annual meeting in the spring each finalist symposium isattended by at least two panel members who report theirimpressions back to the full panel on the last day of the meet-ings. The panel normally meets over breakfast and deliberationsoften go on for several hours as panel members discuss anddefend their favorite symposia. The goal is to reach a unani-mous decision on a winning symposium before the coffee runsout or the manager of the restaurant asks us to leave, whichev-er comes first.

Shortly after the meetings the organizers of the winning sym-posia are notified of their selection and asked for a formal writ-ten proposal that addresses seminar themes, organization, anda final participant list and paper titles. During this process thepanel often takes a rather hands-on approach and may recom-mend that specific papers be amended or dropped, or that the

AMERIND-SAA SEMINARSA PROGRESS REPORT

John A. Ware

John Ware is the Executive Director of the Amerind Foundation, Inc.

ARTICLE


symposium organizers address additional related themes thatwere not part of the original program. The goal in all this, ofcourse, is to ensure the highest quality seminar and publication.On the appointed date in the fall, seminar participants are flownto the Amerind for an intensive four- to five-day symposiumwhere revised papers are presented and discussed and, it ishoped, important synthesis occurs (no failures to report in thisarea so far). After the symposium, authors and discussants havea couple of months to finalize their papers and synthetic chap-ters before a final manuscript is assembled and submitted to theUniversity of Arizona Press for publication in a new series enti-tled Amerind Studies in Archaeology. The Amerind Foundationunderwrites participant travel, food, and lodging costs, and sub-sidizes subsequent publication costs.

We feel that the Amerind Foundation is an ideal venue for sem-inars in anthropological archaeology. Founded in 1937, theAmerind is a private, nonprofit anthropology museum andresearch center located 60 miles east of Tucson in the Little Dra-goon Mountains of southeastern Arizona. Situated in the spec-tacular rock formations of Texas Canyon, Amerinds 1600 acre

campus is home to a museum, fine art gallery, research library,visiting scholar residences, and a seminar housethe original1930s home of Amerinds founder William Shirley Fultonthatcan accommodate up to 15 scholars. One of the advantages ofthe Amerind is its physical isolation. The nearest town of anysize is 20 minutes driving distance away, so the only distractionsscholars are likely to find at the Amerind is the physical beautyof the foundations remote high desert setting. Some of themost productive interactions at the Amerind occur during walksover our 10 miles of back roads where discussions are some-times interrupted by deer, peccary, and coati sightings! (Forthese same reasons the Amerind is an outstanding short-termvisiting scholar destinationplease contact me if youd likemore information on our residencies).

The inaugural Amerind-SAA symposium was selected at theMontreal SAAs and convened at the Amerind in the fall of 2004.The symposium, entitled War in Cultural Context: Practice,Agency and the Archaeology of Conflict, was chaired by Axel Niel-son and Bill Walker and brought together 13 scholars to explorethe cross-cultural study of conflict by analyzing war as a form of

ARTICLE

Amerind Museum complex.


practice. Our 2005 symposium, selected from the Salt Lake Citymeetings and organized by Stephen Silliman, looked at NativeAmerican and archaeological collaborations in research andeducation across North America. Entitled Indigenous Archaeolo-gy at the Trowels Edge: Exploring Methods of Collaboration andEducation, the symposium brought together case studies ofarchaeological collaborations with Native communities thatmight well serve as models of indigenous archaeology in thefuture. Last years Amerind SAA seminar, from the annualmeetings in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was a comparative look atthe transition to early village lifeways on four continents. Thesymposium, entitled Early Village Society in Global Perspective,was organized and chaired by Matthew Bandy and Jake Fox. Inlate October 2007, we will be hosting an outstanding seminarfrom the Austin SAA meetings, Across the Great Divide: Conti-nuity and Change in Native North American Societies, A.D. 1400-1900. Chaired by Laura Scheiber and Mark Mitchell, the sym-posium will examine colonial interactions between Europeansand Native North that we think may change the way we viewcolonial archaeology in the Americas.

Notice from the titles of these symposia that topical and geo-graphical areas are not limited to the Southwest or northern

Mexico where most of Amerinds research has historicallyfocused. Contrary to some early expectations, the Amerindpanel has actually shied away from seminars with limited geo-graphical or topical scope. As membership in the panel changesthrough time, these predilections are likely to change as well,but we do not want to discourage any proposals from seeking anAmerind grant. And since the application process involves noth-ing more than checking a box on the annual meeting applica-tion, I can think of few reasons not to apply.

Proceedings from the first three Amerind-SAA symposia arecurrently in press and we hope to see our first volume publishedin 2008. The books in each case are substantially more than col-lections of edited papers because all the papers are rewrittenafter the symposium to reflect insights that emerged fromintensive discussions at the Amerind, and very often new syn-thetic chapters are added to clarify emergent themes as well.The proof will no doubt be in the pudding, but I suspect thatpublications coming out of the Amerind-SAA series will allmake important contributions to anthropological archaeology.

The Amerind Foundation currently has funds to fully supportonly one SAA seminar a year, but as the program expands and

ARTICLE

Patio of Fulton Seminar House.


as additional funds are raised, we hope to expand our support ofthe SAA as well. Later this year and early next the Amerind willhost two additional symposia from past SAA meetings thatcaught the eyes of panel members and were able to provide theirown travel funds to and from the Amerind. This coming fall weare also hosting our first seminar from an American Anthropo-logical Association symposium in 2006 entitled Choices andFates of Human Societies: An Anthropological and EnvironmentalReader. This symposium, organized and chaired by PatriciaMcAnany and Norman Yoffee, will assemble scholars includingarchaeologists, social anthropologists, and environmental histo-rians to examine and challenge some recent theories of societalgrowth and collapse such as those popularized by Jared Dia-mond and other writers. We hope this will be the first of manyAAA symposia at the Amerind. The Amerind is also developingplans to launch a new seminar series dedicated to the synthesisof applied archaeology projects in North America. Stay tuned formore information on this exciting initiative (and please contactme if you have interesting ideas to share or projects to propose).

ARTICLE

Participants at Amerinds most recent SAA symposium, Early Village Society in Global Perspective.


In March of 2006, many archaeologists and preservationistsaround the world received a flurry of troubling emails. Ifthe recipient were diligent and burrowed beneath layers offorwarding comments, she or he would eventually encounterwhat we will call here Email X, which claimed that Quitosnew airport is beginning to take shape over hundreds oftombs, structures and villages. It is being plowed under, thewhole lost civilization. The basis for this charge was that thewriter knew a man who used to dig out in the new airport siteand he has shown me pictures of his digs and findings. Theywould be worthy of any modern museum. How can we protestthe government and stop the construction? Email X went onto say that free trade talks were going on, and so we, as Amer-icans, have been warned to stay low profile [sic].

Like iron filings to magnets, these emails found their way tocertain computers, in particular those at which sat people asso-ciated with international archaeological preservation andresearch organizations, including the International Council onMonuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the ICOMOS InternationalCommittee for Archaeological Heritage Management(ICAHM), the World Archaeological Congress, and the Smith-sonian Institution. Because I am Chair of US/ICAHM and aVice-President for ICAHM, a good number of them reachedme. I forwarded one and saved all of them. Then I began towonder if by the simple act of forwarding I had lent credenceto a charge that might well be unfounded.

In looking over the emails more carefully, I saw, eventually,that all were written or forwarded in response to claims ofarchaeological malfeasance made in Email X. When forward-ing Email X, many did so by adding their own cynicallyhumorous comments or expressions of concern. The usualtrain wreck, said one. Several asked something along thelines of, cant we do something to stop this? As emailsaccreted, it became easier for subsequent readers, many ofwhom were familiar with instances of insensitivity by gov-

ernments and businesses toward cultural resources, to con-clude that this was simply one more. None of the comments,however, offered independent corroboration of the charge.An anomaly was an email by an archaeologist writing fromAustralia who had worked in Quito for many years. Thisarchaeologist said, I take offense at [Xs] communiqu dis-paraging the Ecuadorian government and archaeologists andthe fact that its being spread around all over the world.There were also rebuttals to the charges contained in EmailX by various preservation professionals in Ecuador, includ-ing members of ICOMOS Ecuador, and a member of theQuito municipal council. The councilman outlined the needfor the airport and said that archaeological investigationshad been done to prevent damage to resources and to docu-ment those found. Emails defending the Ecuadorian preser-vation effort, however, were outnumbered by those thatinsinuated misconduct.

Perhaps even more, the perception of misconduct had takenon a life of its own. Anthropologist and journalist Roger Lewinsuggested that systems as varied as rivers and cultures aredynamical, in that perturbations of flow, be the flow of wateror information, produces currents that further influence flow.Just as a fallen tree produces an eddy in a river, so Email Xgenerated a whirlpool of misinformation in the string of mes-sages that followed behind it. The vortex became more power-ful as it moved from computer to computer. A particularlyregrettable outcome of this perturbation took form severalweeks into the controversy: An email was written to the gov-ernment of Ecuador by a number of archaeologists associatedwith a well-established and highly regarded research organiza-tion, which expressed dismay about the destruction of impor-tant archaeological resources, and doubt about the ability ofthe archaeologists working on the Quito airport site to dealwith the materials that were being unearthed. As the basis fortheir alarm they cited Email X, which they said had been writ-ten by Dr. X.

ARTICLE

EMAIL X AND THE QUITO AIRPORT ARCHAEOLOGY CONTROVERSY

A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR SCHOLARS IN THE AGE OF RAPID INFORMATION FLOW

Douglas C. Comer

Douglas Comer is Vice-President for North America of The International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management,

and Principal of Cultural Site Research and Management, Inc. of Baltimore.


In the interest of finding a constructive way to deal with thefrequent reports of damage to archaeological resources thatcirculate by means of the Internet, I began an exchange ofemails with X. By means of this exchange, I found that hewas neither a Ph.D. nor an archaeologist. Further, he couldnot provide me with the name of an archaeologist with first-hand knowledge of the situation who shared his concerns. Hewas unwilling to provide me with the source of his informa-tion, because, he said, he feared reprisals. Why, then, did hisallegations stir such concern on the part of the archaeologicalcommunity? In part this might be attributed to an unfortu-nate coincidence: X and an established archaeologist have thesame name.

In March of this year, I decided to utilize a family vacation tovisit the Quito airport site. Arrangements were made with theassistance of Gustavo Araoz, the Executive-Director ofUS/ICOMOS, in coordination with ICOMOS Ecuador. Bythese means, I met with Gonzalo Ortiz Crespo, a member ofthe municipal council of Quito, and an advocate for both thecultural patrimony of Ecuador and the new airport. Planningand oversight of the airport development has been delegatedby the central government to the city of Quito, in no small partthrough his efforts. The airport, he said, was needed for well-documented safety reasons, and to place Ecuador, a country inwhich 67 percent of the population lives below the povertyline, in a more favorable economic position among the nationsof the world. The airport project had been initiated 30 yearsago. The existing airport, built 50 years ago in a plot of land ofonly 105 hectares, is at a very high altitude and surrounded byseveral neighborhoods, a combination of factors that had pro-duced many fatalities. The new airport will be at a lower eleva-tion and located in a plot of land of 1,500 hectares.

On the day that we met at his office, he took me on a tour ofseveral nearby preservation projects in Quito that he hadchampioned. Among them was the Metropolitan Cultural Cen-ter, hosting the Municipal Library, which contains an impor-tant collection of the scientific and cultural documents fromthe Colonial period. These run the gamut from maps to scoresfor Baroque music. The task of organizing this material andmaking it available for use by researchers has been an enor-mous one. Several other buildings in the historic core of Quitohave been restored recently, including La Compaa de Jess,one of the largest and most beautiful Baroque churches inSouth America.

The following day, Mr. Ortiz brought us to the airport site. Thearchaeologist in charge of the archaeological investigationsthere, Dr. Mara Aguilera, and her field coordinator, StefanBohorquez, provided us with a briefing of what had been doneso far and plans for future research. The location for this brief-ing was in the laboratory set up on-site for the archaeologicalinvestigation, and it proceeded while two laboratory staff

worked on computers to enter data into an artifact catalogueand create maps utilizing a GIS program. She stressed that allof work had been inspected periodically by the InstitutoNacional de Patrimonio Cultural (INPC), the highest nationalauthority on archeological and cultural sites. Further, no con-struction had taken place at the airport without the prior per-mission of Dr. Aguilera and the INPC. The archaeologicalresearch had been initiated as part of the EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for the project, and had initially beenconducted with funds set aside for this. Because of the com-plexity and importance of the findings at the site, however, themunicipal corporation responsible for the project, CORPAQ,had taken over support of the research.

Archaeological survey of the area was begun in 2002. All of theareas where construction activities will occur were examinedby means of 40 cm by 40 cm shovel test pits excavated to sub-soil at intervals of 20 to 40 meters in the areas that were con-sidered most likely to contain archaeological sites. Color aerialphotographs had been examined as one strategy used to identi-fy these areas. Areas that were deemed likely to containarchaeological resources fell into three discreet sectors, whichtogether make up only 1.7 percent of the 1,500 hectares that liewithin the airport project area.

No subsurface examination of Sector 1 was done because noconstruction will take place in this area. In Sector 2, Dr. Aguil-eras team found a necropolis with 80 deep shaft tombs. InSector 3, about 120 burials were found, of which 80 percentwere shaft tombs. The deepest shaft tomb was 12 meters indepth. Some shaft tombs were in pairs, and others were ingroups of three. All tombs had ceramic vessels; almost all hadat least one complete ceramic vessel, some had several, andone had 17. All have been excavated. The tombs date tobetween A.D. 570700.

ARTICLE


Excavated areas were taken down in 10 cm arbitrarily levels.This was necessary because the soil appeared homogenous:sandy with volcanic ash. Over 850 features were found duringexcavation, but no ceramic workshops, habitations, or even firehearths. About 800 intact artifacts were found. These includedcomplete ceramic vessels and several flutes and other musicalinstruments. The musical instruments were found in justsome of the tombs, and might indicate that the people buriedin the tombs were musicians. A good deal of faunal materialwas recovered, for the most part deer and camelid. In addition,approximately 35,000 potsherds were found, of which 4,000 to5,000 are diagnostic. No masonry structures have been foundand no living areas. Everything found is pre-Incan, and seemsto be associated with the time period in which the tombs wereconstructed. Mr. Ortiz stressed the fact that the whole area ofthe new airport has been under agricultural exploitation sincethe Spanish conquest in the sixteenth century until 30 yearsago under the hacienda system.

All crew members and monitors that have been involved withthe archaeological research are paid. A crew of 45 has beenmaintained, and they have been working seven days a weekwith no holidays. If crew members have no applicable previoustraining, they are put through an orientation and training peri-od. They are overseen by professional archaeologists. No stu-dents have been used. About $700,000 has been spent on thearchaeological research and monitoring so far.

Following the briefing, we visited the areas where shovel testpitting had taken place. Material evidence that subsurfacearchaeological excavations had been conducted in these areasincluded at least 15 two-meter square test pits that had beenexcavated in areas with concentrations of artifacts. As thesepits were generally no deeper than two meters, they had beenleft open. The excavated shaft tombs had been refilled.

Work at the airport site and subsequent analysis is expected tocontinue for the next three years. In the year just ahead, moni-toring will be done on a continual basis. Occasional isolatedbut important finds are being made. On the day that I visitedthe site, an isolated, decapitated skull was found on a bed ofobsidian flakes. This was the first such feature found, I wastold.

The archaeological team is proposing that specialized analysesbe done of a wide range of recovered materials, including foodremains and yeast at the bottom of ceramic vessels found ingraves, as well as faunal material, soils, carbon samples, andDNA samples. Also, an analysis of spatial relationships amongburials, artifacts, and features will be conducted.

A draft report on the fieldwork phase of the archaeologicalresearch has been prepared, which I have been informed con-tains over 2,000 pages. Recently, an executive summary wasprepared in English. This can be obtained by request made to

the archaeological project director, Dr. Maria Aguilera ([email protected]).

In light of questions that have been raised concerning the pro-fessional qualifications of those directing the research at thenew Quito airport site, I asked for and received the CVs ofboth the project director and the field coordinator. Both appearto meet the professional standards that would apply, for exam-ple, in the United States.

In summary, my observations and the materials that have beenprovided to me indicate that a great effort has been made bythe proponents of the airport project in Ecuador and the proj-ect archaeologists there to conduct the appropriate research inaccord with very high professional standards. To those whowould like to evaluate their work personally, they offer a stand-ing invitation for professional archaeologists to visit the site asI did. They would also welcome assistance, especially in theanalysis of food remains in the ceramics found in the burials,and of human osteological remains.

The criticism of those in Ecuador associated with the airportproject on the grounds that they insensitively and willfullydestroyed an important portion of their countrys heritage isclearly ungrounded. This incident seems especially unfortu-nate in that is was directed in large part toward people in theEcuadorian government and in the Quito City Hall with thevision and courage to make an investment in the countrys cul-tural resources, historic and prehistoric. These resources arenot only of great scientific historical importance, but, as quick-ly becomes apparent to visitors, many are also beautiful andintriguing. Finally, from a strategic tourism point of view, therenovation of the historic resources of the country and theinterpretation of the prehistoric ones that will be done at amuseum to be constructed at the airport site makes wonderfuleconomic sense, in that it should induce many people who flythrough Quito on their way to the Galapagos Islands or theAmazon jungle to stay and enjoy these cultural resources.

Beyond the consequences of this incident to cultural preserva-tion efforts in Ecuador, it also suggests to me that archaeolo-gists and other scholars might well give thought to the modesof discourse appropriate to the Internet. Email has providedthe archaeological and preservation communities with a way toquickly consult and collaborate about research and preserva-tion projects and issues, and to rally support for endangeredresources in time to take constructive action. Indeed, the speedof the medium is perhaps it greatest appeal. This being so,email messages are typically composed and sent quickly.Because the initial recipients are often well-known to thesender, the tone is often informal. Messages sent by email arenot formulated with the care that is typical when matters ofconsequence are presented in overtly public forums, such asmeetings, conferences, journals, or other juried publications.

ARTICLE


Yet the potential audience for any email is covert, as it can bemuch larger than that which might be accommodated in anyconference hall. Further, those emails that most perturb theorderly flow of information are those most likely to be propa-gated through the medium, often with off-the-cuff remarksthat can tacitly support the disruptive comment. At the veryleast, this should alert us to the need to be very careful in whatwe say and how we say it. That is, when email deals with mat-ters of real consequence to research or preservation, it shouldadhere to same rules of verifiability, authority, and logic thatare expected in scholarly work.

ARTICLE

THE PRELIMINARY PROGRAM WILLBE MAILED TO ALL SAA MEMBERS

ON DECEMBER 26!

AN ELECTRONIC VERSION WILL BE POSTEDON SAAWEB IN MID-DECEMBER.

THE PRELIMINARY PROGRAM INCLUDESTHE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

EXCURSIONS ROUNDTABLE LUNCHEONS TRAVEL INFORMATION SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL INFORMATION ADVANCE REGISTRATION FORM WORKSHOPS LIST OF EXHIBITORS PRELIMINARY PROGRAM

AND MUCH MORE!


IDENTIFYING THE GEOGRAPHICLOCATIONS IN NEED OF MORE CRM TRAINING

German Loffler

German Loffler is a graduate student in the Department of Anthropology at Washington State University.

Some analyses forecast that in the near future, American archaeology will become a leisure indus-try that needs to be aggressively developed (Moore 2005:13, 2006). Implied in these arguments isa growing rift between academically oriented archaeological pursuits and other archaeologicalpursuitscultural resource management (CRM) or public archaeology (Gillespie 2004; Whitley 2004)although not everyone agrees with this perspective (White et al. 2004). While these issues are not direct-ly addressed here, recognizing where CRM-oriented training is missing in colleges and universitiescould prove useful in bridging academically oriented archaeology and other archaeological pursuits.

In this article, two models are used to identify the national distribution of CRM-oriented training inthe U.S to illustrate which geographic divisions are in need of more CRM-oriented training. Three stepsaddress this issue: (1) universities offering CRM training and a method to quantify that training areidentified, (2) geographic partitions of the U.S. are used to allocate the CRM-training data, and (3) amodel is developed to gauge whether a particular geographic division is oversaturated or underrepre-sented in CRM training.

CRM Training in the U.S.

Following Vawser (2004), I looked at the anthropology/archaeology web pages of 57 universities thathad online course catalogs. Quantification of CRM training offered at universities can be difficult, sincesome universities offer classes in units, while others are in credits or course hours. In addition,different universities are on different scholastic schedules, such that one three-unit course in a pro-gram requiring 36 units to graduate on a semester system can not be easily compared with a three-credit course as part of a 50 credit program based on a quarter system. Attempts to derive a single cur-rency for comparing programs are further complicated by the fact that not all detail their graduationrequirements on line.

From the 57 departments offering specialized programs, degrees, courses, or some emphasis on CRM,I collected the following data: whether the program offers an M.A. or Ph.D. in CRM; how many CRMclasses are offered, identified by CRM in course title; the number of classes with CRM content,identified as classes with CRM in the syllabus course description and/or in the course title; and thenumber of university-offered CRM internships. Quantification of the CRM training data was achievedby allocating one point per CRM-focused class, one point per internship, and one-half point per coursewith CRM content. Excluding crossover between courses with CRM and CRM-focused courses, thispoint system allotted a total of 98.5 training points to U.S. programs.

Evaluating the Distribution of CRM Training

I used two sources to assess the distribution of CRM training: the U.S. Census Bureau regional and divi-sion partitions (Figure 1; Table 1), and the U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court partitions (Figure 2;Table 2). I modified these by removing Alaska and Hawaii to direct this effort to the lower 48 states.

ARTICLE


Three predictive variablesweighted populationsize in 2005, weighted number of NADB reportsfiled from 20002004, and weighted number ofCRM firms in 2006were evaluated using thesegeographical divisions to suggest which regionsare in more need of CRM-oriented training.

First, the CRM-training points were allocated toboth the Census and Court District divisions bysumming each of its states contributions. Sec-ond, each divisions allocated points are comparedto the divisions suggested points based on popu-lation size, number of NADB reports filed, andnumber of CRM firms. In other words, each geo-graphic division had a suggested CRM pointsvalue assigned to it based on the weighted valuesof the three predictive variables as calculated bythe summation of each states contribution to thatparticular division.

Census Bureau Divisions

Suggested CRM point value based on the geo-graphic partitioning of the U.S. into the censusbureaus divisions are compared to actual CRMpoint value per division in Figure 3. Based solelyon population, we can see that the actual pointsfor the East North Central, Middle Atlantic, SouthAtlantic, and West South Central divisions fallbelow the predicted CRM training value. Basedon the number of NADB reports filed in the EastSouth Central, Middle Atlantic, Mountain, WestNorth Central, and the West South Central divi-sions, these areas are in need of more CRM-oriented training. Lastly, if we suggest CRM pointvalues on number of CRM firms found in eachdivision, then the New England, South Atlantic,West North Central, and the West South Centraldivisions are all lacking in CRM-oriented train-ing. While each weighted variable predicts a different CRM training value for each of the nine divisions,overall it can be seen that the West South Central division is most in need of CRM training. Also in needare the East North Central, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the West North Central divisions.

U.S. Court District Divisions

CRM point values predicted by population, quantity of NADB reports filed, and numbers of CRM firmsdistributed by court districts are compared to actual CRM point values per division in Figure 4. Lookingat CRM training value expectations based on population, we notice that the 2nd through 8th and 11thcourt districts could use more CRM-oriented training. Predicted CRM training value based on NADBreports filed per division suggests that the 2nd, 8th, 10th, and 11th distinct could benefit from moreCRM-oriented-training. Lastly, by looking at predicted needs based on the number of CRM firms per dis-trict, the emerging picture shows that the 2nd4th and 6th8th court district need more CRM-orientedtraining. While each variable suggests a different need, the overall picture indicates that when partition-ing the country by its court districts, that the 2nd, 4th, and 8th court district are in the most need of

ARTICLE

Figure 1: The U.S. Census Bureaus nine divisions.

Table 1. The U.S. Census Bureau Regional and Division Partitions.

U.S. Census Bureau States

New England Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, RhodeIsland, and Vermont

Middle Atlantic New Jersey, New York, and PennsylvaniaEast North Central Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and WisconsinWest North Central Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,

and South DakotaSouth Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,

North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West VirginiaEast South Central Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and TennesseeWest South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and TexasMountain Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Nevada,

and WyomingPacific Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington


more CRM training, followed by the 3rd, 6th, 7th,and 11th court districts, which would also benefitfrom more CRM training offered by its universities.

Population Growth Considerations

Lastly, the fastest growing zones and the fastestgrowing states are considered, for they predictwhich zones will likely need more CRM training inthe future. An increasing population is statisticallycorrelated with increasing number of CRM firms(Figure 5; r2 = .661, p < .001) and, hypothetically, anincreasing number of filed NADB reports.

The growth of each state was computed from the2000 and 2005 population estimates, and parti-tioned into both the U.S. Census and U.S. CourtDistrict divisions. The three fastest growing Censusdivisions are the South Atlantic, the Pacific, andWest South Central. The CRM training value basedon the Census Bureaus nine districts (Figure 3)illustrates that the Pacific is oversaturated withCRM training based on all three variables: popu-lation, number of NADB reports filed, and num-ber of CRM firms. This makes the district wellpositioned in the short term as the Pacific divi-sion has the states with the first and ninth fastestgrowing populations in the countryCaliforniaand Washington, respectively. However, themodel implies that both the South Atlantic andWest South Central district are in much need ofadditional CRM training, a trend that becomesmore evident when considering that theseregions have five of the top 10 growing states:Texas (second), Florida (third), Georgia (fourth),North Carolina (sixth), and Virginia (seventh).

The four fastest-growing U.S. Court divisions arethe 9th, 11th, 5th, and 4th districts. By all threemeasures, the 9th district is oversaturated withCRM training, which again predicts it should fairwell in the near future. The 4th court district couldstand more training based on the lack of CRMfirms, while the 11th court district lacks CRM training based on the number of NADB reports filed in pro-portion to the CRM point value their universities offer. The 4th, 5th, and 11th Court Districts are alsounderrepresented as suggested by CRM training values based on weighted population estimates; this isespecially notable since these districts also include five of the top 10 growing states, as indicated above.

Discussion and Conclusions

The nature of CRM-training data makes it difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, the dataset developed hereallows for some statements about the distribution of CRM training across the lower 48 states. Thedataset allows for different methods of assessing which geographic divisions are in need of more CRMtraining; the dataset would merit updates every few years.

ARTICLE

Figure 2: The U.S. Courts 11 districts.

Table 2. U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court Partitions.

U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court States

District 1 Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rohde IslandDistrict 2 Vermont, New York, and ConnecticutDistrict 3 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and DelawareDistrict 4 District of Columbia, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Car-

olinaDistrict 5 Louisiana, Mississippi, and TexasDistrict 6 Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and TennesseeDistrict 7 Illinois, Indiana, and WisconsinDistrict 8 Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South

DakotaDistrict 9 Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and

WashingtonDistrict 10 Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and WyomingDistrict 11 Alabama, Florida, and Georgia


ARTICLE

Figure 3: CRM-training-points distributed on Census Bureaus nine divisions weighted for population, number of NADB

reports filed, and number of CRM firms.

Figure 4: CRM-training-points distributed on U.S. Court Districts 11 divisions weighted for population, num-

ber of NADB reports filed, and number of CRM firms.


Each variable used to suggest CRM-training value per region is not without shortcomings. The argu-ment for using population as a proxy measurement for need of CRM training has its limits. Likewise,the number of NADB reports filed is not without its problems or by any means a complete up-to-datedataset. The number of CRM firms per geographic division is not dependent on that divisions CRM-training opportunitiesfor example, migration of trained CRM specialists to CRM firms in differentstates obviously occurs. The models do not directly address all of the trends worrying observers of CRM,public, and academic archaeology (e.g., Clark 2004; Moore 2005, 2006; Whitley 2004). Nor are the mod-els presented here meant to spur any particular university to add more CRM-oriented courses. Rather,the goal was only to identify national trends in CRM training and geographic zones that could benefitfrom more training opportunities.

Acknowledgments. For encouragement, ideas, and positive feedback, Id like to thank Matt Landt. Allmistakes and shortcomings remain my own.

References Cited

Clark, G. A.2004 Status, Context, and History in American Academic Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):912.

Gillespie, S. D.2004 Training the Next Generations of Academic Archaeologists. The SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):1317.

Moore, L. E.2005 A Forecast for American Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 5(4):1316.2006 CRM: Beyond Its Peak. The SAA Archaeological Record 6(1):3033.

Vawser, A. M. W.2004 Teaching Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management. The SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):1819.

White, N. M., B. R. Weisman, R. H. Tykot, E. C. Wells, K. L. Davis-Salazar, J. W. Arthur, and K. Weedman2004 Academic Archaeology is Public Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):2629.

Whitley, T. G.2004 CRM Training in Academic Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 4(2):2025.

ARTICLE

Figure 5: State population vs. number of CRM firms per state.

SAA 75th Anniversary Campaign2007 Annual Report

The year 2010 will mark the 75th anniversary meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. To celebrate thisachievement, all SAA members have been asked to invest in the SAAs next 75 years through an endowment gift.

The SAA is the primary professional organization for archaeologists throughout the western hemisphere. Its mission isvery broad, and it can achieve that mission more confidently and effectively by developing its endowments. Strongendowment funds will allow the SAA to take actions that arent dependent solely on annual membership dues.

The 75th Anniversary Campaign to add $500,000 to the SAA endowments began in the fall of 2005. Two years later,we are almost half way to this ambitious goal, with over $240,000 received in gifts and pledges.

The SAA Fundraising Committee, Board, and staff would like to thank each of the 442 campaign donors listed hereand on the following pages for their commitment to the SAAs future.

Leadership Gifts$10,000 & aboveBruce & Sandra Rippeteau

$7,500$9,999Tobi & John BrimsekHester A. DavisWilliam H. Doelle & Linda L. MayroGeorge H. OdellLynne Sebastian

$5,000$7,499Patricia Gilman & Paul MinnisMichael Glassow & Anabel FordLynne GoldsteinWilliam LipeVergil E. NobleDonald J. WeirRichard B. Woodbury

$2,500$4,999Ken & Jane AmesWendy AshmoreSusan Bender & Richard WilkinsonJefferson ChapmanLinda CordellGeorge L. CowgillJeffrey DeanChristopher DoreRobert L. KellyMartha RolingsonMiriam Stark & Jim BaymanDavid Hurst Thomas & Lorann P. Thomas

CRM Firms Leadership Challenge Gifts

$10,000 and aboveAlpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc.Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.Desert Archaeology, Inc.Statistical Research, Inc.

$5,000$9,999Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc.William Self Associates, Inc.

$2,500$4,999EDAWSoil Systems, Inc.

Leadership Gift donor Bruce Rippeteau (above, left)explains his support of the campaign: Serious financialgiving to ones foremost professional society is, I think,one of the several duties of an archaeological career.Major thanks go to all the Leadership Gift Donors listedhere.

Thanks to all the General Campaign Donors

$1,000$2,499Ray B. & Jean M. AuelGarry J. CantleyEmily McClung De TapiaKaren Hartgen in memory of

Charles FisherThomas F. KingTeresita MajewskiRichard D. MaurerFrancis P. McManamonVivian B. MoralesRichard PailesRowman & Littlefield Pub-

lishing GroupSarah H. SchlangerDean R. SnowJoe E. WatkinsLarry J. Zimmerman

$500$999anonymous (1)Dawn A.J. AlexanderDavid G. AndersonJane Eva Baxter & Theo

GordonNancy S. BernardAlan P. BrewGreg ClevelandChip Colwell-ChanthaphonhMargaret W. ConkeyCathy Lynne Costin &

Mitchell RebackJon & Cathy DriverT. J. FergusonMaria Franklin

W. Michael Gear & KathleenO'Neal Gear

Sarah HerrRoberta JewettKeith W. KintighJanet E. LevyAlexander J. Lindsay, Jr.Barbara LittleKatherine M. MooreDan & Phyllis MorseMadonna L. Moss & Jon

ErlandsonSarah & Phil NeusiusTimothy K. PerttulaMary J. PiperBarry A. PriceAlison E. RautmanNan A. RothschildPatricia RubertoneKatharine C. RuhlJeremy SabloffKenneth E. Sassaman, Jr.Julie K. SteinUniversity of Arizona PressPatty Jo WatsonErnest A. Wiegand

Up to $499anonymous (11)David R. AbbottRichard V. AhlstromJean S. AignerC. Melvin AikensRicardo AlegriaElizabeth Alexander

Carol AmbrusterAmerind FoundationDaniel S. AmickWilliam Andrefsky, Jr.Roger AnyonRisa Diemond ArbolinoTraci ArdrenJeanne E. ArnoldConstance ArzigianMarguerite BadovinacShane A. BakerSuzanne BakerJesse BallengerSherene BaugherElizabeth BenchleyJames BenedictAnna S. BenjaminAnn C. Bennett-RogersAlice BerksonChristopher BevilacquaMarcia BezerraMargaret C. BiornTerje G. BirkedalMichael S. Bisson & Marilyn

S. SteelyM. James BlackmanBonnie A. B. BlackwellPaul BlomgrenJohn D. BogatkoPaul D. BoydJanet BrashlerGeorge H. BrauerJohn H. BroihahnElizabeth M. BrumfielSusan B. BruningReid A. BrysonAdrian L. Burke

Jo Ellen BurkholderMichael S. BurneyWilliam E. ButlerJohn E. ByrdCatherine Cameron &

Stephen LeksonMary CamozziSusan Marie CarloKelli CarmeanScott L. CarpenterNicholas ChapinJames P. ChartonCharles D. CheekBeverly A. ChiarulliScarlett ChiuJeffery J. ClarkCharles R. CobbJames W. CogswellAndrew C. CohenSally J. ColeJack C. CollinsDebra CorbettEllen CummingsNicholas DavidLeslie B. DavisSharon S. DebowskiLinda K. DerryMary DidierDena F. DincauzeE. James DixonWalter A. DoddPatricia DouthittElsbeth L. DowdAlan S. DownerElinor F. DownsDavid E. DoyelAndrew I. Duff

A goal of the SAAs education program to bring archaeologyinto K-12 classrooms.

The Public Education Endowment Fund was estab-lished in 1997 and helps support SAAs public edu-cation activities which currently include organizingworkshops that reach out to educators, exhibitingthe Archaeology Education Resource Forum at pro-fessional meetings, publishing resource materials foreducators, and supporting the Network of State andProvincial Archaeology Education Coordinators. Animmediate goal is to enhance the Societys role inpublic education by providing funds to convertSAAs part-time staff position of Manager, Educationand Outreach to full-time allowing the Society toexpand and enrich this crucial program.

Nicholas P. DunningPatricia A. DunningTabitha F. EagleWilliam P. EckerleRichard EdgingCynthia J. EischenLeslie E. EisenbergMelissa Goodman ElgarDavid V. EllisErnestine S. ElsterPhoebe EskenaziHelen FairleyCarl R. FalkElizabeth A. FanjoyGrayal E. FarrTerence FifieldAgapi FiliniDaniel FinamorePaul R. FishBen FitzhughAntonia E. FoiasPam FordMarion ForsythDon FowlerEdward FriedmanVeronica H. FrostRobert E. FryDavid N. FuerstSherwood GaglianoLynn H. GambleErvan G. GarrisonLee S. GeeD. Gifford-GonzalezDaniel M. GilmourDennis GilpinJeffrey B. GloverA. S. GoldsmithAndrew "JR" GomolakKurt E. GongoskeJames H. GordonMartha GrahamRoger C. GreenRobert E. GreengoT. Weber GreiserLinda GrimmPhredd GrovesBarbara J. GundyKarl GurckeJudith A. Habicht-MaucheBarbara Ann HallReed J. HallockJulia E. HammettDonald L. HardestyJohn Harris, Jr.Peter D. HarrisonFrancis B. Harrold, Jr.Karen G. HarryRebecca HawkinsKelley A. Hays-GilpinSteve Heipel

Joseph M. HerbertFred HiebertWilliam R. HildebrandtMary R. HopkinsSarah E. HorgenMargaret HowardCharlene D. HutchesonJohna HutiraSherry HuttStephen S. IsraelBrantley JacksonKaitlyn N. JeffreyAmber L. JohnsonL. Lewis JohnsonA. Trinkle JonesArthur A. JoyceKathryn KampKimberly KasperKathleen L. KaweluEdward KeenanMarilyn Kelly-BuccellatiNancy KenmotsuW. Gregory KettemanMaureen KickA.M. U. KlymyshynPatricia J. KnoblochShannon D. KoernerRobert D. KuhnSusan M. KusMary L. KwasSteven LakatosJeffrey LalandePatricia M. LambertJacqueline A. LandryJoanne LeaPaul D. Lemaster, IIShereen LernerRicky LightfootMarlene S. LinvilleDorothy T. LippertRonald D. Lippi

Lonnie C. LudemanSheryl Luzzadder-BeachMargaret M. LyneisJoanne MacGregor-HanifanJoanne MackJoanne MagalisAnn L. MagennisMichael MagnerAline MagnoniJohn J. MahoneyRobin Elise MainsLinda R. ManzanillaRobert MarkWilliam H. MarquardtRoger D. MasonW. Bruce MassePatricia A. McAnanyJoy McCorristonSteven R. McDougalJeanette A. McKennaPeter J. McKenna

R. Bruce McMillanLawrence MeierLewis C. Messenger, Jr.Phyllis E. MessengerJack MeyerElizabeth J. MiksaGlenda F. MillerBarbara J. MillsTom MinichilloMark D. MitchellJeffrey M. MitchemJeanne M. MoeHattula Moholy-NagyAnntoinette MoorePalmyra A. MooreMichael J. MorattoE. MorenonVera E. MorganRaymond G. MuellerMickie M. MurinCarole L. NashBen A. NelsonMargaret C. NelsonAnna Neuzil in honor of

Grace DoschkaMichael NowakBarbara H. O'ConnellHilkka I. OksalaMaxine H. OlandAstrida Blukis OnatJoel PalkaJeff ParsonsPaul N. ParsonsB. Gregory PaulusAnn PhillipsLinda J. PierceAnne Pike-TayTodd A. PitezelVirginia S. PopperAlice W. Portnoy

The Native American Scholarships Fund wasestablished in 1988 to foster a sense of shared pur-pose and positive interaction between the archaeo-logical and Native communities. The Fund hasgrown thanks to donations of book royalties, con-tributions from individuals and organizations, andthe proceeds from silent auctions. In 1998, SAAbegan awarding an annual Arthur C. ParkerScholarship, which supports training in archaeo-logical methods and theory for Native peoplesfrom the United States and Canada who are stu-dents or employees of tribal cultural preservationprograms. The scholarship is named for SAAsfirst president, who was of Seneca descent.

CRM projects play a major role in American archaeologytoday, and CRM firms are providing a big boost to the cam-paign.

Stephen PostWilliam PuppaBurton L. PurringtonK. Anne PyburnTeresa P. RaczekJanet RaffertyGerry R. RaymondBruce ReamJennifer R. RichmanNiels R. RinehartVictoria RobertsonThomas R. RocekJames RockMatthew J. RootLeah RosenmeierDavid W. RuppNerissa RussellPhyllis SaarinenDaniel H. SandweissRobert F. SassoAndrew H. SawyerSteven SchmichJohn W. SchoenfelderSissel SchroederJames SchumacherPaddy SchwartzDonna J. SeifertMichael SelleAnthony Frank ServelloRichard Starr ShepardRita ShepardSarah C. SherwoodJuliana ShortellKanalei ShunE.A. SilvaShari M. SilvermanAlan SimmonsScott E. Simmons

Arleyn SimonCarla M. SinopoliS. Alan SkinnerKarolyn E. SmardzBurton T. SmithGeorge S. SmithMonica L. SmithPhyllis E. SmithShelley J. SmithKimberly SpurrRichard B. StampsJames J. StapletonDarby C. StappAndrew M. StewartRobert StokesKaren E. StothertBonnie W. StylesNina SwidlerDavid TarlerW. R. TeegenDiane L. TeemanLee TerzisMary Stevenson ThiemeRaymond H. ThompsonDr. V. Ann TippittSilvia TomaskovaPeter ToppingD Ann TrieuTiffany A. TungTom D. TurnerUniversity of Pennsylvania

PressUniversity Press of FloridaPatricia A. UrbanJeff Van PeltChristine S. Van PoolCarla R. Van West Anne Wolley Vawser

Karen D. VitelliHenry WallaceLuAnn WandsniderAlvin D. WanzerJohn A. WareJenny A. WatersMalcolm C. WebbLaurie WebsterPaul D. WelchAlice WellmanE. Christian WellsBarbara WhiteRobert WhitlamCatrina WhitleyPeter WhitridgeJerry D. WilliamRay WilliamsonElizabeth WilmerdingKathryn WinthropRenata B. WolynecGail K. WrightJames C. WrightVirginia A. WulfkuhleAlison Wylie

Jason YaegerTakeshi YanagisawaLisa C. YoungPei-Lin YuJacqueline ZakMichael S. ZatchokJudith ZeitlinKari A. Zobler

Kristin Baker of Howard University served an internship inthe SAAs Washington, D.C. office. The internship was fund-ed from the SAA General Endowments earnings. Kristin isshown here assisting at the Annual Meeting in Austin, Texas.

The SAA Endowment Fund was established in1985 and helps insure the future of the SAA.Income from this general endowment provideslong-term financial security, keeps dues moreaffordable, and helps the SAA fulfill its missionthrough the Annual Meeting; quality publicationssuch as American Antiquity, Latin American Antiq-uity, and The SAA Archaeological Record; andprograms in governmental affairs, public relations,and professional development.

Its not too late to join the campaign to celebrate the SAAs 75th!

Make your donation or pledge on-line at www.saa.org, oruse the form on the back inside cover. If you have anyquestions, please contact Tobi Brimsek at +1 202-789-8200.

Thank you!

This donor list is currentthrough June 23, 2007 andincludes gifts of publicationroyalties.


The career trajectories of todays archaeology graduate stu-dents are changing. Many students no longer enter grad-uate school with the intent of pursuing an academic posi-tion, but now frequently seek alternative nonacademic opportu-nities to apply their archaeological training. To adjust to thisreality, students and departments are adapting and modifyingtheir academic curricula to include classes and projects relevantto the application of archaeology in the public, private, and gov-ernment sectors. A critical piece of the academic curriculum isthe doctoral dissertation. Traditionally, the dissertation has beena chapter-based, book-length monograph designed to demon-strate a students ability to thoroughly carry out an original,single-topic research project from start to finish. Unfortunately,this form of dissertation is frequently interpreted by students asa final rite of passage that must be endured irrespective of itsimmediate relevance to their nontraditional professional goals.If the reality of todays archaeology is changing, shouldnt theapproach to the dissertation change with it?

This article addresses the question of whether there is room inthe archaeology curriculum for an alternative format to the tra-ditional doctoral dissertation. This alternative format would notchange the function of the dissertation, but would provide stu-dents with another way to present their research. Instead of cre-ating a single topic, chapter-based, book-like traditional disser-tation, students would produce a dissertation consisting of indi-vidual, thematically organized, publishable articles, prefaced byan introduction and summarized in a conclusion. The article-based format would not only offer students an alternativemethod for presenting their dissertation research at the end oftheir graduate career, but it could also serve as a roadmap to befollowed during their academic careers. This paper highlightsfour ways a student, whose research is appropriate, will benefitfrom the alterative format dissertation: (1) the duration of timeneeded to complete the graduate program, (2) scholastic devel-opment, (3) career direction, and (4) research disseminationand publication. The goal is to foster a dialogue between archae-ology graduate students and university faculty abo

september 2007 • volume 7 • number 4 -...

Documents