CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS SAA rchaeological record 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 ADVANCES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE A JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY CALL FOR PAPERS ^ŚĂƌĞLJŽƵƌǀŝĞǁƐŽŶĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƚŽĂ ŐůŽďĂůĂƵĚŝĞŶĐĞŽĨƉƌĂĐƟƟŽŶĞƌƐĂŶĚĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐ͊ ĚǀĂŶĐĞƐŝŶƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůWƌĂĐƟĐĞŝƐĂƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůLJ͕ĨƵůůͲĐŽůŽƌ͕ƉĞĞƌͲƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĚŝŐŝƚĂů ũŽƵƌŶĂůƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚLJĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐLJƚŽƐŚĂƌĞĐƌĞĂƟǀĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐƚŽ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĂĐƟĐĞŽĨĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐLJŐůŽďĂůůLJ͘ dŚĞĚŝƚŽƌƐŝŶǀŝƚĞƐŚŽƌƚƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂƌƟĐůĞƐ͕ŚŽǁͲƚŽƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĞĚŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟǀĞ ĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌLJ͕ŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƟŶŐƚŚĞǁĂLJƐŝŶǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝƐƚƐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚƐŚĂƌĞ ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͕ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƉůĂĐĞƐ͕ĨŽƌŐĞƵŶŝƋƵĞĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĞĚƵĐĂƚĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞ͘ HOW-TO SERIES Values-Based Management of Archaeological Resources at a Landscape Scale Francis P. McManamon, John Doershuk, William D. Lipe, Tom McCulloch, Christopher Polglase, Sarah Schlanger, Lynne Sebastian,and Lynne Sullivan Historically, there are examples of large public projects in which more broadly conceived approaches have been used to assess the value of archaeological resources in a management area prior to development or for the mitigation QHKPHTCUVTWEVWTGRTQLGEVKORCEVUVQUKIPKƂECPV archaeological resources (Altschul 1997). Examples of such management and mitigation approaches include: the Wetherill Mesa program at Mesa Verde National Park (Hayes 1964); the Dolores Archaeological Program in southwestern Colorado (Dolores Archaeological Program 2015); the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Studies (Theodore Roosevelt Dam Studies 2015); the Jamestown Archeological Assessment (Brown and Horning 2006; Colonial National Historical Park 2001); and Michelle S. Nelson, Harrison J. Gray, Jack A. Johnson, Tammy M. Rittenour, James K. Feathers, and Shannon A. Mahan INTRODUCTION Use of geochronologic techniques has become a cornerstone of archaeological research, Quaternary geology, and paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Luminescence dating, including optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating (Huntley et al. 1985) and thermoluminescence (TL) dating (Aitken 1985), can be an important tool for archaeologists and geologists, as the technique is widely applicable to diverse archaeological settings and depositional environments (e.g., see reviews by Duller 2004; Feathers 2003; Jacobs and Roberts 2007; Lian and Roberts 2006; Liritzis et al. 2013; Preusser et al. 2008; Rhodes 2011; Rittenour 2008; Roberts 1997; Wintle 2008). The number of publications reporting luminescence results has increased substantially since the development of single-aliquot and single-grain dating methods (Figure 1). Due to the increased demand for luminescence dating, we present a sampling guide for archaeologists and geologists who wish to apply luminescence dating to their research. (Note: Terms that appear in bold are defined in the glossary in the sidebar.) The Untapped Potential of Magnetic Survey in the +FGPVKƂECVKQPQH2TGEQPVCEV Archaeological Sites in Wooded Areas Lisa Hodgetts, Jean-Francois Millaire, Edward Eastaugh, and Claude Chapdelaine Wooded sites are often among the best preserved precontact archaeological sites in North America since they are protected from ploughing, which often destroys the small, shallow features ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ÃÀ}>ÃëÖLVÃ`iÌ`ÃÃÛiiÃ`i}LiÀÞÌÀ>ÃÀ}>â>ViõÕi>`ÃÌÀ>ÀiVÕÀÃÃ>ÀµÕi}VÃ>iÕ` ÃiivÀiÌ>>«ÀLi>`iÕV >Ãi«ÀiÃ>Ã`Û`Õ>iõÕi>viVÌ>>Õ}À>ÖiÀ`iÀiVÕÀÃÃ>ÀµÕi}VÃÃ}wV>ÌÛà `Û`Õ>iÌi°ÃÌiÌ«`iÃÌÕ>ViÃÃi«ÀiÃiÌ>VÕ>`Õ>>}iV>iÃ>}iÃÌ`iÕ?Ài>}À>`i]VÕLõÕi >V>]`ÃÌÀÌ`i>`ÃÌÀ>V]Õ`>``i«>ÀµÕi]ÀivÕ}`iÛ`>ÃÛiÃÌÀi]>ÃÌ>>VÌ>À°/>Lj«Õi`iÃÕÀ}Ài Ài>VVëÀÞiVÌÃ`i`iÃ>ÀÀ>}À>iÃV>>]V>iÛÕV`i>iiÀ}>]V>ÀÀiÌiÀ>Ã]iL>ÃiÃ]i>Ã`iÌÀ>ÃÃÞ ÌÀëÀÞiVÌÃ`ivÀ>iÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀ>«ÀÌ>Ìið iÌi«]>>VÕÕ>V`iÌ>ië>VÌÃÌ>Lj«Õi`i`i}À>`>Ài«>Ã>i `iiÃV>>Ài}>ÃviiÃVÕÌÕÀ>ið À>iÌi]iÃÌÃiviVÌÃÃiÌ}>V>VViÃ`Û`Õ>iÃÃÌiiÀiVÕiÌ> Vë>VÌÃ>ÃÀiVÕÀÃÃ`Û`Õ>iÃ>viVÌ>>>«L>Vi}iiÀ>`iÃÀiVÕÀÃðƂVVië>À>Ì}>Àë>VÌà À>À>ÛiâiÃÌ?`Ãi>`ë>À> >ViÀ>}?õÕi>Ãi}ÕÀ>ÀÕViÀÌÛi`iÀiVÕ«iÀ>V`i`>ÌÃiÃÃÌÃ`Û`Õ>iðÃÌi Ì«`i>VÌÛ`>`iÃ`iÌ}>VÃV>«>ViÃ`i >ViÀvÀiÌi>>«Ài}ÕÌ>`iÛiÃÌ}>ViÕ«>Ã>iiÃV>>Ài}>° Û>Õ>Ì}Ì i>ÀV >i}V>«ÌiÌ>vÜ`i`>Ài>ÃÃvÌi`vwVÕÌLiV>ÕÃi>ÞvÌ iÌiV µÕiÃ>ÀV >i}ÃÌÃVÞ ÕÃiÌV>Ìi>`>«>ÀV >i}V>ÃÌiÃiÃiÜ iÀi>ÀiiÃÃivviVÌÛiÌ iÌÀiiðÀÕ`VÛiÀ `iÀÃÌ iÛÃÕ>`iÌwV>Ìv ÃÕÀv>Vi>ÀÌv>VÌÃ`ÕÀ}«i`iÃÌÀ>ÃÕÀÛiÞ]>`Ì iÌÀiiV>«Þ«i`iÃ>ÞvÌ iÌiV µÕiÃÕÃi`Ì>«>Ài>ÃvÌiÀiÃÌ]ÃÕV >ëÌV>Ì i`ÌiÃ>`*-°- ÛiÌiÃÌ«ÌÌ}]Ü V `ÃÌÕÀLÃÌ iÌi}ÀÌÞvÃÌiÃ>`«ÀÛ`iÃÌi`VÌiÝÌÕ>vÀ>Ì] ÃÌ iÃÌViÌ `ÕÃi`ÌiÛ>Õ>ÌiÜ`ÌÃÌ`>Þ°} ÌvVÀi>Ã}ÌiÀiÃÌvÀ`}iÕëi«iÃÌ} Ì i«>VÌv>ÀV >i}V>ÜÀÌ iÀVÕÌÕÀ> iÀÌ>}i]Üi>ÀiÌiÃÌ}iÃÃÛ>ÃÛiiÌ `ÃÌV>Ìi>`>«>ÀV >i}V> ÃÌiÃÜÌ Ü`i`>Ài>ðiÀi]Üi«ÀiÃiÌÌ iÀiÃÕÌÃv>>}iÌVÃÕÃVi«ÌLÌÞÃÕÀÛiÞ>Ü`i`«ÀiVÌ>VÌÃÌiÃÕÌ iÀ +ÕiLiV]Ü iÀiÌ iÌiV µÕiÀ>«`Þ`iÌiÀi`ÃÌiÌÃ>`««Ìi`Ì iV>ÌvÃiÛiÀ>} ÕÃiÃ>`Ì iÀvi>ÌÕÀið 7 iÀi}i}V>V`ÌÃ>ÀiÃÕÌ>Li]Ì ÃiÌ `VÕ`VÃ`iÀ>LÞÀi`ÕViÌ iVÃÌ>`«>VÌv>ÀV >i}V>>ÃÃiÃÃiÌ >`ÛiÃÌ}>ÌvÜ`i`ÃÌiÃLÞLÌ VÕÌÕÀ>ÀiÃÕÀVi>>}iiÌ ,®>`>V>`iV>ÀV >i}ÃÌð ½jÛ>Õ>Ì`Õ«ÌiÌi>ÀV j}µÕi`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃiÃÌÃÕÛiÌ>À`ÕiDV>ÕÃi`i>«ÀjÃiVi`iÃ>ÀLÀiõÕÀj`ÕÃiÌ `iLi>ÕVÕ«½ivwV>VÌj`iÃÌiV µÕiÃVÕÀ>iÌÕÌÃjiëÕÀV>ÃiÀiÌV>ÀÌ}À>« iÀiÃÃÌiÃ>ÀV j}µÕiðiVÕÛiÀÌ Ûj}jÌ>Ài``vwVi½`iÌwV>ÌÛÃÕii`iÃ>ÀÌiv>VÌÃiÃÕÀv>ViiÌiVÕÛiÀÌvÀiÃÌiÀLµÕiiÃÃ}>ÕÝÕÌÃjë>ÀÕ}À>` LÀi`iÌiV µÕiÃ`iV>ÀÌ}À>« iViiÃÌ j`Ìië̵ÕiÃiÌiÃ*-`vvjÀiÌið>jÌ `i>«ÕÃVÕÀ>iÌ ÕÌÃji>ÕÕÀ`½ Õ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃiÃÌ>«ÀëiVÌ«>ÀÃ`>}i]ÕiÌiV µÕiµÕ«iÀÌÕÀLiiÃÀiÃÌiÃ>ÀV j}µÕiÃiÌ vÕÀÌ«iÕ`½vÀ>ÌVÌiÝÌÕii° ÃViÌÃ`i½ÌjÀkÌVÀÃÃ>Ì`iëiÕ«iÃ>ÕÌV ÌiëÕÀÌiÀ½«>VÌ`iÃÌÀ>Û>ÕÝ >ÀV j}µÕiÃÃÕÀiÕÀ«>ÌÀiVÕÌÕÀi]ÕÃ>ÛÃÌiÃÌj`iÃjÌ `iÃÃÛ>ÃÛiëÕÀV>ÃiÀiÌV>ÀÌ}À>« iÀiÃÃÌià >ÀV j}µÕiÃ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjið ÕëÀjÃiÌiÀÃViÃÀjÃÕÌ>ÌÃ`iÌÀ>Û>ÕÝ`iÌjj`jÌiVÌ`>ÃÕLÃj`ÕÃÕ``Õ +ÕjLiVÙÕi«ÀëiVÌ«>ÀÃÕÃVi«ÌLÌj>}j̵ÕiÕÃ>«iÀÃ`iÀ>«`iiÌ`jÌiÀiÀiÃÌiÃ`½ÕÃÌi«ÀjVÌ>VÌ iÌ`iV>ÃiÀ«ÕÃiÕÀÃ>ÃÃ}ÕiÃiÌ>ÕÌÀiÃÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÃ>ÀV j}µÕiðDÙiÃV`ÌÃ}j}µÕiÃÃÌv>ÛÀ>LiÃ]ViÌÌi jÌ `i«ÕÀÀ>ÌVÃ`jÀ>LiiÌÀj`ÕÀiiV×Ìi̽«>VÌ`iÃÌiÀÛiÌÃ>ÀV j}µÕiÃ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃ`>ÃiV>`Ài `iÌÀ>Û>ÕÝ`½>ÀV j}iVÌÀ>VÌÕiiÕ>V>`jµÕi° La datación por luminiscencia proporciona una estimación directa de la edad del último momento en el que el cuarzo o los minerales de feldespato se expusieron a la luz o al calor y que se ha aplicado exitosamente a depósitos, superficies rocosas y materiales expuestos al fuego en distintos contextos arqueológicos y geológicos. Las estrategias de muestreo son diversas y pueden ser individualizadas dependiendo de las circunstancias locales, aunque todas las muestras de sedimentos deben incluir una muestra segura que no haya sido expuesta a la luz y material para calcular la tasa de la dosis. La exactitud y precisión de los resultados de la datación por luminiscencia están directamente relacionadas con el tipo y la calidad de los materiales muestreados y los métodos de recolección de muestras en el campo. La elección del material de estudio para su datación debe incluir las siguientes consideraciones en torno a la idoneidad de poder reposicionar la señal de luminiscencia (blanqueador óptico y térmico), la capacidad de caracterizar el ambiente radiactivo que rodea la muestra (la tasa de la dosis) y el que no exista evidencia de una alteración posdeposicional (bioperturbación en suelos y sedimentos). Se discuten las estrategias de muestreo para la recolección de muestras de contextos sedimentarios y de materiales expuestos al fuego. Este artículo debe utilizarse como una guía para el muestreo por luminiscencia y tiene la 2. intención de proveer información básica de cómo recolectar muestras y sobre de materiales para la FIGURE Illustration of traditional OSL sample collection by pounding a tube intolos antipos outcrop exposure:apropiados (a) circle depicts datación por luminiscencia. area of surrounding sediment that should be uniformly sampled for dose-rate analysis; (b) measurement of the burial depth, indicating any recent changes to depth through deposition or erosion.. Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(2), 2016, pp. 132–148 Copyright 2016© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.4.2.132 typical of such sites. Unfortunately, evaluating the archaeological potential of wooded areas is challenging because many of the techniques that archaeologists use to locate and map ABSTRACT Luminescence dating provides a direct age estimate of the time of last exposure of quartz or feldspar minerals to light or heat and has been successfully applied to deposits, rock surfaces, and fired materials in a number of archaeological and geological settings. Sampling strategies are diverse and can be customized depending on local circumstances, although all sediment samples need to include a light-safe sample and material for dose-rate determination. The accuracy and precision of luminescence dating results are directly related to the type and quality of the material sampled and sample collection methods in the field. Selection of target material for dating should include considerations of adequacy of resetting of the luminescence signal (optical and thermal bleaching), the ability to characterize the radioactive environment surrounding the sample (dose rate), and the lack of evidence for post-depositional mixing (bioturbation in soils and sediment). Sample strategies for collection of samples from sedimentary settings and fired materials are discussed. This paper should be used as a guide for luminescence sampling and is meant to provide essential background information on how to properly collect samples and on the types of materials suitable for luminescence dating. Public agencies at all levels of government and other organizations that manage archaeological resources often face the problem of >ÞÕ`iÀÌ>}ÃÌ >ÌViVÌÛiÞ«>VÌ>À}iÕLiÀÃv`Û`Õ>ÞÃ}wV>Ì>ÀV >i}V>ÀiÃÕÀVið-ÕV ÃÌÕ>ÌÃ>ÀÃi when an agency is managing a large area, such as a national forest, land management district, park unit, wildlife refuge, or military ÃÌ>>Ì°/ iÃiÃÌÕ>ÌÃ>Ã>Þ>ÀÃiÀi}>À`Ì>À}iÃV>i`iÛi«iÌ«ÀiVÌÃ]ÃÕV >ÃiiÀ}Þ`iÛi«iÌÃ] } Ü>ÞÃ] ÀiÃiÀÛÀÃ]ÌÀ>ÃÃÃiÃ]>`Ì iÀ>ÀvÀ>ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi«ÀiVÌÃÌ >ÌVÛiÀÃÕLÃÌ>Ì>>Ài>ð"ÛiÀÌi]Ì i>VVÕÕ>Ì v«>VÌÃvÀÃ>ÃV>i«ÀiVÌÃÌ`Û`Õ>>ÀV >i}V>ÀiÃÕÀViÃ>Þ`i}À>`i>`ÃV>«iÀÀi}>ÃV>iVÕÌÕÀ> « ii>°/Þ«V>Þ]Ì iÃi«>VÌÃ>ÀiÌ}>Ìi`>ÌÌ iÃÌiiÛiÜÌ ÕÌÀi}>À`Ì ÜÌ i«>VÌÃÌ`Û`Õ>ÀiÃÕÀViÃ>vviVÌ Ì iLÀ>`iÀ««Õ>ÌvÀiÃÕÀViðƂVÌÃÌÌ}>Ìi«>VÌÃÀ>ÀiÞ>Ài`iÃ}i`Ì`ÀiÌ >>Û`ÀiÃÕÀViÃÀiÃÕÀi ÃiiÛiv`>Ì>ÀiVÛiÀÞ>ÌÃ}iÃÌið-ÕV Ì}>Ì>VÌÛÌiÃ>ÀiV>«>Liv>``ÀiÃÃ}ÀiÃi>ÀV µÕiÃÌ>Ì>>`ÃV>«iÀ Ài}>ÃV>i° User Guide for Luminescence Sampling in Archaeological and Geological Contexts Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(1), 2016, pp. 41–54 Copyright 2016© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.41 Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(2), 2015, pp. 166–177 Copyright 2015© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.3.2.166 &ŽƌŝĚĞĂƐĂŶĚŝŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐĂďŽƵƚƐƵďŵŝƟŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ ũŽƵƌŶĂůƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ Sarah Herr, Editor at [email protected] The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 16, No. 4 September 2016 Editor’s Corner 2 Anna Marie Prentiss From the President 3 Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, RPA In Brief 5 Tobi A. Brimsek SAA’s New Publishing Partnership 6 Teresita Majewski and Deborah L. Nichols A Look at Past Scholarship Recipients and the Native American Scholarships Committee 8 Ora Marek-Martinez Volunteer Profile: Dorothy Lippert 10 Call for Editor: American Antiquity 11 Welcome to Vancouver: A Place of Contestation about the Past 12 Andrew Martindale and Mark Guerin Member Survey: Repatriation and SAA’s Relationship to NAGPRA 14 Diane Gifford Gonzalez SAA Repatriation Survey Analysis 15 Elise Alonzi Responses to Survey Results 21 Sharing Space: Football Meets the 5,000-Year-Old LSU Campus Mounds 28 E. Cory Sills Coyote Skull and Digging Sticks: Behavioral Models and Preservation Imperatives in the Archaeological Southwest 32 R.E. Burrillo Call for Award Nominations 38 In Memoriam: Herbert Wright, Jr. 41 Scott Anfinson and Julie Stein In Memoriam: James J. Hester 42 Vance Haynes On the cover: Excavations of Housepit 54 during 2016 at the Bridge River site, British Columbia. The Bridge River Archaeological Project is a collaborative partnership of the University of Montana and Xwisten, the Bridge River Indian Band The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 16, No. 4 September 2016 EDITOR’S CORNER The SAA Archaeological Record (ISSN 1532-7299) is published five times a year and is edited by Anna Marie Prentiss. Submissions should be sent to Anna Marie Prentiss, anna [email protected], Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. Deadlines for submissions are: December 1 (January), February 1 (March), April 1 (May), August 1 (September), and October 1 (November). Advertising and placement ads should be sent to SAA headquarters, 1111 14th St. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005. The SAA Archaeological Record is provided free to members. SAA publishes The SAA Archaeological Record as a service to its members and constituencies. SAA, its editors, and staff are not responsible for the content, opinions, and information contained in The SAA Archaeological Record. SAA, its editors, and staff disclaim all warranties with regard to such content, opinions, and information published in The SAA Archaeological Record by any individual or organization; this disclaimer includes all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. In no event shall SAA, its editors, and staff be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages, or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data, or profits arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of any content, opinions, or information included in The SAA Archaeological Record. Anna Marie Prentiss Anna Marie Prentiss is Professor in the Department of Anthropology at The University of Montana. The September 2016 issue of The SAA Archaeological Record (tSAR) is largely dedicated to presentation and discussion of the results of SAA’s 2015 survey of membership regarding repatriation and SAA’s position regarding the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The survey was initiated by SAA’s Board of Directors under previous SAA President Jeff Altschul. The summary and responses provided in this issue of tSAR were organized and edited by our current president, Diane Gifford-Gonzalez. Content includes the summary itself by Elise Alonzi and responses by Robert Bettinger, Ann Kakaliouras, Keith Kintigh, Sarah Gonzalez, Ora Marek-Martinez, Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, and Joe Watkins. This issue includes several additional articles covering diverse subject matter. We offer our regular columns, Volunteer Profile (Lippert) and Native American Scholarship recipient (Marek-Martinez). Majewski and Nichols introduce SAA’s new publishing partnership with Cambridge University Press. Sills discusses the politics of preserving two Native American mounds on the campus of Louisiana State University. Burrillo offers a creative examination of several challenges in public archaeology on landscapes in the desert southwest. Martindale and Guerin provide us with a nuanced introduction to First Nations and archaeological practice in Vancouver, BC, the host city for SAA’s 82nd meeting next spring. Finally, I want to encourage the membership to consider submitting articles for publication in tSAR. As of this writing we have published our entire backlog and are actively seeking new content. While we have a number of special issues in the works, we also want to continue our long-standing tradition of publishing stand-alone submitted manuscripts. Please refer to the guidelines on the SAA website for details regarding style. Thanks! Copyright ©2016 by the Society for American Archaeology. All Rights Reserved. 2 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 FROM THE PRESIDENT FROM THE PRESIDENT Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, RPA M ay through July normally sees a lull in SAA activity, but various developments required Executive and Board actions, outlined below. Amity Pueblo On May 20, 2016, on the advice of the Amity Pueblo Task Force (APTF), the Board of Directors voted to sign the January 22, 2016, “Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Mitigation of Adverse Effects to and Long-Term Preservation of the Amity Pueblo (AZ Q:15:74[ASM]) near the Town of Eagar in Apache County.” In December 2014, SAA was asked by Pueblos of Zuni and Acoma, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation to join them as a consulting party in negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Arizona Department of Game and Fish (AZGF) on mitigation of impacts on the Amity Pueblo. Members will recall that, using a USFWS grant to construct a recreational fishing pond on USFWS land, an AZGF-sponsored crew bulldozed cultural deposits at Amity Pueblo, disturbing human remains, associated funerary objects, and other artifacts. the remains of Zuni ancestors and to begin healing the damage done to a Zuni ancestral site….”1 Other tribes signed the MOA, as did the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Arizona State Museum (ASM), and Archaeological Conservancy. SAA’s decision was not taken lightly. The APTF recommended signing, while the Board also weighed concerns of AZSHPO in light of the final work plan. Board consensus was that, as a concurring party, SAA would be in a better position to press for fulfillment of stipulated treatment of human remains, associated funerary objects, and non-funerary objects in the disturbed section of the site. A new SAA Task Force overseeing MOA compliance is on the job, with three members from the APTF and one new member. Recovery operations are underway, and we continue to monitor these for compliance with the MOA. Tercera Conferencia Intercontinental Postponement Under then President Jeff Altschul, the Board appointed the APTF to serve as SAA’s observers and communicators with other consulting parties. Protracted negotiations with USFWS and AZGF over Section 106 compliance responsibilities ensued, with human remains and funerary objects still left exposed. During 2015–2016, SAA commented in detail on MOA drafts, demanding greater detail and clearer commitment by USFWS and AZGF to an archaeologically acceptable work plan. In November 2015, the AZ State Historic Preservation Office (AZSHPO) withdrew from MOA negotiations, citing concerns over proposed treatment of non-burial associated artifacts. On June 21, responding to violent civil disturbances in the Mexican State of Oaxaca, the SAA Executive Committee, in consultation with conference organizers, postponed the third Conferencia Intercontinental, scheduled for Oaxaca City on August 3–6, 2016. We did this with heavy hearts, but with the security of our members in mind, as roads in the State were blockaded and several demonstrators were killed in confrontations with police. As of the writing of this column, the roads continue to be blockaded by the Oaxaca CNTE teachers’ union and their allies, the press reports dwindling food supplies, and the national government warns of decisive action to clear the roads. Thus, the potential for further violence and disruption continues. On February 11, 2016, the Pueblo of Zuni elected to sign the January 22, 2016 MOA “[i]n the interests of moving forward with constructive activities to appropriately collect and rebury These events’ proximity in time to Conferencia meeting dates and the unlikelihood of swift refund of SAA’s hotel security deposit made it impossible to shift venues to another location at September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 3 FROM THE PRESIDENT comparable cost. Conferencia participants were notified immediately by email, registrations were refunded, and participants were advised to cancel their reservations in SAA’s block of hotel rooms. A number of Latin American participants informed us that their airline reservations could be used only through April 2017. Given this, SAA’s Executive Director swiftly sought availability at Hotel Misión de los Angeles for April 2017. A contract has been negotiated for April 26–29, 2017. Upcoming elections in Oaxaca State at the end of this year may produce some positive political shifts, but we will remain vigilant. With our continued commitment to the Oaxaca venue, our organizing team remains the same: the Local Arrangements Chair is Nelly García Robles, and the Program Chair is Luís Borrero. Predictive Modeling Takes a LEAP Forward (150) SAA has been participating for three years in Leaders in Energy and Preservation (LEAP), formerly Gas and Preservation Partnership (GAPP). LEAP brings together cultural heritage preservation advocates with representatives from the energy sector, now including alternative as well as petroleum sectors. Substantive progress can now be reported: the industry side is now investing company time and skills to work with SHPOs to construct landscape-scale predictive models for an entire state—Ohio. John Douglass outlined this in the June Government Update. Douglass’s report coincides with publication of three Task Force articles in Advances in Archaeological Practice that advocate for this as well as other strategies for best managing archaeological sites and landscapes. SAA engagements for cultural heritage preservation are producing results useful not just with energy development but also in climate change risk assessment. Upcoming Vote on New Principle of Archaeological Ethics In September, please do vote on a new Principle of Archaeological Ethics: Principle No. 9. Safe Educational and Workplace Environments. As reported at SAA’s Business Meeting, the Board has voted to adopt a statement on sexual harassment and violence, as well as a resource guide for members, both available on our website. However, the Board holds that providing safe educational and workplace environments for all archaeologists is a shared ethical responsibility. It therefore is putting a new Principle to member vote (see sidebar). Voting will open September 19, 2016 and close October 19, 2016. Note 1. Letter from Zuni Governor Val. R. Panteah Sr. to Mr. Cliff Schleusner, Chief, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, February 11, 2016. 26–29 de Abril del 2017 4 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 IN BRIEF IN BRIEF Tobi A. Brimsek Tobi A. Brimsek is Executive Director of the Society for American Archaeology. Vancouver, BC, Canada 2017—Earlier Than Usual! How Do I Get a Free Membership in SAA? The SAA 82nd Annual Meeting will be held from March 29–April 2, 2017 in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Having been there in 2008, we are returning to Vancouver by popular demand. The sessions, exhibit hall, and posters will all be housed at the Vancouver Convention Centre. Other meetings will be scheduled in the headquarters hotel, the Hyatt Regency Vancouver. Because the meeting is a bit earlier than usual, the deadline for Advance Registration is March 1, 2017. Please mark your calendars. The Preliminary Program will be posted on SAAweb in mid-December and will be mailed in late December. We hope to see you there! Register for a room at any of the meeting hotels for the SAA meeting by January 24, 2017, and your name will be entered into a drawing for a one-year membership. There will be a drawing from each of the five SAA hotels. Requirements for entry into Canada have changed. Links to the appropriate Canadian websites are available at SAAweb. Remember your passports! Tweeting and the Meeting We are proud to announce the official 82nd Annual Meeting hashtag: #SAA2017. If you haven’t already, please connect with SAA on Facebook (facebook.com/SAAorgfb), Twitter (@saa.org), and LinkedIn (linkedin.com/groups/Society-American-Archaeology-2639725). Students have their own hashtag: #SAAStudents. Service on SAA Committees—Open Call for Volunteers More on SAA’s 2017 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC The headquarters hotel for the 82nd Annual Meeting in Vancouver, as noted above, is the Hyatt Regency Vancouver, with three overflow properties: the Vancouver Marriott Pinnacle Downtown, the Pinnacle Vancouver Harbourfront Hotel, and the Coast Coal Harbour Hotel. There is one property exclusively for students, the Days Inn. Two of the overflows, the Marriott Vancouver Pinnacle and the Pinnacle Vancouver Harbourfront, have student blocks, as well. Complete reservation information for all of the properties is available on SAAweb and, of course, is included in the Preliminary Program. Please click the “2017 Hotel Information” button on SAA’s homepage (http://www.saa.org) to see this information now. Please pay particular attention to the cut-off dates for the various properties. Updated information on hotel availability will always be posted in this location on SAAweb. For the seventh year, SAA membership will receive an email with an open call to volunteer for specific committees. Volunteer terms will begin at the close of the Annual Business Meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Terms for most committees are three years. Re-appointments If you are currently serving on a committee and would like to volunteer for a second term, please fill out an application through the open call. Student Slots on Committees Students should note that most committees are structured to have two slots specifically for students. This is a wonderful way for students to become more engaged with the Society. Please consider getting involved! An Invitation to Nonmember Canadian Archaeologists As Canada is the host country to SAA’s 82nd Annual Meeting, March 29–April 2, 2017, the Society for American Archaeology would like to invite all nonmember Canadian archaeologists (including students) to register at special discounted rates for this meeting. Details will be included in the Preliminary Program. Statements Please be aware that you are required to write a statement introducing yourself to the committee and sharing what you are able to contribute. The statement is significant in the decision-making process. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 5 PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP SAA’S NEW PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP Teresita Majewski and Deborah L. Nichols Teresita Majewski is Chair, SAA Publications Committee. Deborah L. Nichols is SAA Treasurer. T he SAA journals—American Antiquity, Latin American Antiquity, and Advances in Archaeological Practice—are essential to the Society’s mission and its members. In an email to the membership in May of this year, SAA President Diane Gifford-Gonzalez announced that, beginning in January 2017, the Society will begin a formal partnership with Cambridge University Press (CUP) to publish the journals. Rapid changes in scholarly publishing in recent years have created new opportunities and also challenges. Self-publishing by societies such as SAA has become increasingly difficult in the face of declines in institutional subscriptions, digital technology costs, the practice of libraries purchasing journals in bundles, reduced support for editors by universities, and the expectations of authors and readers for hosting of supplemental information. In this article, we hope to answer some potential questions that may be raised about the partnership, and SAA is committed to disseminating more information in the future in various venues. As a result of extended discussions, the SAA leadership determined that the Society cannot continue to self-publish its journals and provide the digital platform features and marketing that have become the norm in scholarly publishing and also be financially sustainable. The Board gave serious consideration as to how to balance the financial stability of its journals, maintain high quality, and facilitate dissemination. In 2015, then–SAA Treasurer Jim Bruseth laid out the financial implications of a move to full/gold Open Access and to make our journals available without subscription. The SAA Archaeological Record already is published as fully Open Access. The Board concluded that, at this time, a fully subsidized Open Access model is not a viable financial option. Following a trend in similar societies, including the American Anthropological Association, the Society for Historical Archaeology, and the American Geophysical Union, the SAA Board concluded that for the near term SAA should pursue a partnership with an established publisher experienced in producing scholarly journals. In order to obtain and review proposals from possible publishing partners, the SAA followed best practices. 6 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 To facilitate the search process, the Society retained publishing consultants Kaufman, Wills, Fusting & Company (KWF), the leading management consulting firm for scholarly publishing. They worked with SAA Executive Director Tobi Brimsek and former manager, Publications, Liz Haberkorn. KWF communicated with possible publishers, received proposals, and provided detailed analysis and comparisons. Interviews were then conducted with a final group of publishers, and KWF prepared a detailed analysis of the final proposals that were presented to the SAA Board. The chair of the Publications Committee, Teresita Majewski, joined the Board last fall for its discussion of proposals from publishers. The SAA also retained the services of a legal firm that specializes in publishing contracts for professional societies. In short, solicitation of proposals, reviewing proposals and contract negotiations, and concluding the final partnership with CUP was an intense, year-long process, a reflection of the importance of the SAA journals to the Society’s leadership and its members. The partnership with CUP, a distinguished scholarly publisher, allows SAA to address the immediate needs of sustaining and enhancing our journal publishing program while retaining ownership and editorial control of its journals, including appointment of editors and editorial boards. All SAA members will receive digital subscriptions to all SAA journals as part of their membership, along with an option for one journal in paper copy at no additional cost. Beginning in 2017, the SAA journals will be hosted on the Cambridge Core portal with a range of enhanced features for readers, authors, and editors, including journal homepages on their website; content alerts; First View, which allows articles to be published more quickly; and the ability to include supplemental materials. With their large professional staff, CUP will be responsible for everything post-acceptance (when manuscripts are exported from Editorial Manager©), and will see papers through copyediting and typesetting to publication. Marketing and distribution of the journals will also be handled PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP by the press. CUP’s dedicated marketing team will prepare a plan to generate usage, increase demand, and to drive citations of journal articles globally. In the plan, CUP will develop thematic marketing strategies and collaborate with the editors to craft journal-specific campaigns. In addition to more effective marketing of its journals, the profit-share agreement between the Society and CUP ensures the financial sustainability of our journals for the next five years. The SAA Board voted to invest some of these funds in technology and revamping of the SAA website and web services and also created a publishing development fund to recognize that rapid changes in publishing will require on-going assessment as well as investment. On July 26, 2016, the CUP team hosted the SAA editors, Executive Director Tobi Brimsek, former manager, Publications, Liz Haberkorn, and Publications Committee Chair Teresita Majewski at their offices in New York for a transition meeting that focused primarily on marketing and production tasks. We left this extremely productive meeting feeling very optimistic about the benefits that this partnership will provide to the SAA on so many levels. members, authors, and readers want their research as widely disseminated as possible. CUP explained the difference between “free” access and “open” access. Free access is used for promotional purposes (i.e., context is “ungated” for a period of time); Open Access refers to a publishing model that allows for content to be made available and used openly. There are two ways to achieve Open Access, both of which are supported by CUP: “gold,” where the author or funding organization pays for completely free access, and “green,” the standard Open Access option, where the author can post (archive) a version of the article for free. The latter meets UK Open Access policies. The partnership with CUP follows a “hybrid” model, and our journals will continue to meet the standards for “green” Open Access. Further details on Open Access and open data options will be available through Cambridge Core, the SAA website, and in the forthcoming revised version of the SAA Style Guide. Watch for more information on this exciting transition, and if you have questions about the publishing partnership that were not answered here, contact SAA Publications Committee Chair Terry Majewski ([email protected]) or SAA manager, Publications, Maya Allen-Gallegos ([email protected]). At the New York meeting, the group agreed that promoting Open Access and open data options is very important. SAA H66DCA>C:H:B>C6GH:G>:H )UHHDQG)HHEDVHGSURIHVVLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHV 8SFRPLQJ&RXUVHVLQFOXGH 7ULEDO&RQVXOWDWLRQ%DVLFV :RUNLQJ:LWK0HWDO'HWHFWRULVWV&LWL]HQ6FLHQFHDWKLVWRULF 0RQWSHOLHUDQG(QJDJLQJD1HZ&RQVWLWXHQF\ <HV\RX&$1GRWKDW&UHDWLYH0LWLJDWLRQDQG6HFWLRQ 8QGHUWDNLQJV H66@CDLA:9<:H:G>:H )UHHKRXUOHFWXUHV([FOXVLYH6$$PHPEHUEHQHILW 8SFRPLQJ/HFWXUHVLQFOXGH ,I<RXËUH1RW+DYLQJ)XQ<RXËUH1RW'RLQJ,W5LJKWZLWK 'U'HDQ6QRZ &DPSXV$UFKDHRORJ\3URJUDPV:K\DQG+RZWR&UHDWH7KHP ZLWK'U/\QQH*ROGVWHLQ AZVgcbdgZVilll#hVV#dg\ September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 7 NATIVE AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE A LOOK AT PAST SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE Ora Marek-Martinez Ora Marek-Martinez was the 2007 recipient of the Arthur C. Parker scholarship. She and the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department also received an Arthur C. Parker scholarship in 2014. Ora is the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Director of the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department. Each year at the SAA Annual Meeting, the Native American Scholarships Committee (NASC) holds a silent auction to raise money for six competitive scholarships that are awarded annually to Native students and employees of Native cultural preservation programs. Silent auction earnings are combined with an endowment fund, individual donations, book royalties, and grants to support the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship, three National Science Foundation scholarships for archaeological training, and awards in support of undergraduate and graduate archaeology education. This is the fifth installment of a series of articles featuring former scholarship recipients. —Tsim Schneider, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz Y a’at’eeh! My name is Ora Marek-Martinez. I am from the Navajo Mountain Cove clan and born of the Nez Perce. My maternal grandfather was Hopi, and my paternal grandfather was Bohemian. I am originally from Lapwai, Idaho, and I now live in Flagstaff, Arizona. I was greatly humbled and honored to receive the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship in 2007 and again in 2014 as part of the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department (NNAD). I am currently the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and the Director of the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department. I began working for the NNAD as a student archaeologist in 1999 while also attending classes at Northern Arizona University (NAU). I was able to attend classes and work part time, applying the methods taught in my undergraduate anthropology and archaeology classes at NAU. I was fortunate to learn from several archaeologists who dedicated their careers to investigating Southwestern prehistory. I was encouraged to continue my education at NAU, where I embarked upon my graduate education in 2001 in applied cultural anthropology with an emphasis on tribal cultural resources management. In 2004, I entered the doctoral program in archaeology at the University of California, Berkeley. 8 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 In my classes at Berkeley, I learned about various techniques used in archaeological fieldwork, and I became interested in the potential of nondestructive geophysical techniques for use on the Navajo Nation, which practices a very restrictive policy for excavation. I was referred to the National Park Service’s training on “Current Archaeological Prospection Advances for NonDestructive Investigations,” which is held every summer at various places across the U.S. and introduces cultural resources personnel to various geophysical techniques and data analyses. I applied for the 2007 Arthur C. Parker Scholarship and was awarded a grant to cover the expenses for this class, which was in Richland, Washington. After presentations in the training center, the class surveyed a historic cemetery and then applied information presented in class to determine the locations of grave sites. In 2014, I applied and received the Arthur C. Parker scholarship on behalf of the NNAD for 15 Navajo archaeologists to attend the National Preservation Institute’s training seminar in Los Angeles, California on “Cultural and Natural Resources: An Integrated Management Strategy.” The training provided an overview of pertinent legislation and discussions based on various management approaches designed for our unique needs. The training provided NNAD archaeologists with tools for integrating natural and cultural resources management approaches in their work on the Navajo Nation and to develop a management approach that is more in line with Navajo traditions. The Navajo people view the land as a Traditional Cultural Landscape (TCL) that they refer to as Dine’ Bikeyah, or Navajo homelands. These sacred lands are bound by the four sacred mountains in each direction: Mount Blanca (Tsisnaasjini) to the east, Mount Taylor (Tsoodzil) to the south, San Francisco Peaks (Doko’oosliid) to the west, and Mount Hesperus (Dibé Nitsaa) to the north. The Navajo Nation officially encompasses a sprawling 17 million acres of semi-arid, mountainous land that more than 300,000 Navajo tribal members consider home. Dine’ NATIVE AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE Bikeyah represents more than a piece of land. To the People it represents the journey and development of the Nihooka’ Dine’e’ Bila Ashdla’ii (the five-finger earth surface people), which is manifested in the landscape imbued with sacred and cultural meanings. The Arthur C. Parker Scholarship benefited me and a part of my community, and it afforded us with an opportunity to serve our communities in a culturally appropriate and sensitive manner. The 2014 training helped us to develop an approach to heritage management that provides Navajo communities with the ability to contribute to the investigation and use of both natural and cultural resources found throughout Dine’ Bikeyah. Funding contributed to the positive and beneficial capacity building of the Navajo Nation in its pursuit to protect, preserve, and manage tangible and intangible aspects of Navajo cultural heritage that are irreplaceable. Ahe’hee’, or thank you, to the Native American Scholarship Committee and the SAA for the fantastic opportunities provided by the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship. The NNAD training aided the preparation of Navajo Nation employees to address environmental and cultural heritage concerns for undertakings on Dine’ Bikeyah. Materials from the class provided employees with a toolkit to help facilitate ways to consider, evaluate, and mitigate effects on the TCL and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that benefit the Nihooka’ Dine’e’ Bila Ashdla’ii. Such an approach is now standard operating procedure for the Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources, and it is a welcome change to managing resources on Dine’ Bikeyah. Archaeology Professor Skidmore College The Anthropology Department at Skidmore College invites applications for a tenure-track position in archaeology, with a preference for hire at the rank of associate professor or full professor. The successful candidate will have proven excellence in teaching, whose theoretical and regional expertise can strengthen our undergraduate program and expand work with our archaeological collections of Upper Hudson Valley material culture. We seek candidates with topical interests that include, but are not limited to, indigenous heritage, cultural patrimony, and public archaeology. The successful candidate will strengthen connections between existing department sub-disciplines and collaborate with colleagues in other areas of the College such as Documentary Studies, the GIS center, the Tang Museum, Gender Studies, Environmental Studies, and other interdisciplinary programs. The candidate should have familiarity with the National NAGPRA program and will work to expand links to local institutions in the Hudson Valley region. The successful candidate will teach our introductory course in archaeology and human evolution, a geographic course open to area, and two advanced offerings that will include a practicum course working with archaeological materials. Candidates are required to have a doctorate. Applicants for appointment as associate or full professor must have a distinguished publication record suitable for a tenured appointment. For full consideration, applicant materials should be received by September 30, 2016. Review of applications will begin on October 7, 2016 and will continue until the position is filled. To learn more about and see the full position description please visit us online at: https://careers.skidmore.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=57449 September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 9 VOLUNTEER PROFILE volunteer profile Dorothy Lippert I’ve been a member of SAA for more than 25 years and had never really thought of service to the organization in terms of volunteering, but rather as a way to get more deeply involved in the mission of the Society. My first role was serving as a member of the Committee on Native American Relations. I was in graduate school at the time and felt honored that my peers thought I could contribute to the work of the committee. I remained on the committee for two terms and was asked to take over as chair from Kurt Dongoske. This was another honor, but this also allowed me to review my previous service and I quickly figured out that my major qualifications for becoming chair were the fact that I had been so conscientious about replying to Kurt and participating in committee business. This was my first lesson about volunteering: the eager participant is highly welcome, the resume-filler not so much! During my two terms on the committee, there were a lot of lowlevel conflicts between Native Americans and archaeologists playing out as people began to organize how to respond to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Uncertainty about how repatriation would be implemented caused some archaeologists to view Native participants in SAA either as troublemakers or as converts to the “cause of archaeology.” From my perspective as an Indigenous archaeologist, I knew that both perspectives were true for this generation of Native people. We were/are troublemakers, and we do respect archaeology, but we require that the respect goes both ways. This was my second lesson about volunteering: each person’s perspective is unique, and that makes their input valuable. 10 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 After this, it all starts to blend together. I served on the Repatriation Committee, the Native American Scholarship Committee, a Program Committee for an annual meeting, and as a member of the Board of Directors. All of these gave me insight into how the Society actually functions. It’s a complex organization with many working parts. I remember that one of the tasks I took on for the Board was viewing the movie Apocalypto after issues with the film were raised by members. I also learned just how much the SAA staff does behind the scenes. We show up at the annual meeting and have programs, an organized exhibit space, name tags, etc. etc. It takes a hardworking team to pull all this together. My third lesson is that the SAA is more complicated than you might realize and, therefore, there are a variety of ways to get involved. My work with SAA began at the time when archaeologists and American Indian tribes were first negotiating new interactions in the post-NAGPRA world. These relationships continue to change and evolve, sometimes in mutually beneficial ways and sometimes in ways that will bring new challenges. In order to maximize the benefits of these relationships, it is important to be fully involved in the discipline, including participating in the work of SAA. I am fortunate to have had a cohort of Native American archaeologists with whom I’ve worked alongside in volunteering for SAA. We sometimes see our efforts pay off in making the discipline and the Society better and there will definitely be more opportunities to work on issues. My final lesson about volunteering may be related to my long years of service and that is: get involved early and often; there’s a lot of work to do, you have unique experience, and Apocalypto notwithstanding, it’s often a lot of fun! CALL FOR EDITOR CALL FOR EDITOR AMERICAN ANTIQUITY T he Society for American Archaeology (SAA) invites applications for the editorship of American Antiquity—the first journal published by the Society, currently in its eightyfirst volume. The editorial term is for a period of three years; it may be renewed for one additional term. The editor position falls vacant on March 31, 2018, when the current editor, Robert L. Kelly, completes his term. The editorship is preceded by a transition period with the current editor beginning with the editor-designate’s appointment in Spring 2017 through to the start of the new editor’s term in Spring 2018. American Antiquity has now been joined by Latin American Antiquity and Advances in Archaeological Practice, and all three journals are part of what is offered to SAA members and institutional subscribers. The SAA has self-published its journals since the Society’s founding, but has now entered into a partnership agreement, beginning with the 2017 volume year, with Cambridge University Press. This partnership will enhance the journals’ visibility and impact worldwide and streamline the production process from the editor’s perspective. However, as noted elsewhere in this issue, SAA will continue to own its journals, and the journal editors will continue to implement their own editorial visions during their terms. The SAA Board is strongly committed to providing the means by which all of the Society’s journals will flourish in changing conditions for academic publishing. In addition to encouraging submissions, the editor oversees the progress of an article from the time it is submitted electronically through the Editorial Manager© system until a decision is made. Although the editor is responsible for substantive editing of an article, technical copy-editing will now be done by Cambridge University Press as part of the production process. The editor has final responsibility for all journal content within general policies established by the SAA Board but will work closely with SAA’s publishing team at Cambridge University Press and SAA’s manager, Publications, and interface with the editors of the other SAA journals and the SAA Publications Committee throughout his/her editorship. The SAA Style Guide is currently being updated. Although editors of the SAA’s journals have often been senior scholars with many years of experience, individuals of lesssenior standing may also be able to devote the necessary time and attention to the journal that it requires. Specific editing experience is helpful. Applications should include: (a) discussion of the applicant’s vision for the journal and how it would be achieved during the term of the editorship; (b) relevant qualifications and experience, including a current curriculum vitae (for both applicants and an assistant, if one is recommended); and (c) a realistic budget for the editorial term. The editors do not receive compensation for their service, but applications should contain a financial proposal that demonstrates how the expenses of the editorial office will be met through support from SAA as well as the applicant’s institution/employer. The editor should receive enough release time from his/her employer to ensure that they have sufficient time to carry out their duties, and a letter from the host institution/employer confirming the level of support should be included in the application. Potential applicants for the editorship should make an expression of interest to the chair of the editorial search task force at the earliest possible date so that the chair can make contact, answer any questions they may have, and as appropriate, encourage them to complete and submit a proposal for the editorship. Submit application materials electronically to Lynne Goldstein, Chair of the SAA American Antiquity Editorial Search Task Force and Professor of Anthropology and Director of Campus Archaeology, Michigan State University, Tel: (517) 353-4704; Email: [email protected] by no later than January 1, 2017. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 11 82ND ANNUAL MEETING WELCOME TO VANCOUVER A PLACE OF CONTESTATION ABOUT THE PAST Andrew Martindale and Mark Guerin Andrew Martindale is Associate Professor, University of British Columbia. Mark Guerin, Musqueam First Nation member, studied Fine Arts at Langara College and likes to combine different perspectives and materials in his design and sculptural works. One of his welded aluminum sculptures was featured in the the Richmond Art Gallery’s 1999–2000 “Embrace The Visionaries” spotlight on Salish Art, and two other pieces are in private collections. F or the 82nd Society for American indigenous scholarship. Much archaeology Archaeology Annual Meeting, an in the Vancouver area offers grounds for Indigenous artist has designed the such optimism. It is hard to think of a major meeting logo. Mark Guerin is from the research project in the province that does not Musqueam Indian Band, one of four First work in partnership with the Indigenous Nations whose territory includes Vancouver descent community/communities. For (the others are Lil’wat, Squamish, and example, all archaeological field schools Tsleil-Waututh). Based on the traditional offered by the provinces’ universities in and distinctive Coast Salish spindle-whorl recent memory have both celebrated their motif, the design symbolizes different association with First Nations and brought forms of knowledge and cultural underindigenous perspectives and scholarship standings coming together. Its traditional into the curriculum. Several are jointly circle form reflects Coast Salish artistic trataught by archaeologists and Indigenous ditions as well as the symbolism of the community members. Many publications on Moon, associated with traditional knowlthe archaeology of the indigenous past in the edge and wisdom. The human face is the region are now presented as collaborations face of all those who seek to understand, between traditional and non-native scholars, even if the patterns of understanding may projects that frame their understanding vary, symbolized by the most distinctive of archaeologists’ tools, through translation between distinct, but equally legitimate, the trowel, surrounded by stylistic elements of traditional art views (see for example, Grier and Shaver 2008). CRM projects and understanding. The design is hand-drawn and deliberately routinely hire from First Nation communities on whose territory reflects the handcrafted and often off-balance designs used on they work, and several Indigenous governments have developed the whorls, which come more into being their own consulting businesses or archaeowhen seen in motion. The process then logical research and monitoring offices. utilizes computer graphics to color and Indigenous scholars in the province have It is the artist’s hope that the become archaeologists (Reimer 2010), adoptreproduce the image, bringing modern and traditional techniques together. It is piece is reflective of one of ed archaeology for their own purposes (Menthe artist’s hope that the piece is reflective zies 2015), or considered the cultural content the ideals behind the meet- of the western scholarly perspective’s influof one of the ideals behind the meeting: to ing: to bring understanding ence on Indigenous knowledge (Atleo 2004). bring understanding of past and present, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and tradiof past and present, aborigitional knowledge and technological perSuch partnerships began as early as 1949 nal and non-aboriginal, and when spectives together. pioneering archaeologist Charles Bortraditional knowledge and den sought permission to work on The logo is an optimistic view of the prestechnological perspectives Musqueam heritage sites on Indian Reserve ent and the future, one in which the archaelands in the Point Grey area of Vancouver. together. ological endeavor works in concert with His work, often in collaboration with 12 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 82ND ANNUAL MEETING Musqueam community member Andrew Charles, Sr., created the foundational archaeological chronology of the area, one that remains largely intact today. As Susan Roy (2010) notes, however, archaeological memory of Charles Borden tends to be selective. His use of race as a construct to undermine indigenous history and territoriality is rarely noted. Archaeologists are also less aware of Borden’s political influence as the architect of the province’s Heritage Conservation Act, legislation that drew funds from construction projects to support archaeological salvage. This relationship between destruction of heritage and archaeological research continues to define archaeology in British Columbia today. Thus, despite our somewhat naïve optimism, archaeology in British Columbia reverberates with the legacy of colonialism. Nowhere is this history more visible than in the “c̓əsnaʔəm, the city before the city”1 series of exhibits at the Museum of Vancouver, Musqueam Cultural Centre, and Museum of Anthropology. Focusing on the ancient landscape and living culture at c̓əsnaʔəm, known archaeologically as The Great Fraser Midden, the Marpole Site, and DhRs-1, this award-winning partnership explores Musqueam history and identity refracted through the history of archaeology and colonialism. The last of these exhibits, at the Museum of Vancouver, will be the focus of one of our tours (more on these in the November issue of The SAA Archaeological Record). Archaeology in British Columbia is primarily the interpretation of indigenous history by non-native people who devote limited attention to the challenges of understanding indigenous ways of knowing and recording their past. There are few avenues for Indigenous contribution or critique within the discipline of archaeology or its presentation of the past to the public. The legal arena in which Aboriginal rights and titles are debated continues to place greater value on archaeological than indigenous knowledge. These tensions reveal an ongoing debate about the cultural content of archaeological knowledge and the persistence of double-standards in our discipline. These are challenging issues, which some argue undermine the legitimacy of archaeology entirely (see, for example, La Salle and Hutchings 2016, but see Martindale et al. 2016 for a counter-view). If our future aspires to the more equitable archaeology of our logo, then the archaeology in and around Vancouver points us in a few directions. There is considerable thirst for evidencebased science and empirically sound assessments of the archaeological record by archaeologists and descent communities alike. Borden’s central thesis, of a quadripartite chronological sequence, was challenged by C. Ames et al.’s (2010) statistical reassessment of artifact types, which showed greater evidence of continuity than change, and upended by Coupland et al.’s (2016) recent discoveries. Borden, like many of us, was vulnera- ble to seeing a history he believed existed. Our limitations can be overcome by data, but also by symmetrical partnerships with descent communities whose knowledge and record of their own history is both scholarly and accurate, even as it exists in forms and places distant from archaeology. These are contested issues and Vancouver is not a place where we have forged many solutions, but it is a place where fulsome discussions are emerging. We invite you to join us in 2017. References Ames, Christopher, Andre Costopoulos, and Colin D. Wren 2010 8,000 Years of Technological Change in the Gulf of Georgia: Is There a Major Transition at 4850 cal. B.P.? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 34(1):32–63. Atleo, Eugene R. 2004 Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Coupland, Gary, David Bilton, Terence Clark, Jerome S. Cybulski, Gay Frederick, Alyson Holland, Bryn Letham, and Gretchen Williams 2016 A Wealth of Beads: Evidence for Material Wealth-Based Inequality in the Salish Sea Region, 4000–3500 Cal B.P. American Antiquity. 81(2):294–315. Grier, Colin, and Lisa Shaver 2008 Working Together: The Role of Archaeologists and First Nations in Sorting Out Some Very Old Problems in British Columbia. The SAA Archaeological Record. 8(1):33–35. La Salle, Marina, and Rich Hutchings 2016 What Makes Us Squirm—A Response to “Community-Oriented Archaeology” Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 40(1):164–180. Martindale, Andrew, Natasha Lyons, George Nicholas, Bill Angelbeck, Sean P. Connaughton, Colin Grier, James Herbert, Mike Leon, Yvonne Marshall, Angela Piccini, David M. Schaepe, Kisha Supernant, and Gary Warrick 2016 Archaeology as Partnerships in Practice: A Reply to La Salle and Hutchings. Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 40(1):191–204. Menzies, Charles 2015 Revisiting “Dm Sibilhaa’nm Da Laxyuubm Gitxaała (Picking Abalone in Gitxaała Territory)”: Vindication, Appropriation, and Archaeology. BC Studies. 187 (Autumn):129–155. Reimer, Rudy 2010 Nach’en or Transforming into a Squamish Nation Indigenous Archaeologist. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by George Nicholas, pp. 258–266. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Roy, Susan 2010 These Mysterious People: Shaping History and Archaeology in a Northwest Coastal Community. McGill-Queens University Press. Note 1. http://www.thecitybeforethecity.com September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 13 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA MEMBER SURVEY: REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA Diane Gifford Gonzalez S AA’s Board of Directors, under my predecessor Jeff Altschul, elected to circulate a member survey on repatriation and SAA’s relationship to the U.S.A’s NAGPRA legislation. The final version was formulated by a subcommittee of SAA’s Board from questions devised earlier by several SAA committees. The survey was opened for member response in early 2015. Data from the Repatriation Survey were analyzed by Ms. Elise Alonzi, a doctoral student at Arizona State University, under the supervision of Past President Keith Kintigh, in 2015. Ms. Alonzi submitted her report to the Board in the fall of 2015 and presented some of the data at SAA’s 2016 Annual Meeting. The report and the base response data have been posted on SAA’s website since mid-April, 2016 at http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/ RepatriationIssues/tabid/214/Default.aspx. I thank all committee and Board members who worked hard on developing and refining the survey, and the analysts. This issue of The SAA Archaeological Record offers Ms. Alonzi’s revised version of her report, accompanied by many cross-tabulations of member demographic against question responses, available as an online supplement at 14 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA_Record_Sept2016_Suppl.pdf. To accompany this descriptive report on the responses, I asked eight members to offer brief opinions and interpretive commentary on the survey results. I tried to involve a diverse set of commentators. In addition to some senior members who have seen NAGPRA and other repatriation initiatives emerge, I asked younger members who represent bioarchaeological, land management, and cultural/historical preservation as well as academic perspectives. Cross cutting these work placements are the varied and internally variable standpoints of Native and non-Native American archaeologists. I hope you find these perspectives interesting and educational. Finally, on behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to assure you that one thing we have heard loud and clear from this survey’s structured responses and free comments is that we need to do a better job of educating North American about NAGPRA and what is involved in consultation and compliance. In addition to Annual Meetings Forum formats, we are looking toward our online seminar series to distill and convey not just the legal parameters but also views on the new world of community engagements prompted by consultation and repatriation. REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA SAA REPATRIATION SURVEY ANALYSIS Elise Alonzi Elise Alonzi is a Ph.D. Student and Teaching Associate, Center for Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University. T his survey gauges SAA members’ positions on the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and related legislation on archaeology, and it assesses opinions on the various ways that the SAA interacts with repatriation. The survey attempts to identify demographic trends that might be linked to certain opinions about the SAA’s past, present, and future responses to NAGPRA and similar laws. Many of the respondents submitted written comments suggesting changes to the SAA’s policies or requesting support for approaching repatriation procedures ethically and effectively. The survey has revealed no great divide within the SAA on the subject of repatriation. While some individuals disagree with the path that the SAA has taken, there is no particular work setting, regional, or age group that is distinctly unrepresented in the SAA’s current statements and policies. The survey was sent out to 8,783 individuals, and 1,905 members of the SAA responded to this survey, a response rate of 22%. Of the respondents, 32% (n = 609) provided written clarification in the open responses section. In all, the survey comprises 20 questions, addressing the broad topics of: (1) demographics, (2) experience with repatriation and opinions on repatriation-related issues, and (3) open-ended written responses to the survey questions. Each question had a response rate of 97.8% or higher, and no particular question was frequently skipped by the respondents. Methods The analysis of the survey is straightforward. The responses to demographic questions and questions about repatriation were cross-tabulated. Percentages were calculated for each category of response, including non-responses for the nondemographic survey questions. All percentages are calculated out of the total number of respondents to the survey (n = 1,905). Readers should note that those who did not respond to a demographic question were not included in the tables that compare demographic variables and opinions on survey questions. Because of this, the “Counts” column in each table does not add up to the total respondents to the survey (n = 1,905), and the difference between these values is the number of respondents who did not answer the demographic question.1 The omission of the responses of those who did not answer specific demographic questions avoids overemphasizing the opinion of the small group of respondents who did not answer the demographic questions. In the presentation of the tables, several categories were combined to facilitate easier viewing and to avoid small sample sizes. For instance, the survey questions asked respondents to provide their Year of Degree in five-year intervals (i.e., 1950–1955), and these categories were combined into decade-long intervals (i.e., 1950–1960) in the tables. Similarly, the Work Region2 categories, Work Setting,3 and Repatriation-related Activities4 categories have been compressed in these tables. Further, in order to provide a parsimonious analysis of the most important points uncovered by the survey, not all demographic questions included in the Repatriation Survey have been examined in comparison to the respondents’ answers to other questions. Some of the tables’ cells are highlighted in gray, to show the most common response to the question within each demographic category. Responses were highlighted in gray if the percentages were significantly different from the next most common response based on a z-score test with a 90% confidence interval. More than one most common responses may be highlighted if they do not significantly differ. Section 1. Background and Representativeness of Respondents This section addresses the demographic profiles of the respondents in terms of Work Setting, Year of Degree, and Work Region. The distribution of Work Setting of the September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 15 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA respondents to this Repatriation Survey is similar to that of the respondents to the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey (Supplemental Table 1). Note that the percentages of students and retired members who responded to the Repatriation Survey are higher than those of the respondents to the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey. This may be due to the wording and structure of the questions themselves, as the 2015 survey allows multiple responses for this question and the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey requires the respondent to pick the most relevant category. For example, a respondent to the Repatriation Survey could identify his or her Work Setting as both “Academic—4-year institution without a graduate program” and “Student”; whereas a respondent to the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey could identify his or her Work Setting as either “Academic—Graduate Program” or “Student.” The summary of Year of Degree for respondents to the Repatriation Survey (Supplemental Table 2) reveals that over half (56%)5 of the respondents received their highest degree in 2000 or later. While directly comparable information was not available from the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey, it does appear that younger members are overrepresented in the Repatriation Survey in comparison to the composition of the membership of the SAA. The SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey recorded both the respondent’s age and highest degree in separate questions. In that survey, 49% of respondents had Ph.D.s, 36% had master’s degrees, and 10% had bachelor’s degrees. Making some reasonable assumptions about the average age at award for each degree,6 one obtains a weighted average of about 29 years of age when receiving the highest degree for the members of the SAA. That would suggest that the 23% of members younger than 35 would have gotten their degrees about 6 years earlier than the average, and 22% of members between the ages of 35 and 44 would have gotten their degrees about 16 years earlier than the average. Translating those dates to the 2015 Repatriation Survey from the 2010 Needs Assessment Survey, that would place about 23% of SAA members in the 2010-present degree category, and 22% in the 2000–2010 category, for a total of 45% in those two categories combined. In contrast, 56% of the respondents to the Repatriation Survey received his or her highest degree after 2000, indicating that younger SAA members seem to be somewhat overrepresented in the more recent Repatriation Survey. The overwhelming majority of the respondents identify the United States as part of their regional focus of “research, education, and/or CRM/ Heritage work,” although many also identify other regions (Supplemental Table 3). Not surprisingly, the Repatriation Survey results are highly influ- 16 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 enced by the views of archaeologists with professional ties to the United States. The next most common Work Region is Mesoamerica, followed by Europe, and then Asia (Supplemental Table 3). Over 30% of respondents reported research, work, or study ties to each of the aggregated categories of the Old World or Latin America (Supplemental Table 4). A large majority (77%) of respondents reported some sort of experience with “Repatriation-related Activities” (Supplemental Table 5). The most common experiences were Consultation (61.4%), which includes the categories of “Consultation with indigenous or descendant communities,” and “Other communication or coordination with indigenous or local communities,” and fieldwork or collections research (57.7%), which includes the categories of “Responding to inadvertent discoveries during fieldwork,” “Field research to determine cultural affiliation,” and “Collections-based research to determine cultural affiliation.” The least common experience was drafting agreements and summaries, which includes “Drafting repatriation or disposition agreements,” and “Drafting required summaries and inventories.” Importantly, individuals from all regions, not just the United States, were asked to answer this question, so these responses do not necessarily refer to experience with NAGPRA and/or repatriation within the United States. Section 2. Year of Degree, Work Setting, and Work Region in Comparison to Questions 10-19 Q. 10 The NAGPRA regulation on the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains (43 C.F.R. § 10.11) outlines a process by which human remains that have no lineal descendant and have not been culturally affiliated may be transferred to certain Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. In general, how do you think the regulation has affected archaeological research? Only a small percentage (8%) of the overall respondents felt that the effect on the field has been positive, while 34% felt it had been negative, and the remainder reported mixed results, little effect, or expressed no opinion. Respondents in the two most recent degree categories see this regulation in a somewhat more positive light than those with earlier degrees. However, even in these recent degree categories, on the order of twice as many felt that the effect had been negative, as opposed to positive (Supplemental Table 6). Q. 11 On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very negative and 10 being very positive, what has been the effect of the NAGPRA regulation on the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains (43 C.F.R. § 10.11) on your own work? REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA About 21% of all respondents indicated a negative effect (responses 1–4) while only 13% felt the effect had been positive (responses 7–10), with the remaining 66% providing a neutral response (5 or 6), no opinion, or no response (Supplemental Table 7). The responses do not reveal patterns of the effects of NAGPRA based on Year of Degree. The median answer for those with an opinion is 5 for most Year of Degree categories. Q. 12 Do you think that human remains from the Archaic period in the United States should be considered Native American under NAGPRA? Nearly every respondent had an opinion about this question, with very few responding that they had No Opinion. Responses are strongly divided, although Yes’s substantially outnumber No’s. The majority of respondents with more recent degrees answered that Archaic-period remains “should be considered Native American,” whereas the majority of respondents with older degrees answered that those remains should not “be considered Native American.” The split in opinion occurs between those with degrees before and after 1980 (Supplemental Table 8). Of respondents who work in the United States, 54% (n = 838) answered that human remains should be considered Native American if they are from this period, and 38% that they should not (n = 589) (Supplemental Table 9). Archaeologists who work in Canada and the Arctic have the highest rate of answering “Yes” to this question (62.9%), and no category stands out as having a particularly high rate of answering “No” within the aggregated Work Region categories seen in Supplemental Table 9. Opinions on this question also vary by Work Setting (Supplemental Table 10). For all groups except avocational and retired archaeologists, “Yes” responses outnumbered “No” responses (Supplemental Table 9). Most respondents who have worked with NAGPRA in any capacity think that Archaic remains should be considered Native American (Supplemental Table 11). Q. 13 Do you think that human remains from the Paleoindian period in the United States should be considered Native American under NAGPRA? Although the most common response to this question overall is that Paleoindian remains should not be considered Native American (47%), the majority of respondents who reported any experiences with Repatriation-related Activities responded that Paleoindian should be considered Native American (Supplemental Table 15). As with the Archaic question, the percentage of those who answered that the Paleoindian-period human remains should be considered Native American generally decreases as the respondents’ Years of Degree becomes more recent (Supplemental Table 12). Archaeologists who responded that they worked, studied, or researched in the United States were evenly split on this question (Yes—47%; No—46%) (Supplemental Table 13). The Work Setting category with the most disparity between answers was Government (Yes—51%; No—42%) (Supplemental Table 14). The “Yes” and “No” responses both received support from over 40% of respondents in Academic, CRM, Museum, and Private Foundation categories, indicating a split of opinion in these work settings (Supplemental Table 14). Q. 14 Some consider NAGPRA legislation to be a compromise— that is, a balance between science and Native American rights. Do you agree? The responses indicate that the majority of archaeologists think of NAGPRA as a “balance between science and Native American rights,” although nearly a third of archaeologists disagree with this statement. In almost all subdivisions of demographic categories, including Year of Degree (Supplemental Table 16), Work Region (Supplemental Table 17), Work Setting (Supplemental Table 18), and Experience with NAGPRA (Supplemental Table 18), nearly all respondents had an opinion and substantially more respondents conceived of NAGPRA as a compromise than those who did not. Q. 15 How would you evaluate the overall impact of NAGPRA on archaeology? These data indicate that respondents were likely to think of NAGPRA’s impact on archaeology as mixed or positive (87%) with many fewer (16%) believing that NAGPRA’s impact has been negative. Overall and in nearly all subdivisions by Year of Degree (Supplemental Table 20), Work Region (Supplemental Table 21), Work Setting (Supplemental Table 22), and Experience with NAGPRA (Supplemental Table 23), the most common response was “Mixed Results,” with “Positive” being the next most common. This pattern is the same as Question 14, which suggests that thinking of NAGPRA as a compromise is connected to thinking that NAGPRA’s effect has been positive. Q. 16 How well does the current SAA “Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains” reflect your views? The responses to this question indicate that SAA’s 1986 Statement does not systematically misrepresent the views of any group of archaeologists who have different work regions, September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 17 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA degree years, work settings, or repatriation-related experiences. The three most common answers were “Very Well“ (39.7%), “Varies by Issue” (21.6%), and “Somewhat” (21%), with “Not At All” being rare (3%). The largest percentage of individuals responded that the SAA’s Statement reflects their views “Very Well” regardless of their reported experiences with Repatriation-related Activities (Supplemental Table 27). Fewer than 11.4% of any ten-year age category responded that the statement does not reflect their views at all (Supplemental Table 24). Only 3.9% of respondents working in the United States answered that the statement did not reflect their views (Supplemental Table 25). Unfamiliarity about the SAA’s 1986 Statement was higher amongst the respondents who do not work, study, or research in the United States (17.3%) than those who do (8.1%) (Supplemental Table 25). Of the Work Setting categories, Students had the highest rate of unfamiliarity with the SAA’s position (17.3%) (Supplemental Table 26). Respondents working in CRM were the most likely to report that the SAA’s position reflected their views “Very Well” (48.1%), whereas around one-third of respondents working in Private Foundations (29.3%) and as Students (32.5%) consider the SAA’s position as reflecting their views “Very Well” (Supplemental Table 26). However, students presumably have a younger average age than other Work Categories, and this may have influenced the results seen in Supplemental Table 26. Q. 17 Do you think the current SAA “Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains” needs revision? The most common responses were that the statement should be revised to “place greater emphasis on cooperation and balance among different stakeholder’s interests” (26.2%) and that it “Does not need revision” (25%) (Supplemental Table 28). In only three of seven decade-long Year of Degree categories, between 1990 and the present, did over 10% of respondents answer that the statement “Needs revision to place greater emphasis on Native American individual and community rights,” which indicates a possible shift in thought of younger archaeologists (Supplemental Table 28). Of respondents who work in the United States, 26.7% think that the statement should emphasize cooperation between stakeholders more, 25.2% think that it does not need to be revised, whereas only 12.4% think that it should place greater emphasis on “Native American individual and community rights” (Supplemental Table 29). Roughly the same percentages of Academic, CRM, Government, Museum, Private Foundation, Student, and Other individuals think that the statement “Does not need revision” as think that the statement “Needs to place greater emphasis on cooperation and balance among different stakeholder’s interests” (Sup- 18 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 plemental Table 30). Divisions based on experience with repatriation-related activities show similarly ambiguous patterns, with the same two most common answers mentioned above (Supplemental Table 31). No category has a strong majority of individuals who prefer revising the statement in a particular way to the option of not revising the statement. Many respondents addressed Question 17 in the written comments. Some suggested specific changes to the language of the statement. These possible revisions include addressing: the distinction between cultural and biological affiliation (e.g., ID# 3694978621); requiring archaeologists to consult with Native groups before beginning work (e.g., ID# 3683450590); acknowledging possible changes to views on repatriation in the future (e.g., ID# 3728118139); and defining and communicating the meaning of “respect” for remains and cultural views (e.g., ID# 3717789128; 3716936831). Several commenters suggest that the statement emphasizes scientific goals over those of Native Americans (e.g., ID# 3690043548; 3683390175; 3683199249), although other commenters stated that they agree with a stance against repatriation of unaffiliated human remains (e.g., ID# 3719184024; 3718048196; 3683848848). Overall, the comments suggest more detailed language is needed in the statement, although there is not a widespread outcry to change the sentiments expressed in it. Q. 18 Given the SAA's historic and ongoing level of engagement on repatriation issues, what level of involvement would you like to see in the future? Most respondents would prefer that the SAA have “More involvement” or “The same level of involvement” in repatriation issues (Supplemental Table 32). Only 2.2% of total respondents would prefer “Less involvement.” The responses do not clearly vary by Year of Degree category, although 36.4% of those with a degree earned 2010-present are “not familiar with the SAA’s activities on repatriation issues” (Supplemental Table 32). Of the Work Region categories, more of the respondents who work in the United States would like the SAA to demonstrate “More involvement” (36.4%), than those who work outside the United States (22.7%) (Supplemental Table 33). Percentages of Academic, CRM, Government, Museum, Private Foundation, Student, and Other respondents who would like “More involvement” range from 29% (Student) to 38.3% (Museum) (Supplemental Table 34). Students have the highest rate of unfamiliarity “with the SAA’s activities on repatriation issues” (42.1%), although many individuals who belong to different categories are also unfamiliar with the SAA’s activities on this issue (Supplemental Table 34). Those with no reported expe- REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA rience with Repatriation-related Activities were most likely to be unfamiliar with the “SAA’s activities on repatriation issues” (35.7%), and those with any reported experience with these activities were most likely to respond that they would like to see “More involvement” (37.9% to 43.3%) (Supplemental Table 35). No category of individuals surveyed would like to see less involvement in these issues from the SAA. Q. 19 Where do you think SAA should place its emphasis in its engagement with NAGPRA? Of the general population of respondents to the survey, the most popular answer was that the SAA’s engagement should “place greater emphasis on cooperation and balance among different stakeholder’s interests” (30.6%), and the next most popular answer was that the SAA’s engagement should “place greater emphasis on scientific values” (20.8%) (Supplemental Table 36). The answer of “Needs revision to place greater emphasis on Native American individual and community rights” only attained more than 10% of responses from individuals who received their degrees after 2000 (Supplemental Table 36). In contrast, the response “the SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA” should “place greater emphasis on scientific values” was more popular with those who hold older degrees (Supplemental Table 36). The response that “the SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA” should “place greater emphasis on scientific values” was more popular with archaeologists working, studying, or researching within the United States than elsewhere (Supplemental Table 37). About a quarter of respondents who work, study, or research outside of the United States responded that they are “not familiar with SAA’s level of engagement” (25.3%) (Supplemental Table 37), as are 36.1% of students working in any region (Supplemental Table 38). Beliefs about “SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA” pattern relatively evenly in terms of Work Setting (Supplemental Table 38), and Year of Degree and Work Region seem to have more influence on archaeologists understanding and beliefs about “SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA.” Similarly to Question 18, those who reported no experience with Repatriation-related Issues are most likely to have no opinion on “SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA,” and the majority of those who reported any such experience were most likely to respond that the statement needs revision to address “different stakeholders’ interests” (Supplemental Table 39). Section 3. Summary of Open Responses Several themes stand out within the open responses (n = 609). Besides personal anecdotes about experiences with NAGPRA, a common suggestion was that the SAA draft a protocol for col- laboration between archaeologists and other stakeholders. These respondents suggested the establishment of a workshop on collaboration and NAGPRA protocols at each SAA annual meeting (e.g., ID# 3694978621) and the development of a more general educational program on NAGPRA legislation and best practices (e.g., ID# 3689481293; 3685205152). Some individuals argued that NAGPRA legislations have hindered bioarchaeology (e.g., ID# 3742180746; 3741612277; 3734533099; 3718931756; 3685792389; 3683297705; 3684571556), although others suggest that there is increasing interest in bioarchaeological data across different stakeholders (e.g., ID# 3685065134). Some also discussed the increase in communication between archaeologists and tribes that came with NAGPRA (e.g., ID# 3684571556; 3684275253) and emphasized the importance of communication between these groups (e.g., ID# 3683710312). Some commenters addressed the issue of NAGPRA as a civil rights legislation (e.g., ID#3689742272; 3694198847). These responders tended to see repatriation as a reaction to historical and colonial relationships, and they thought that the SAA’s policies should be revised to reflect this. Also, several responses addressed the validity of certain questions or definitions within the survey. Questions 12 and 13, concerning whether Archaic and Paleoindian human remains “should be considered Native American under NAGPRA,” were commonly commented upon (e.g., ID# 3717082586; 3717011977; 3698829457; 3683760650) and other responses pointed to the importance of these questions (e.g., ID# 3717067736). Other qualms with the survey questions included its emphasis on repatriation in the United States at the expense of other regions (e.g., ID# 3730665565). The responses represent a wide range of positions, which were stated with varying degrees of conviction, and at times, hostility. Some notable responses are: “I was actually shocked to read the SAA Repatriation Policy. It is extremely outdated and Eurocentric. NAGRPA [sic] is a civil rights law, not an archaeology law, and should be viewed as such.” (ID# 3689742272). “The SAA Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains seems to put Native American archaeologists and those who work on behalf of and/or for tribes in an untenable position and actually creates a rather hostile environment for these archaeologists specifically.” (ID# 3692582425). “The SAA needs to provide NAGPRA training workshops at EVERY annual meeting to help educate the membership.” (ID# 3694978621). September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 19 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA “A question on the relationship between the law and its implementation would have been useful, since it is there that the greatest tension resides.” (ID# 3716973682). “SAA leadership has established and continues to update a very responsible position on repatration [sic] and treatment of human remains. I am glad the positions are increasingly objective and open to multiple views of membership. Thank you.” (ID# 3685272725). “SAA shouldn’t tell people what to do, but help them to do it.” (ID# 3739997473) Section 4. Conclusions This survey reveals that the majority of the members of the SAA are not calling for drastic revision of the SAA’s Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains. Some individuals are calling for revision to balance interests between different stakeholders, but relatively few are calling for revision to emphasize either Native American community and individual rights or scientific values (see Supplemental Tables 28-31). Many members of the SAA, especially students and younger members, would benefit from learning more about the SAA’s activities concerning repatriation and other issues surrounding the NAGPRA legislation (see Supplemental Tables 34 and 38). Opinions on some issues seem to be influenced most by the respondents’ Year of Degree. Some factors that are related to Year of Degree, for instance: (1) individuals with more recent degrees are more likely to consider Archaic and Paleoindian human remains to be Native American (Supplemental Table 12, Supplemental Table 16), and (2) individuals with older degrees are more likely to consider that NAGPRA has had a negative effect on archaeological research (Supplemental Table 20). On the whole, Year of Degree and Experience with Repatriation are more important underlying factors in the responses to this survey than Work Setting and Work Region. The greatest differences amongst the members of the SAA seem to reside in differences of opinion between members who pursued their educations at different times. 20 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 Supplemental Materials Supplemental Tables 1–39 are available as an online supplement at www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA_Record_Sept2016_ Suppl.pdf Notes 1. Breakdown of the total number of respondents who did not answer the demographic questions:: Year of Degree (n = 4), Work Region (n = 3), Work Setting (n = 3), and Repatriation-related Experience (n = 13). 2. The Work Region categories originally found in the survey are: United States, Canada, Arctic-any continent, Caribbean, Mesoamerica, Central America-other, South America, Oceania, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Europe, Africa- Northern, Africa-Sub-Saharan, and Other (please specify). 3. The Work Setting categories originally found in the survey are: Academic-Community College, Academic-4-year institution without a graduate program, Academic-4-year institution with a graduate program, CRM-Cultural Resources Consulting Firm, CRM-Environmental or Engineering Consulting Firm, CRM-Museum or University-based Consulting Organization, Education (K12), Government-Federal, Government-Tribal, Government-State, Government-Local, Museum, Private Foundation, Avocational, Retired, Student, and Other (please specify). 4. The Repatriation-related Activities categories originally found in the survey are: Not Applicable/None, Consultation with indigenous or descendant communities, Other communication or coordination with indigenous or local communities, Drafting repatriation or disposition agreements, Drafting required summaries and inventories, Responding to inadvertent discoveries during fieldwork, Field research to determine cultural affiliation, Research on the history of repatriation, Research on comparative multinational repatriation legislation and processes, Independent repatriationrelated ethnographic research, Participate in multinational repatriation agreements, and Other (please specify). 5. Note: The original survey responses for Year of Degree in the Repatriation Survey were formatted with overlapping years (e.g., 1950–1955, 1955–1960, 1960–1965, etc.). This formatting may have skewed the results because two of every five years are represented in two ranges. 6. I assume that bachelor’s degrees were typically awarded at the age of 22, master’s at the age of 26, and Ph.D.s at the age of 32. REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA RESPONSES TO SURVEY RESULTS I speak here as one who served on the SAA Board during creation and passage of NAGPRA (1988–1992) and who served in various NAGPRA-related capacities within the University of California (1990–2105), and as California State Repatriation Oversight Commissioner. Surely the most striking pattern in the Alonzi report is the respondents’ date-ofdegree bias: individuals receiving degrees before 1980 would like to see SAA advocate for greater protection for the curation and study of Native American human remains under NAGPRA. While this seems a minority view within SAA today, it was the majority view when NAGPRA was being crafted in the 1980s. The obvious question is why SAA supported and worked so hard for the passage of NAGPRA, when the majority of its members were at best skeptical, fearing NAGPRA signaled the beginning of the end for research involving Native American human remains? The answer is that SAA did so because the skeptical majority saw the importance of compromise and were willing to go halfway to meet those holding the minority view that favored NAGPRA. Much to their credit, and despite many reservations, this majority held that the minority view needed to be respected and incorporated into a compromise partnership that would benefit SAA going forward. Time has reversed the original majority-minority relationship between these two points of view in SAA. The Society has not done nearly so well in protecting and respecting the interests of those who hold the now-minority view. In particular, those holding the now-majority view regarding NAGPRA, especially 43 C.F.R. § 10.11, seem disinclined to give those holding the now-minority view the same protections they and their views once received. SAA, which worked tirelessly for the passage of NAGPRA, did not work nearly as hard to prevent the finalization of 43 C.F.R. § 10.11, which justified the fears of those who had major reservations regarding NAGPRA but put them aside in the spirit of finding common ground within the SAA. A good faith compromise requires that each side honor what the other concedes by protecting the things they did not concede. SAA could have and should have done more to protect what remained of the interests of those who were skeptical of NAGPRA but were willing to compromise. SAA must do better on this count, defending not merely the right to conduct, but also the legitimacy of conducting, appropriate research on human remains, because no other entity is left to do so. The universities and colleges where much of this work occurs, once the bastions of academic freedom, no longer see such research as being in their interests. The reason, at least in the case of the University of California system where I worked on NAGPRA issues for nearly three decades, is all about money. As state funding for the University of California system has dwindled, fundraising from private sources has become critically important. The University of California motto “Let there be light” seems to have become “Show me the loot.” The NAGPRA connection lies in the financial support to be had by some campuses from gaming tribes, which are being aggressively pursued as sources of endowments. This creates a conflict of interest when it comes to NAGPRA compliance, pitting scientists engaged research with human remains allowed under NAGPRA against fundraisers anxious to please potential tribal donors. Not surprisingly, given other, nationally publicized serial lapses in judgement and ethics, my own UC Davis administration has sided with the fundraisers. It is hardly by chance that the two Native American representatives on the UC Davis NAGPRA committee now are from the two largest gaming tribes in northern California, one of which has already provided major funding to UC Davis and is constantly courted by UC Davis fundraisers for additional donations. When they excavate, archaeologists know it is their ethical responsibility to save even objects they do not intend to study for future research. It would behoove SAA to think likewise with regard to NAGPRA—understanding that, as the Alonzi report shows, values and beliefs change; that those dominant today may not be dominant tomorrow; and that acting to serve only the view that is momentarily dominant will inevitably prove short-sighted. — Robert L. Bettinger, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 21 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA The SAA’s Repatriation Survey: Whither North American Bioarchaeology? I grew up as a bioarchaeologist with repatriation, receiving my Ph.D. in the early 2000–aughts. In the late 1980s, when I entered college, repatriation hung over North American physical anthropology, bioarchaeology especially, like an ominous cloud. Then NAGPRA struck the field like slow motion lightning; one could see it coming, brace for impact, or even duck and run. Charred beyond recognition in some places but only singed in others, bioarchaeology continues. Bioarchaeologists still produce research, gain Masters degrees and Ph.D.s, and embark on careers in academic institutions, museums, and CRM settings. SAA’s Repatriation survey took a valuable snapshot of perspectives within the Society that bear directly on the state of bioarchaeology in the United States. I am grateful to have been asked by the SAA’s leadership to reflect on the survey results and will, to the best of my ability, fairly represent respondents’ views while providing my own impressions of bioarchaeology alongside repatriation. Like other bioarchaeologists of my generation, I was warned early in my graduate education that I should cultivate an international project. Repatriation, it was said, would curtail excavation opportunities in the United States, so I needed a project abroad that would solidly propel my career. Survey respondents who discuss bioarchaeology clearly indicate that people are seeking both training and PI opportunities outside of the U.S. because of repatriation. Further, while the 1990s saw a surge in bioarchaeological research because of NAGPRA’s inventory requirements, respondents also perceive that new and innovative research contributions from the U.S. have declined. Survey participants also comment on the climate for bioarchaeological research: they believe human remains of every era are being repatriated or reburied too rapidly without proper analysis, researchers do not want to request access to skeletal remains and risk wading into contentious political waters, and excavation of human remains now rarely occurs in educational (e.g., field school) settings. This is a bleak assessment. Others’ comments, however, advocate repairing relationships with Native communities, cite how NAGPRA (with all of its flaws) has facilitated cooperation, and press for a more nuanced consideration of Native rights in SAA policies. Likewise, in some very eloquent statements, participants discuss the historical inequities that created museum and university 22 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 skeletal collections, and narrate the fulfilling work they do in partnership with descendant communities. Calls for more engagement with tribes and other stakeholders are also frequent, as reflected in the numerical results of question 18 (“Given the SAA’s historic and ongoing level of engagement on repatriation issues, would you like to see: more involvement, less involvement, the same level, etc.”). While the poles of the original “reburial controversy” are represented in the survey results, it is clear that the repatriation conversation within archaeology has largely shifted from “science vs. Native America” to how NAGPRA is playing out in different regions where SAA members do their work. Further, my own demographic and those who attained their degrees after 2010 believe NAGPRA has had a positive effect on archaeology in larger numbers than do our disciplinary elders. Bioarchaeology is not what it was in 1990, nor should it be. Bioarchaeological research and interpretation have gotten better and better. Some bioarchaeologists work productively with tribes and nations, others handle a repatriation claim here and there, and others do not participate in NAGPRA consultations, for one reason or another. Many skeletal individuals have been repatriated, and others cursorily observed in situ and then covered back up. However, many thousands of Native American ancestors still lie on shelves or in drawers in museums and universities. In the 1980s and 1990s, bioarchaeologists contributed their views to the emerging literature on repatriation. Few scholarly venues exist today, though, for bioarchaeologists to talk about repatriation and NAGPRA. I believe we need to create those spaces anew. I urge my bioarchaeological colleagues to take the advice of many survey participants: do not shy away from engagement—with each other, with archaeologists, with Native people, and with other stakeholders involved in repatriation. By far the most rewarding research experiences I have had with Native American ancestors arose directly from relationships of camaraderie and mutual trust with their tribal descendants. Bioarchaeology cannot, in good conscience, hold itself above or apart from either the history of colonial collection, or the complex restorative politics that have arisen in response to that history. By choosing to be bioarchaeologists, we become part of a disciplinary descendant community, with responsibilities to that past in the present. —Ann M. Kakaliouras, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Whittier College ([email protected]) REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA cases; they were also effective in communicating a clear and understandable rationale underlying SAA’s positions. Comments on the SAA Repatriation Survey S hould the SAA Statement on the Treatment of Human Remains be modified, and, if so, how? I assume this was a key question motivating the survey, and I focus most of my comments on it. In the interests of full disclosure: As a member of the SAA Board in 1986, I was one of the key drafters of the present statement, and I served as chair of the Task Force on Reburial and Repatriation when NAGPRA was negotiated. Apart from my terms as SAA President and Secretary, I was a chair, member, or advisor to the Committee on Repatriation (or the predecessor Task Force), from its establishment in 1989 until 2009. In all these capacities, I frequently represented the Society on repatriationrelated issues, including before U.S. House and Senate Committees and the NAGPRA Review Committee. The survey reveals that about two-thirds of the respondents expressing an opinion on Question 17 believe that the SAA Statement does need revision. While that represents a prima facie case for change, let us look closer. Of those expressing an opinion, a third do not believe it needs revision and a third think the language should better emphasize cooperation and balance. Of the remaining third, more believe that it needs a stronger emphasis on scientific values (19%) than believe Native American interests should have more emphasis (15%). Overall, that strikes me as a strong endorsement of the principles (and less so the language) expressed by the statement. So should SAA change the Statement? Having observed SAA internal debates over this issue for the last 30 years, my answer is “no.” There are three reasons. First, the Statement has served the Society quite well and can continue to do so. It articulates a key set of principles that guide SAA’s actions: that both scientific and traditional (Native American) interests in human remains are legitimate and must be respected; that those interests should be balanced on a case-by-case basis assessing the scientific importance of the remains on the one hand and the strength of claimants’ relationship on the other; that all remains should receive appropriate scientific documentation; and that human remains must always be treated with dignity and respect. Second, while cooperation with Native American communities is both important and valuable, further elaboration on that point here isn’t essential. These values are explicitly recognized in the Statement and are even more forcefully stated in the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics. A final reason to leave the Statement alone is the same reason we don’t invite amendments, for example, to NHPA, even though it could certainly be improved. Whenever important, established language is opened up for change, there is a substantial risk of ending up with a worse result. A revision consistent with the existing principles has more potential for fostering division than unity and, in any case, won’t change perceptions of archaeology in Indian Country. Whether or not the statement is changed, it is essential that—firmly contextualized in a balance with Native interests—SAA strongly and actively promote the value of scientific research on human remains and mortuary contexts. If SAA cannot or will not defend principled scientific research, then who will? Finally, a point on NAGPRA’s history. A third of the respondents expressing an opinion on Question 14 were just plain wrong to say that NAGPRA did not represent a compromise between science and Native American rights. Whether or not one agrees with the particulars, it was, unquestionably, a compromise. Why else would John McCain, one of two Senators leading the fight for NAGPRA, state on the Senate floor: “I believe this bill represents a true compromise” (Lovis et al. 2004). —Keith W. Kintigh, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University ([email protected]) Reference Cited Lovis, William A., Keith W. Kintigh, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and Lynne G. Goldstein 2004 Archaeological Perspectives on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Underlying Principles. In Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources, edited by Jennifer R. Richman and Marion P. Forsyth, pp. 165–184. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Not only were these principles critical in guiding the Society’s negotiation of NAGPRA’s language and in framing SAA’s positions on NAGPRA amendments, regulations, and court September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 23 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA NAGPRA and Archaeological Values: A Response to the SAA Repatriation Survey A s members of the “post-NAGPRA” generation of archaeologists who currently work with, by, and for Native American tribes in the U.S., we would like to say that many things have changed in regards to our discipline’s perspective on NAGPRA. Certainly, several of the buzzwords of archaeology in the twenty-first century—collaborative archaeology, community archaeology, public archaeology—reflect a discipline-wide shift toward a more engaged, collaborative approach to archaeological practice. Representative of this shift are the diversity of positive, working relationships established between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples across the globe. In the United States, these partnerships range from federally or state-mandated consultation to fully collaborative and community-based research and learning partnerships that demonstrate how the opening and strengthening of dialogue between our communities has the potential to resolve complex issues surrounding the protection, care, and disposition of tribal heritage. We also see changes in the ways our professional bodies and institutions have attempted to become more inclusive of Indigenous peoples. Collectively, we have been the chairs of the SAA’s Committee on Native American Relations (CNAR), Indigenous Populations Interest Group (IPIG), and one of us (Pattie Garcia-Plotkin) was recently elected to the SAA Board. We are not alone in these accomplishments and many of our colleagues who are working to create space for indigenous perspectives have served in similar capacities within the SAA. This past spring at the SAAs annual meeting, we also witnessed and were a part of two historic events: President Diane Gifford-Gonzalez’s and the SAA’s official welcome and recognition of the Seminole Tribe at the opening ceremony and the Executive Board’s sponsorship of the Native American Welcome Reception, which draws over 50 attendees each year. These actions signify a larger attempt on behalf of the SAA to build a path forward that allows for us— archaeologists and indigenous communities—to work towards a better understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities within the discipline. NAGPRA is certainly not the only contributing factor in these developments, but it remains a watershed moment in our discipline’s history, one that reflects both the impact of and growing integration of indigenous critiques and perspectives into archaeological and anthropological theory and practice. And 24 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 yet, 25 years on, institutions report that at current rates, repatriation through NAGPRA and the NMAI Act, will take another 60–75 years to return the 125,000 ancestors still held in federally funded repositories (Chari and Lavallee 2013:13). And despite the inroads of indigenous and collaborative archaeological approaches, we still see few articles in flagship journals that address the impact of repatriation and indigenous perspectives on archaeological theory and methodology. If we have indeed come so far, shouldn’t we see more progress? The SAA NAGPRA Survey Responding to these questions, the SAA’s Committee on Native American Relations, Indigenous Populations Interest Group, and Repatriation Committee set out six years ago to survey the membership to determine how far perspectives within the membership of the SAA have changed. The idea for the survey emerged out of a working retreat sponsored by the SAA Board that was convened following the publication of 43 C.F.R 10.11, the regulations concerning the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains. While discussing the Society’s response on matters related to repatriation, several of the attendees pointed out that we had no quantitative or systematic qualitative data concerning where the membership stood on the issue. This past Spring, the survey as drafted by the NAGPRA Survey Committee was finally administered to the membership. With the publication of the results, we now have a valuable opportunity to understand and reflect upon the diversity of perspectives within our discipline. The results of the survey document a membership still deeply divided over the impact of NAGPRA, with the majority classifying those impacts as mixed or negative for our discipline. These perspectives also appear to be generational, with archaeologists trained prior to 1990 more likely to support the view that both NAGPRA and the 10.11 regulations have had a detrimental impact upon North American archaeology (Alonzi 2015). The questions that were asked of the membership only touch the surface of the larger issues that NAGPRA has manifested. For example, the majority of the SAA membership that responded to the survey believes that NAGPRA represents a balance of scientific interests and Native American perspectives. This legislation was drafted as human rights legislation created to equalize the treatment of Native American human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred items, and items of cultural patrimony to be treated in a humane fashion and not simply as “scientific specimens.” NAGPRA is more than a federal process that affects museum collections or a law designed to balance REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA Native American and Hawaiian perspectives with science; it is a tool used to begin the healing process for tribal communities whom have survived processes of colonization that turned their ancestors into objects of scientific inquiry. According to Zimmerman (1997) the former viewpoint remythologizes the relationship between Native Americans and archaeologists and is part of a process of our discipline coming to terms with its colonial past. We thus read the current memberships’ view of NAGPRA as a positive sign, one that indicates a willingness to consider and integrate indigenous perspectives into archaeological practice. well as directly by the SAA President. SAA’s current pledge to support the participation of Indigenous peoples at our annual meeting and directly sponsor the Native American Welcome Reception, which was previously sponsored by CNAR and IPIG, is a welcome step for building bridges between our respective communities. The recent participation of over a dozen tribal historic preservation offices in the SAA meetings points to their and the Society’s willingness to listen to each other. In our respective roles within the SAA, we are committed to creating more platforms for such listening and healing, as it opens the possibility for us to find common ground between our perspectives. Moving Forward Together While the survey identifies the challenges we continue to face in fostering ethically grounded relationships with indigenous communities, we also see the positive ways in which we can use this survey to inform how we might continue to work with each other to create an archaeological community that embraces indigenous perspectives and respects their fundamental human rights. Education and involvement of students and practicing archaeologists in collaborations and consultations with indigenous communities is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a critical venue for shaping disciplinary perspectives of repatriation and transforming our relationship with tribal communities. Individually, we each see the power of an archaeological education that is grounded in respect for and understanding of Native Americans and other indigenous and descendant communities not as “stakeholders” or “interest groups,” but as the traditional owners of the lands and heritage with which we work on a daily basis. The positive outcomes from community-based field schools such as the Pimu Catalina Field School (Martinez and Teeter 2015), Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project (Gonzalez et al. 2005), Eastern Pequot Archaeological Field School (http://www.faculty.umb.edu/stephen_silliman/html/northeast.html), Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (http://blogs.uw.edu/gonzalsa/field-methodsin-indigenous-archaeology-2015/), The Mohegan Field School (Cipolla and Quinn 2016), Cayuga Field School (Rossen 2008), and others, point to the possibilities that emerge when archaeologists, students, and tribal communities come together to care for tribal heritage. But education alone is not enough. As a society, we should commit to and support greater dialogue between archaeologists, heritage managers, and indigenous and descendant communities. At the SAA, we have seen increasing support for such dialogue through the development of sponsored sessions by the committees on Repatriation, Native American Relations, and the Indigenous Populations Interest Group, as Conclusion There remains much work to be done before indigenous land and heritage managers and tribal historic preservation officers begin to see the SAA as a welcoming space. We remain optimistic that such a change is possible if it is premised on mutual understanding and respect for the dignity and human rights of Native Americans. To reiterate the anonymous comment of one survey respondent, “Research solely for the sake of scientific knowledge regardless of the impacts to the living is not worth the cost, nor is research that causes great sociological harm to the living.” As we take stock of how far our discipline has come and where we are headed into the future, we want to acknowledge that this SAA Archaeological Record forum is shaped by each of our positions within the discipline. While we might represent a Post-NAGPRA generation of archaeologists, it is important that we recognize our own limited perspectives as: (1) professional archaeologists; (2) who work with tribal communities in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest and California; and (3) who are employed by federally recognized tribes and a research university. The scope of analysis presented in this venue might look far different with the inclusion of other voices and vantage points not represented and it is important not to forget them as we push ahead. —Sara L. Gonzalez, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA ([email protected]) —Ora Marek-Martinez, Department Manager and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, Window Rock, AZ ([email protected]) —Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA ([email protected]) September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 25 REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA References Cited Alonzi, Elise 2015 SAA Repatriation Survey Analysis. Submitted to the Society for American Archaeology. Electronic document, http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/RepatriationIssues/tabid/ 214/Default.aspx, accessed August 31, 2016. Chari, Sangita, and Jaime M.N. Lavallee 2013 Introduction. In Accomplishing NAGPRA: perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, ed. by Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. Lavallee, pp. 7–18. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Cipolla, Craig N., and James Quinn 2016 Field School Archaeology the Mohegan way: Reflections on Twenty Years of Community-Based Research and Teaching. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 3(2):118–134. Gonzalez, Sara, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, and Tsim D. Schneider 2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. American Indian Quarterly 30:388-415. Martinez, Desireé R., and Wendy G. Teeter 2015 Ho’eexokre ‘Eyookuuka’ro “We’re Working with Each Other”: the Pimu Catalina Island Project. The SAA Archaeological Record 15(1):25–28. Rossen, Jack 2008 Field School Archaeology, Activism, and Politics in the Cayuga Homeland of Central New York. In Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, edited by S. W. Silliman, pp. 103–120. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Zimmerman, Larry J. 1997 Remythologizing the Relationships Between Indians and Archaeologists. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, ed. by Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, Alan S. Downer, pp. 44–56. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek. I n my opinion, the results of the Society for American Archaeology’s (SAA) member survey on its stance on repatriation was watered down and skewed by distributing it to people working outside the United States and those with no direct NAGPRA experience. By including these individuals, the results are based on opinion and anecdotes as opposed to direct knowledge of the impact of the law on archaeology. While I recognize that repatriation legislation in the U.S. has influenced archaeology on a global scale, I believe that, if the SAA wanted informed opinions from its members on its stance, it would have been more effective to limit participation to those directly experienced with or 26 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 impacted by NAGPRA. Allowing people with no experience—but lots of political views—to speak on the SAA policy on repatriation as presented in its Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains further politicizes the views at BOTH ends of the spectrum. If being inclusive was the goal, then an alternative instrument structure should have been designed. Alzoni’s analysis and report support the interpretation that archaeologists and students who received their degrees or training after the passage of NAGPRA are more likely to see or feel the positive benefits of repatriation. Alonzi (2016:38) expresses this as: “[t]he greatest differences amongst the members of the SAA seem to reside in differences of opinion between members who pursued their educations at different times.” The other conclusion reached by Alonzi is that “the majority of the members of the SAA are not calling for drastic revision of the SAA’s Statement.” These are both good to know, and it offers me hope that future generations of archaeologists might not have to go through the struggles the previous generations of archaeologists have endured in this arena. The Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains is NOT a repatriation policy, but rather a reinforcement of the rights of science. While it calls for the concerns of different cultures to be recognized and respected, it gives no indication that they should be afforded anything more. It presents human remains as archaeological data and a source of information. If I were required to “sign” a condition-of-membership stating that I agreed to abide by the SAA’s Statement, I would respectfully decline for two reasons. First, while I believe it is important “‘to advocate and to aid in the conservation of archaeological data,” as specified in the Bylaws of the Society for American Archaeology, I do not feel that advocating for the conservation of archaeological data should preclude consideration of the views, traditions, or heritage of alternate stakeholders. Second, I don’t have “a professional responsibility to seek to ensure that laws governing that [archaeological] record are consistent with the objectives, principles, and formal statements of the Society for American Archaeology.” It might be a responsibility of an SAA member to lobby for the organization, but this statement can be interpreted as counter to my professional obligation to consult with multiple stakeholders and to consider their wishes and perspectives concerning our “shared” archaeological record. To require me to lobby for any law that I do not believe in merely for the “health” of my professional society is restrictive and should not be used to define me as a “professional.” REPATRIATION AND SAA’S RELATIONSHIP TO NAGPRA The most useful aspect of the survey is within the various perspectives reflected in the respondents’ “Comments.” They offer a wide range of thoughts and perspectives about NAGPRA, and the anonymity allowed people to answer freely and candidly. There are nuggets of wisdom there that will help anyone who is interested in studying the relationships between archaeologists and Native Americans. While I did not categorize, sort, or do content analysis on them, a quick read gave me the impression that broad categorization would provide an almost bell-shaped curve. To me, that is where the SAA can find the most telling information on NAGPRA, archaeologists, and Native American issues. —Joe Watkins, Supervisory Anthropologist, National Park Service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eptember 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 27 ARTICLE SHARING SPACE FOOTBALL MEETS THE 5,000-YEAR-OLD LSU CAMPUS MOUNDS E. Cory Sills E. Cory Sills is an Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at Tyler ([email protected]) A ncient sites, such as Stonehenge and Chichen Itza, are spaces often appropriated by modern people for contemporary purposes not directly related to their use in prehistory. As the oldest known earthen mounds in the western hemisphere, the Louisiana State University (LSU) Campus Mounds are an important record of the indigenous past and important to the cultural heritage of Louisiana. However, the mounds have a long historical tradition of use, including political, religious, and leisure events, which are quite distinct from their archaeological importance. After the mounds were incorporated into the LSU campus design by the Olmstead Brothers, the mounds have become significant for their modern cultural uses and their importance to local and regional groups. By incorporating the mounds into the built landscape at a public university, they are now part of public space, but can this space be shared among the various interest groups? The two LSU campus mounds are part of a mound-building complex not ascribed to agricultural groups, but to hunters and gatherers who used them for ceremonial gatherings (Gibson 1994). The mounds are a high feature (nearly 20 feet tall) sitting on a natural bluff overlooking the Mississippi River in a flat south Louisiana environment (Figure 1). Today, Tiger Football Stadium as well as numerous campus buildings block the view of the Mississippi River from the mounds. The mounds are part of the Williams Plantation purchased by the State of Louisiana in the early twentieth century to be the new location for LSU, which was moved from the original downtown Baton Rouge area and opened in 1926. The Olmstead Brothers design firm was granted the architectural design contract. The firm decided to keep the mounds intact by integrating the mounds into the plan. Until recently, limited archaeological investigations have taken place at the mounds. In 1982, Robert Neuman (1988) cored both mounds and reported the first radiocarbon dates for Mound A. These dates ranged from 5345 ± 235 B.P. to 4510 ± 185 B.P. Test excavations surrounding the mound indicate no evidence of village habitation (Homburg 1988; 1991). The mounds were listed to the National Register of Historic Places 28 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 on March 1, 1999, with a plaque placed between the mounds. They are also part of the Ancient Mound Sites of Louisiana trail guide published by the Ancient Mounds Heritage Area and Trails Advisory Commission. Recently, remote sensing, subsurface coring, and excavations were undertaken by LSU researchers Brooks Elwood, Rob Mann, and Rebecca Saunders (Blitzer 2010). Preserving the LSU Campus Mounds Results of remote sensing conducted by Dr. Brooks Ellwood of LSU indicated that the mounds were eroding and slumping. Concerned archaeologists, professors, administrators, and students decided to take action to preserve these mounds by denying access to them during the 2010 LSU football home games. In addition, under Louisiana State Law Chapter 13—Archaeological Resources (R.S. 41:1601–1615) section 1604, it is unlawful to damage archaeological resources on state land. During the 2010–2011 football season, with LSU Institutional Review Board approval, I spent Saturdays during home games around the mounds engaging in participant observation and conducting interviews on how the mounds were being used. At this time, several LSU faculty, including Brooks Ellwood, Rob Mann, Heather McKillop, and Rebecca Saunders, administrators, and students decided to rope off the mounds at their base in order to protect them, titling the campaign “Preserve the LSU Mounds.” In addition to the support of the LSU administration and faculty, the “Preserve the LSU Mounds” campaign was supported by the Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archaeology. Further support came from the Red River Choctaw who spent one Saturday at the mounds talking to the public about the mounds’ importance and the Avoyel-Taensa Tribe/Nation of Louisiana, Inc. Roping off the mounds became a heated endeavor for people who previously had free access and felt ownership of the mounds, especially tailgaters. In order to provide information on why access to the mounds was being restricted during game day, the LSU Department of Geography and Anthropology Club stationed a canopy tent between the mounds where students and faculty volunteers provided infor- ARTICLE before the game, a parade, commonly referred to as the “march down victory hill,” composed of the football team accompanied by the marching band, the Golden Girls dance team, and Mike the Tiger—the school mascot—pass by the mounds on their way into Tiger Stadium. Upwards of several dozen people or more might be on the mounds trying to get a better glimpse of the passing parade. Figure 1. Overview of the LSU Campus Mounds showing Tiger Stadium in the distance. Photograph by E. Cory Sills. mation to the public (Figure 2). The mounds remained open to the public except on football game days. Car traffic is restricted Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm on the LSU campus, which inhibits public access to the mounds. The campus gates are open in the evenings and the weekends for people to enjoy and visit. On a typical warm, sunny day, I have observed students lounging, studying, or socializing on the mounds. On the weekends, I have observed families having a picnic lunch, taking photographs, and allowing their kids to roll down the mounds. I have witnessed dirt bikes being ridden on the mounds, as well. As the highest feature on campus and within close walking distance to Tiger Football Stadium, the mounds have become a popular tailgating spot. Tailgating at LSU is a public spectacle full of football rituals. Tailgaters set up tents with folding tables, TVs, and grills between and around the mounds on home game Saturdays during the Fall. At a typical game prior to restricting access to the mounds, I witnessed kids and adults rolling down the mounds and young adults playing alcohol-related drinking games, such as beer pong and flip cup, as well as adults sliding down the mounds on a red wagon and life-sized inflatable doll! About two hours prior to a football game, the number of people on the mounds increases in proportion as people gather to soon enter the stadium. As people begin to enter the stadium, teenagers move to the top of the mounds to hang out and play in large groups where they can be seen and where they can view the comings and goings of others. About an hour and a half Football is a focal point of campus activity at LSU, as with other schools in the South Eastern Conference. At the time of the study, Tiger Stadium held 92,542 people. Now the stadium can hold 102,321. However, tailgating outside the stadium can reach upwards of 200,000 people. According to a January 6, 2012 article in the Wall Street Journal, LSU ranks first in the percentage of annual revenue the football program brings to the university (Bachman 2012). In 2009 and 2010, the LSU football program reported revenue of $69.4 million. Football is not just about the game on Saturdays; it is a large revenue earner for Baton Rouge and the Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors. The Tiger Athletics Foundation is self-sustaining by raising its own funds to support LSU athletics and, especially, football. Season tickets to LSU football games and the associated cost of tailgating are expensive. Many tailgaters arrive in RVs, bringing with them tents, large industrial grills, generators, multiple TVs, and enough food and drink to feed extended families, friends, and the occasional passerby for the day. So, it came as Figure 2. The LSU Geography and Anthropology Club informational tailgating tent. The tent was placed every Saturday and staffed with faculty and student volunteers. The goal was to engage the public by telling them the importance of the mounds. Photograph by Heather McKillop. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 29 ARTICLE Tailgaters continued to actively resist the restriction of access to the mounds. Some of the antagonism was directed at the science behind the restrictions. One Saturday, an unknown individual passed half sheets of paper with a conspiracy theory directed at Dr. Brooks Ellwood’s remote sensing analysis. The sheet read “PROF. BROOKS ELLWOOD HAS SHUT DOWN THE INDIAN MOUNDS, HE SAYS THAT THISOTROPIC SEDIMENTS HAVE BEEN DISTURBED BY THE CHILDREN, ELLWOOD’S OWN REPORT GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES OF 16EBR6 AND JUST LOOKING AT THE MOUNDS PROVES IT. THE REPORT DOES NOT VERIFY THE CLAIM!” Apparently, this individual took the time to read the report about the campus mounds, print up these sheets, and pass them around the mounds on a Saturday. The statement accuses professors of denying children the right to slide or use the mounds due to faulty science. However, as the season wore on and the Geography and Anthropology club, along with concerned citizens, continued to educate the public about the importance of the mounds, the tailgaters’ resistance began to minimize. The mounds continue to be fenced off during home football games to help protect them. The Appropriation of Native American Space Figure 3. Kids using a “preserve the mounds” sign to sled down the mounds during a Saturday football home game. Photograph by Heather McKillop. no surprise that denying access to the mounds on game day to tailgaters created tension between the tailgaters and LSU administration, researchers, and students. Early initiatives to restrict access to the mounds were met with vociferous resistance. At the first home football game of the 2010 season, large signs were placed at the base of the mounds that read “Please Do Not Slide On The Mounds,” “Help Preserve The Mounds,” “Look But Please Do Not Climb,” and “LSU Mounds 6,000 Years Old.” These signs did not stay in place long as event goers disregarded the signs, even uprooting them so their kids could use them as slides (Figure 3). After the first game, LSU administration agreed to rope off the mounds, but people continued to disregard the barriers by climbing over or under ropes or tearing them down. Finally, a large meter-high green plastic fence was staked around the base of the mounds and a security guard was hired by LSU to restrict access on game day (Blum 2010). The larger fence minimized the foot traffic, even though I observed a few parents lifting their children over the fence to slide down the mound. 30 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 Many tailgaters disagreed with LSU attempts to restrict access. However, setting up their tailgates between the mounds came to have more importance over time than just for using the mounds to slide down. One tailgating group called “Tiger Tailgatin’ at the Cleavage” consists of an extended family that has tailgated in the same spot for over 12 years. Their t-shirts and sign, which they hang between two crepe myrtles, sexualize the mounds (Figure 4). However, the tailgate became a way to celebrate their family, renew memories, and create and maintain rituals. For example, when a matriarch of the family died, the family dedicated a memorial plaque for an oak tree and scattered her ashes at the base of the tree. To commemorate her passing, an hour before the start of each home game, the family gathers around the oak tree, places a dozen roses, and toasts her memory with champagne. These memories and rituals—as well as others I have recorded—have no ties to the mounds as a Native American feature. Instead, the mounds have been reappropriated and modified without any association to the past. Nonetheless, the mounds have become a place of memory and a socially constructed activity space for the current populace rather than those who occupied the space originally. Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) have referred to the tension between various representations of the past as “dissonant heritage” where the preservation of the past by various stake holders can be fragmented and have very little to do with the original connection to the past. The appropriation of the LSU Campus Mounds from a Native American space to one of additional meanings creates a disconnect between the ARTICLE Figure 4. The official sign for an extended family that tailgates between the mounds. Photograph by E. Cory Sills. past and the present. Of course, this disconnect is not just at the LSU Campus Mounds but has been seen at other mound sites in the United States as a product of colonization of the Americas where interpretations of the past are created and recreated by archaeologists and heritage conservation groups (Mann 2005). My archival research at the LSU Hill Memorial Library and the T. Harry Williams Center for Oral History revealed many historical activities associated with the campus mounds in addition to tailgating, including two notable incidents I report here that create additional meanings for this place. The first plaque to be placed at the mounds was not the NRHP plaque but the result of a tragic death of an LSU student in 1984. Courtenay Elizabeth Smoak was killed by a truck while sitting on the mounds tailgating for a football game. The results of this incident led the LSU administration to construct small physical barriers and lamp posts around the mounds in order to prevent vehicular traffic on the mounds. In 1986, a commemorative plaque sponsored by LSU Student Government was placed on the southern side of Mound A. I found an oral history account in the archives describing a story of a “stripper” who was hired by Gillis Long’s opposition to make a speech during the Student Government Presidential elections in 1946 (Brown 1986). Gillis Long, a respected U.S. Representative, was a cousin of the renowned Louisiana Governor and U.S. Senator Huey P. Long. In this account by Brown, at the LSU campus mounds, an angry mob attacked the “stripper” and threw her into a lake on the LSU campus grounds. Unfortunately, the alleged “stripper” is nameless in history. She is described as being from New Orleans and possibly hired as a publicity stunt. Over time, the mounds have become a prominent feature on the LSU campus with multiple meanings and uses to the Baton Rouge and LSU communities. The mounds are used as a public space disconnected with the past of Native Americans. My research regarding the use of the mounds shows that there are many stakeholders, who have multiple views of the significance of the mounds. Before archaeologists were there to inform the public of the mounds’ historical significance, the campus and local community had claimed the space as their own. The LSU Campus Mounds are a place that is not attached to the original ceremonial use of the mounds but a place, nonetheless, that people go to as a location for various reasons. The mounds are a place to employ political theater such as the story of the alleged “stripper” as well as a place that people inhabit on game day to grieve, to socialize, to have fun, and to tailgate. The mounds have clearly become a feature for invented rituals and traditions. Acknowledging the community history of the site has helped to further community involvement in protecting the site. The restriction of the mounds on football game days has insured that this public space will continue to be a place that everyone can share. References Cited Blitzer, Carol Anne 2010 LSU Mounds Have Storied Past. The Advocate. 10 December. Baton Rouge. Blum, Jordan 2010 Indian Mounds to Be Fenced Again. The Advocate. 1 October. Baton Rouge. Brown, W.K. 1986 Interview by Gary Huey. 5 August 1986. Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections, LSU Libraries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Gibson, Jon L. 1994 Before Their Time? Early Mounds in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):162–186. Homburg, Jeff 1988 Archaeological Investigations at the LSU Campus Mounds Site. Louisiana Archaeology 15:31–204. 1991 An Archaeological Investigation at the LSU Campus Mounds. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Mann, Rob 2005 Intruding on the Past: The Reuse of Ancient Earthen Mounds by Native Americans. Southeastern Archaeology 24:1–10. Neuman, Robert 1988 Report on the Soil Core Borings Conducted at the LSU Campus Mounds Site (16EBR6), East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 15:1–30. Tunbridge, John E., and Gregory J. Ashworth 1996 Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 31 ARTICLE COYOTE SKULL AND DIGGING STICKS BEHAVIORAL MODELS AND PRESERVATION IMPERATIVES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOUTHWEST R.E. Burrillo R. E. Burrillo ([email protected]) is an archaeologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. T he treasures of the past have been favorites with fortuneseekers and adventurers since time immemorial, the fossils and artifacts of history often spending their dotage as curios or décor. Science took official, institutional notice of these things with the discovery of “deep time” in the 1700s by Hutton and the subsequent chronological revolution of the 1860s by figures like Lyell and Darwin. Analyzing material remains to infer conditions in the distant past became a popular domain of inquiry, especially with regard to the human past, although through modern eyes it is easy to conflate much of early archaeology with plundering. The first American effort to manage and protect its fragile archaeological resources commenced in 1906 with the federal Antiquities Act, a result of increased awareness that archaeological materials are nonrenewable resources—they are not, after all, making any more of them—and were being wholesale destroyed by looters. Stronger laws like NHPA and ARPA followed, affording more stringent protections for archaeological resources, and the passage of NAGPRA in 1990 doffed hat to Native Americans as rightful cultural curators of those resources. But in the year A.D. 2016, the treasures of the past are still favorites with fortune-seekers and adventurers, arguably more now than ever in the case of the latter. As with most social trends, fascination with antiquities is a difficult leviathan to track, although the modern Western version probably dates back just a few generations. Known to many as “heritage tourism,” travel to archaeological and historical sites, parks, museums, and places of traditional or ethnic interest is among the most popular sectors of the travel industry. A 2003 study in Ethnology by Cameron and Gatewood sought to understand this phenomenon, noting that “historical sites and museums in both North America and Europe have become increasingly popular visitor destinations over the past decades, a fact prompting the observation that history has become a booming industry” (Cameron and Gatewood 2003:55). The upshot of their efforts was the discovery that, in addition to pleasure-seeking, many heritage tourists seek to “transcend the present and engage with the past in a highly personal way” (Cameron and 32 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 Gatewood 2003:57). This sentiment rings a noble tone, and it is undoubtedly true of many visitors to historic sites and museums, but that still leaves pleasure-seeking as a principal motivator for many—if not most—other visitors. With regard to visitation of backcountry archaeological sites, it is undoubtedly the vanguard motivation. This study presents three behavioral models—two developed in behavioral biology frameworks, and one that is original. They differ in their levels of generality, applicability, and abstraction, and they predict for three separate behavior sets. They converge, however, on the imperative desperateness of cultural resource conservation in an increasingly informed culture and in increasingly crowded wilderness settings. It is hoped that these models, the theory that underlies them, and the datasets that inform them will prove not only educational but useful for the management and preservation of some of our most valuable and sacred non-renewable resources. Habitat Quality and Population Density The Ideal Free Distribution (IFD) model from behavioral ecology is an attempt to account for settlement patterns from the framework of optimal foraging theory (Fretwell and Lucas 1970). The model is used most often to represent or predict settlement patterns in terms of habitat selection choices based on economic optimization. In doing so, it makes two assumptions: first, all individual organisms have the information to select— and the ability to settle in—the most suitable habitat available. And, second, all individual organisms are free to shift their habitat selection in response to local population density. The assumption, then, is that organisms will distribute themselves first in the “best” or most favorable location, in terms of desired resources. As additional organisms move into that habitat and population density increases, consequent resource stress causes the suitability of the habitat to drop to or below the level of the next-ranked habitat, at which point organisms will move to occupy it, and so on. Figure 1, adapted from Kennett et al. 2006, illustrates this concept. ARTICLE H1 through H3: three different habitats ranked by suitability in terms of resources. A: the point at which population pressure on resources has driven Habitat 1 to be no better than Habitat 2, at which point individuals are expected to begin to colonize both of them. B: the point at which population pressure on resources has driven Habitat 1 to be no better than Habitat 3, at which point individuals are expected to begin to colonize all available habitats. Figure 1. Ideal Free Distribution model of habitat selection as a function of resources and population density. Like most models, this is best conceptualized in terms of analogy. Say you’re a bird that eats apples, and you come upon two apple trees: one splendid tree that puts forth 100 apples per year, and another one that puts forth only 10. You will clearly choose the tree that puts forth 100 apples per year in which to build your nest. Next season, four more birds take up roost in the splendid tree, so that now each of you is entitled to 25 apples per year—a far cry from 100 but still better than 10. But word gets around. Within a few seasons the splendid tree is occupied by 20 avian families, each of which is able to secure about five apples apiece, and suddenly the not-so-splendid tree looks considerably more desirable by comparison. So you leave the tree that puts forth 100 apples per year (of which you now only get five) to resettle in the tree that puts forth only 10 apples per year (but at least they’re all yours). That, basically, is how IFD works. Now consider not quantitative resources, like water or kilocalories of food, but qualitative resources like beauty, solitude, and novelty. More properly the realm of postmodernism than of the material positivism that characterizes the focus of most behavioral ecologists, these incorporeal resources are nonetheless the principal currency desired by most people who don a heavy backpack and tramp forth into the wilderness. This notion is underscored and supported in the “get there before the crowds do” columns that pervade magazines like Backpacker and National Geographic Adventure. The gems, the splendid apple trees, are those that promise breathtaking and unusual sights in the delicate sweetness of undeveloped and undisturbed Nature. The problem, of course, is that the “crowds” decried in those magazine articles are comprised of the very people reading them. As described by the solid theoretical framework of IFD, the great bulk of recreationists will preferentially gravitate toward any habitat that appears most suitable in terms of the resources they desire—beauty, solitude, and novelty—and will begin to consider other, less desirable habitats only when population density depresses the value or quantity of these resources below those of its lower-ranked alternatives. This, then, is the relationship between most recreationists and backcountry destinations. While there will always be deep-backcountry fanatics whose bedrock desire is to go as far as they possibly can toward the edges of the map, the one-sigma majority is content to spend one or several days on a sure path that promises sure rewards. The trouble comes when such visitation increases so much that, for many people, the qualitative resource value drops below that of harsher but less-crowded locales. Then it isn’t just the few fanatics pushing deeper and deeper into what Edward Abbey called the “back of beyond.” Everyone else starts doing it, too. Illustrative examples of the quantitative effects on backcountry resources come from the Grand Canyon, where usage trends show a steady increase in both front- and backcountry overnight permits during the past several decades (Sullivan 2015). This apparent correlation can easily be explained as part of a general trend of increasing overall visitation, but a separate study conducted by Backland and colleagues (2008) suggests that this may not be the case. Their study was aimed at characterizing overnight hikers in Grand Canyon National Park in terms of their preferences and motivations. The results showed that the three most important motive domains were, respectively, Wild Setting, Enjoying Nature, and Solitude, the last of which included items like “Being in an area where human influence is not noticeable” (Backland et al. 2008:18–19). Escaping noticeable human influence means going farther afield than the last group did. These researchers also found that a substantial number of hikers reported visiting archaeological sites as a planned part of the trip (Table 1), and that the proportion of visitors who did so increased with respect to how far into the backcountry they traveled (for those unfamiliar with the Grand Canyon zone system, it goes from Corridor for shallowest backcountry to Wild for deepest). And an inventory of backcountry campsites in the Grand Canyon by Foti and Divine (2006) reports that archaeological resources, ranging from pits and rock walls to rock art and arti- Table 1. Backcountry Visitation Trends in Grand Canyon National Park, from Backland et al. 2008. Of those who visited a backcountry site: Zone Visited an Planned to archaeological do so in site advance % % Corridor Threshold Primitive Wild Total 35.7 29.7 35.0 64.4 35.1 18.7 41.5 46.7 55.8 26.5 Felt “very” or “extreme” respect for site % 78.8 86.9 82.0 84.0 80.5 Felt “very” Felt “very” or “extreme” or “extreme” temptation to sense of take an sacredness artifact home % % 40.3 41.2 45.0 43.3 41.2 September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 1.1 3.2 2.8 0.0 1.6 33 ARTICLE facts, were present at 16.5 percent of backcountry campsites (Foti and Divine 2008:8). They further note that, while this number might not be enormous, where archaeological resources were present, they were impacted between 64 percent (for rock art) and 81.3 percent (for artifacts) of the time (Foti and Divine 2008:9). In sum, the desire to escape the crowds by pushing deeper and deeper into the Grand Canyon’s imposing backcountry includes both intentional and unintentional visitation of archaeological resources, many of which bear scars as a result. Meanwhile, in the archaeologically rich Cedar Mesa area in southeastern Utah, recreational visitation of deep-backcountry areas and archaeological sites has increased dramatically within the past few decades, as traditionally popular destinations like Grand Gulch become more and more crowded. A 1999 Deseret News article by Jerry Spangler on “new restrictions” at Cedar Mesa noted that some 15,000 people per year were “scurrying through” its canyon systems at that time (Spangler 1999). That number has since increased by an order of magnitude. Spangler’s article also included the following prescient statements: Two decades ago, visitors to the area were experienced, well-prepared hikers and backpackers. Today’s weekend warriors are just not as knowledgeable. “What we have seen is that a lot of users have become less sophisticated as backcountry travelers. They are not as competent as a whole,” [Dale] Davidson said. Davidson relates the story of one woman who recently got lost in Fish [Creek] Canyon, and she kept calling the BLM offices in Monticello from her cell phone to have someone talk her out of the canyon. Long-time Cedar Mesa backcountry ranger Laura Lantz is quoted in a later article as saying, “We are seeing an increase in what we call softer users… Guidebooks and magazine articles have sent a new breed of hiker here, hikers who have no experience in this kind of environment, and who just don’t know how to behave. It makes our job harder” (Potterfield 2006). This juxtaposition of backcountry conditions with recreationists not mentally or physically equipped to handle them is at least partially due to people pushing deeper and deeper into the hinterlands in order to escape the crowds. The Utah Office of Tourism’s website explicitly says as much in its section on the Owl Creek-Fish Creek Loop backpacking route: “This wonderful canyon trek is becoming a popular backpack… The area is experiencing increasing visitation as a result of overcrowding in Grand Gulch” (Visit Utah 2016). This also introduces the problem of knowledge about location and access to fragile archaeological resources. Left Limits and Data Accumulation Statisticians call it the Drunkard’s Walk. It’s a paradigm for explaining seeming directionality in certain types of random 34 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 motion; i.e., a thought experiment, not unlike Schroedinger’s famous parable of the alive/dead cat, to explain why random processes can nonetheless result in directional trends. Stephen Jay Gould (1996) explained it like this: A man staggers out of a bar dead drunk. He stands on the sidewalk in front of the bar, with the wall of the bar on one side and the gutter on the other… We will say that the drunkard staggers in a single line only, either toward the wall or toward the gutter. He does not move at right angles along the sidewalk parallel to the wall and gutter. Where will the drunk end up if we let him stagger long enough and entirely at random? He will finish in the gutter—absolutely every time, and for the following reason: Each stagger goes in either direction with 50% probability. The bar wall on one side is a “reflecting boundary.” If the drunkard hits the wall, he just stays there until a subsequent stagger propels him in the other direction. In other words, only one direction of movement remains open for continuous advance—toward the gutter” [Gould 1996:149–150]. Which is to say, as Gould summarizes, “in a system of linear motion structurally constrained by a wall at one end, random movement, with no preferred directionality whatever, will inevitably propel the average position away from a starting point at the wall” (Gould 1996:151). Gould invokes the old heuristic as a means to explain apparent directionality in the otherwise randomized process of biological evolution, specifically the phenomenon of increasing body size. Given that quanta plotted along the X-axis in a typical graph positively increase from left to right, the wall or “reflecting boundary” in a statistical model like the Drunkard’s Walk would be at the left, with the inevitable directionality skewing therefore to the right. This makes sense in consideration of body size in evolution, where the left wall is the smallest possible iteration below which a species cannot drop; e.g., it would be impossible to have a duck the size of a walnut that was still technically a duck, but not impossible to have a sloth the size of a truck—as indeed once roamed the Pleistocene Americas. Gould’s colleague Steven Stanley explicated the process, more formally known as Cope’s Rule, in a celebrated paper (Stevens 1973) from which Figure 2 is borrowed. The relevance of this to archaeological resources may not be readily apparent, so an anecdote may help to illustrate the comparison. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Fred Blackburn and colleagues commenced a program of “reverse archaeology” in the Cedar Mesa area that would culminate in a handful of celebrated volumes (Blackburn and Williamson 1997). Blackburn had become enamored of Richard Wetherill’s wanderings in Grand Gulch while working as a BLM ranger there in the 1970s and sought to trace and understand the archaeologist-cowboy’s ARTICLE and drawings published in the periodical, much of which amounts to recitations of events that befell the expedition members themselves. A myriad of other such tales can be found in the annals not only of archaeology, but of every conceivable domain of inquiry. Photographs, drawings, reports, notes, and maps have gotten misplaced, damaged, or destroyed, and the limited lifespan of humans themselves means that innumerable data have also disappeared in the form of memories forgotten or taken to the grave. Information could be lost, in other words, because there was nothing like a worldwide digital database that holds fast to every piece of information that enters into it. That all changed in about 1992 with the creation and launch of what we now call the Internet. Figure 2. Postulated pattern of accumulation of random quanta/changes with a left limit. historic work. It didn’t take long for Blackburn et al. to find, however, that the bulk of Wetherill’s notes and photographs no longer existed. Their consequent objective became one of linking the artifacts from Wetherill’s expeditions housed in various museums with the sites from which they came, thereby establishing provenience between artifact and origin long after the fact. Hence: reverse archaeology. The upshot of this story is that, once upon a time, information about the location and nature of archaeological sites could be— and routinely was—lost. Nor is this an isolated case trotted forward to advance a thesis. Consider another example: in 1891 a popular but short-lived periodical called The Illustrated American hired archaeologist Warren K. Moorehead to lead a scientific expedition into the Four Corners area to record and photograph archaeological sites, as well as to collect artifacts for the World’s Columbian Exposition. The expedition serves as one among many exciting tales of adventure and discovery in the Southwest, and the associated materials would likewise serve as a database of early archaeological information for the region— had not all of the original maps, negatives, and photographs been lost when a fire later destroyed the Illustrated’s offices in New York City (Gulliford 2011). All that remains are the reports The Internet has created, so to speak, a left limit on information—a reflecting boundary below which potential knowledge cannot be reduced. As any celebrity or politician who’s ever tried to get a photo removed from the Internet knows only too well, once it’s there, it is there for good. Professor of law Jeffrey Rosen poignantly addressed this in a New York Times article in 2010 titled, appropriately enough, “The Web Means the End of Forgetting.” In terms of impact, photos and text that disseminate the location of fragile archaeological ruins can have the same devastating effects as compromising photos or text can have on a fragile marriage or career. And they can only accumulate. Just like the cumulative increase of quanta of size against the left limit of smallest possible iterations in species’ evolution, the quanta of information about archaeological sites can only accumulate against the left limit of the World Wide Web. Preservation as a Function of Attention Based on these and similar behavioral trends, efforts at preserving fragile and irreplaceable cultural resources are up against formidable odds. Increasing visitation at backcountry archaeological sites by well-intended recreationists—as well as considerably less well-intentioned looters and vandals—is concomitant with the dual forces of (a) increasing availability of site information and (b) increasing crowd presence at more wellknown and well-monitored front-country sites. This in turn precipitates a serious management problem: whereas people could formerly be counted upon to aggregate into fairly discrete concentration areas, ever greater numbers of them are dispersing into backcountry settings where resources are tremendously more diffuse and difficult to monitor. Coupled with perennial funding and personnel shortfalls among land management agencies, this problem becomes ever direr. The sole solution most often touted by proactive advocates is that of citizen involvement, e.g., volunteer site stewardship programs and “awareness campaigns” by groups like Grand Canyon Trust and September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 35 ARTICLE Destruction it was, hence “Sacrifice Rock.” The costs are obvious when you visit the thing: the boulder has been so heavily impacted by fingers and graffiti that the petroglyphs are increasingly difficult to discern. Yet the benefits are also obvious: however faint, the rock art is still discernible, and the solstice marker signals reliably every summer. The costs, in this case, are considerable, but they do not outweigh the costs of removing the boulder to a safer location and thus obliterating its hallmark feature. x Attention Figure 3. Articulation of attention and destruction with regard to two impact factor domains. Friends of Cedar Mesa. Not that this approach doesn’t provide problems of its own. Conservationists are saddled with the unenviable burden of aiming for an optimum on the parabolic curve described by the variables of attention and destruction (see Figure 3). When sensitive cultural resources receive too much attention, they get destroyed by over-visitation and souvenir collectors (represented in the figure as b factors). Too little attention and they get destroyed by erosion, by looters, or—worse—by unmitigated development (a factors). The ideal is the point on the Attention axis marked x in the figure. The problem, of course, is that the variables involved in this model are unquantifiable. This is arguably true of the other two as well. Therefore, the curve and its associated optimum, while theoretically sound, are also entirely arbitrary. Where does the ideal x lie, exactly? How much does yet another calendar, another poster, another book of photography actually help? How much does it hurt? And how many citizen site stewards are too many? How few are too few? In conservation, as in all behavior, the appeal of a strategy is in whether—and, if so, to what extent—the benefits outweigh the costs. And there are always costs. Take the case of Sacrifice Rock in Zion National Park. Sacrifice Rock is a medium-sized boulder with a few petroglyphs carved into it, one of few easily accessible rock art sites in the park. When the road through the park was constructed, NPS personnel wanted to move the boulder someplace else so that it wasn’t so close to the road and hence so easy to visit and destroy. But there was a snag: the rock art on this particular boulder is archaeoastronomical, meaning that shadows fall across it in a clear and deliberate way on a given day of the year, in this case, the summer solstice (Hatfield and Hatfield 1997). Moving the boulder would protect it, but would remove it from the very context that makes it what it is. In sum, the choices were to leave it beside a busy road where tourists can visit it in throngs, or move it elsewhere and guarantee its safety while deliberately destroying its utility as a celestial marker, arguably the most important thing about it. They chose to leave it where 36 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 Similar proposals buttress and inform the publication of location beta for places like the Paria Plateau’s Wave and Escalante’s Golden Cathedral, such that a weekend visit to the tiny parking area of the latter now looks like Figure 4. Other comparably incredible sites and wonders abound in the areas surrounding these places, and backcountry devotees have no trouble finding them. But backcountry devotees also tend to be savvy and respectful, and tend also not to require search-and-rescue efforts. Meanwhile funneling the Weekend Warrior and Rental RV crowds toward a few resource targets that can take the hit incurs far lower overall costs than not telling anything to anyone and letting them disperse willy-nilly across the backcountry. Using signage and trails to direct the one-sigma majority of visitors to a few high-profile areas or sites doesn’t amount to cheating them out of a worthwhile experience, in other words, and it helps to keep both the visitors and the resources safe. The other and more financially costly approach takes the behavioral models outlined above head-on, and that is to deploy greater numbers of well-informed and experienced stewards into deep-backcountry settings to keep an eye on visitors and the sites they’re visiting. A constant, or at least consistent, human presence is also a highly effective deterrent to looters and vandals, and in many cases that’s how they get caught in the act. Trained volunteers are invaluable for this, given the steadily downward-trending state of personnel funding for resource management among federal agencies, but researchers and academics have a role to play as well. Research presented herein by Figure 4. The Egypt trailhead in Escalante, taken by the author on Memorial Day 2016; all of the 20-plus hikers interviewed were returning from the diminutive Golden Cathedral formation. ARTICLE recreational investigators like Foti and Stewart testify strongly to that, and it is hoped that the semi-informal behavioral modeling analysis that comprises this study proves a useful tool as well. Discussion Not long before writing this piece, I went to visit two archaeological sites in southeast Utah: Coyote Skull, named for the presence of same in the site’s most prominent feature; and Digging Sticks, named for a cache of what were presumed to be digging implements found in one of its rooms when it was first recorded. The former I was visiting as part of an ongoing research project utilizing historic photography as a tool for archaeological resource preservation. The latter I was visiting just to see how it’s holding up. I then posted the best photos from the expedition on my social media page, as my generation is wont to do, following the usual community rules about not posting location information or background landscape elements that people could use to find them. The tabulated responses look approximately like this: 30 percent: Awesome photos, so jealous, thank you for sharing!” 10 percent: You shouldn’t share photos of archaeological sites. Even if you don’t include location information, people might still go looking for them. I read an article, once, where...” 60 percent: 2 Again: how much attention is too much? How little is too little? In alerting people to the presence of sensitive and important cultural resources, researchers and preservationists alike incur both the benefits of increased support for protection and the risks of increased visitation or looting. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The trick is to choose the medium, and the audience, as carefully as possible; to be willing to develop a strategic few sites for heritage tourism so that the rest can remain safely tucked away in the hinterlands; and to advocate as strongly as possible for funding and resources to advance backcountry stewardship efforts. Little can be done to stem the dismal tide. Nor could we possibly conserve all resources and preserve all archaeological sites in perpetuity, any more than we can generate perpetual energy or practice such healthful habits that we break the bonds of mortality. But we can at least make efforts to protect and preserve them for as many generations as possible—for the people who love them, the people who study them, and the people who consider them sacred. A paramount component of these efforts is to try and understand the behavioral trends of people themselves, and the ways in which we articulate with our environments. References Cited Backland, Erik A., William Stewart, and Zvi Schwartz 2008 Overnight Backcountry Visitors at Grand Canyon National Park. Park Planning and Policy Lab, Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism. University of Illinois, Champaign. Blackburn, Fred M., and Roy A. Williamson 1997 Cowboys and Cave Dwellers: Basketmaker Archaeology in Utah’s Grand Gulch. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Cameron, Catherine M., and James B. Gatewood 2003 Seeking Numinous Experiences in the Unremembered Past. Ethnology, 42(1):55–71. Foti, Pamela E., and Aaron K. Divine 2006 Grand Canyon Backcountry Campsite and Human Impact Inventory: Final Report. Manuscript on file at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Fretwell, Stephen D., and H. L. Lucas 1970 On Territorial Behavior and Other Factors Influencing Habitat Distribution in Birds, I: Theoretical Development. Acta Biother. 19:16–36. Gould, Stephen Jay 1996 Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. Three Rivers Press, New York. Gulliford, Andrew 2011 The 1892 Illustrated American Exploring Expedition. Utah Adventure Journal, 13 November. Hatfield, Sharon, and David Hatfield 1997 Sacrifice Rock Solstice Marker Project. Zion National Park Project Report. Manuscript on file at Zion National Park, Utah. Kennett, Douglas J., Atholl Anderson, and Bruce Winterhalder 2006 The Ideal Free Distribution, Food Production and the Colonization of Oceania. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 265–288. University of California Press, Berkeley. Potterfield, Peter 2006 Hidden Treasures of Anasazi Country: Thousand Year Old Ruins and Inscrutable Rock Art Add Interest in Mystery to Hiking the Scenic Canyons of Southern Utah’s Cedar Mesa. Great Outdoors: August 19, 2006. Rosen, Jeffrey 2010 The Web Means the End of Forgetting. The New York Times. 21 July. Spangler, Jerry 1999 Changes at Cedar Mesa: New Restrictions Help Preserve Unique Natural Treasures. Desert News. 6 August. Stevens, Stanley M. 1973 An Explanation for Cope’s Rule. Evolution Vol. 27(1):1–26. Sullivan, Steve 2015 Grand Canyon Backcountry Information Center, 2015 Statistics and 2000–2015 Summary. Manuscript on file at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Visit Utah 2016 Owl Creek-Fish Creek Loop, Cedar Mesa. Electronic document, http://www.visitutah.com/things-to-do/outdooradventures/backpacking/canyon-country-southern-utah/owl-fishcreek-cedar-mesa/, accessed April 4, 2016. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 37 CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS The Society for American Archaeology calls for nominations for its awards to be presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting in Vancouver. These awards are presented for important contributions in many different areas of archaeology. If you wish to nominate someone for one of the awards, please review the award’s descriptions, requirements, and deadlines. This information is posted on the award’s PDF Fact Sheet on the SAA website (follow links to About the Society/Awards page, or go directly to the page at http://saa.org/AbouttheSociety/Awards/tabid/123/Default.aspx). Each awardee is recognized by the SAA through a plaque presented during the business meeting held at the Annual Meeting, a citation in The SAA Archaeological Record, and acknowledgment on the awards page of the SAA website. Certain awards also receive monetary or other compensation. Please check the award’s online Fact Sheet for details, and contact the Chair of each committee with questions. Here is a list of the award deadlines, followed by a brief summary of each award. 1) Dissertation Award / October 15, 2016 2) Fred Plog Memorial Fellowship / November 1, 2016 3) Book Award / November 21, 2016 4) Paul Goldberg Award (formerly the Geoarchaeology Interest Group M.A./M.S. Research Award) / November 30, 2016 5) Douglas C. Kellogg Fund for Geoarchaeological Research / November 30, 2016 6) Dienje Kenyon Memorial Fellowship / December 15, 2016 7) Award for Excellence in Latin American and Caribbean Archaeology / January 2, 2017 8) Crabtree Award / January 3, 2017 9) Award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management / January 6, 2017 10) Lifetime Achievement Award / January 6, 2017 11) Award for Excellence in Public Education / January 6, 2017 12) Gene S. Stuart Award / January 8, 2017 13) Award for Excellence in Archaeological Analysis / January 9, 2017 14) Award for Excellence in Curation, Collections Management, and Collections-based Research and Education / January 11, 2017 15) Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary Research for 2018 / February 3, 2017 16) Institute for Field Research Undergraduate Student Awards / March 1, 2017 17) Student Paper Award / March 1, 2017 18) Student Poster Award / March 1, 2017 Dissertation Award This award recognizes a recent graduate whose dissertation is original, well-written, and outstanding. Nomination deadline: October 15, 2016 Committee chair: Jason Yaeger, e-mail: [email protected] Nomination deadline: November 21, 2016 Committee chair: Elizabeth Arkush, e-mail: [email protected] Paul Goldberg Award (formerly the Geoarchaeology Interest Group M.A./M.S. Research Award) Fred Plog Memorial Fellowship This award ($500) provides support for thesis research for graduate student at the M.A./M.S. level in the earth sciences and archaeology. This award ($1,000) provides support for a graduate student with ABD status writing a dissertation on the North American Southwest or northern Mexico or on a topic, such as culture change or regional interactions, on which Plog himself did research. Submission deadline: November 30, 2016 Committee chair: Susan M. Mentzer, e-mail: [email protected] Submission deadline: November 1, 2016 Committee chair: Deborah Huntley, e-mail: [email protected] Douglas C. Kellogg Fund for Geoarchaeological Research Book Award This award ($500) provides support for dissertation research for a graduate student at the Ph.D. level in the earth sciences and archaeology. This award honors two recently published books, one in the scholarly category and the other for a book written for the general public. Submission deadline: November 30, 2016 Committee chair: Susan M. Mentzer, e-mail: [email protected] 38 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS Dienje Kenyon Memorial Fellowship Lifetime Achievement Award In honor of the late Dienje M. E. Kenyon, a fellowship is offered to support a female archaeologist in the early stages of graduate zooarchaeology training, Kenyon’s specialty. An award of $1,000 will be made. To qualify for the award, applicants must be enrolled an M.A. or Ph.D. degree program focusing on archaeology. Strong preference will be given to applicants in the early stage of research project development and/or data collection, under the mentorship of a zooarchaeologist. This award recognizes the truly extraordinary, lasting, and positive accomplishments of an archaeologist. Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017 Committee chair: Barbara Voorhies, e-mail: [email protected] Award for Excellence in Public Education This award recognizes an individual who has made a lasting and significant contribution to archaeology in Latin America or the Caribbean. This award recognizes excellence in the sharing of archaeological information with the general public and is designed to encourage outstanding achievements in public engagement. The 2017 award will be presented in the Media and Information Technology category; the award will emphasize how nominees used print and/or online media to educate and increase public awareness. This category recognizes outstanding programs or products that reflect collaborative initiatives that engage diverse communities. Potential applications and nominees who feel their work is eligible should contact the committee in early November to solicit guidance. Nomination deadline: January 2, 2017 Committee chair: Tomas E. Mendizabal, e-mail: [email protected] Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017 Acting Committee chair: Jayur Mehta, e-mail: [email protected] Crabtree Award Gene S. Stuart Award The SAA presents the Crabtree Award annually to an outstanding avocational archaeologist in remembrance of the singular contributions of Don Crabtree. Nominees should have made significant contributions to advance understandings of local, regional, or national archaeology through excavation, research, publication, site or collections preservation, collaboration with the professional community, and/or public outreach. The award is made to honor outstanding efforts to enhance public understanding of archaeology, in memory of Gene S. Stuart (1930-1993), a writer and managing editor of National Geographic Society books. The award is given to the author of the most interesting and responsible original story or series about any archaeological topic published in a newspaper or magazine. Submission deadline: December 15, 2016 Committee chair: Frank E. Bayham, e-mail: [email protected] Award for Excellence in Latin American and Caribbean Archaeology Nomination deadline: January 3, 2017 Committee chair: Michael Shott, e-mail: [email protected] Award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management This award recognizes outstanding efforts and advancements in the curation, management, and use of archaeological collections for research, publication, and/or public education. The 2017 award will be presented in the Research category to an individual or a group for their significant contributions and special achievements in collections-based research. This type of research has analyzed legacy collections by addressing new questions, using new analytical techniques, applying multidisciplinary analyses, and/or comparing old and new data sets. Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017 Committee chair: Joseph Schuldenrein, e-mail: [email protected] Nomination deadline: January 8, 2017 Acting Committee chair: A’ndrea Elyse Messer, e-mail: [email protected] Award for Excellence in Archaeological Analysis This award recognizes an archaeologist whose innovative and enduring research has made a significant impact on the discipline. The 2017 award will be presented in the Lithic Analysis category. Nomination deadline: January 9, 2017 Committee chair: Barbara J. Roth, e-mail: [email protected] Award for Excellence in Curation, Collections Management, and Collections-based Research and Education This award recognizes outstanding efforts and advancements in the curation, management, and use of archaeological collections for research, publication, and/or public edu- September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 39 CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS cation. The 2017 award will be presented in the Research category to an individual or a group for their significant contributions and special achievements in collections-based research. This type of research has analyzed legacy collections by addressing new questions, using new analytical techniques, applying multidisciplinary analyses, and/or comparing old and new data sets. Nomination deadline: January 11, 2017 Committee chair: Timothy Edward Baumann, e-mail: [email protected] Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary Research for 2018 This award recognizes interdisciplinary excellence of a scientist whose research has contributed significantly to American archaeology. The 2018 award will be presented in the Earth Sciences category. Student Paper Award This award (valued at more than $1,000 worth of books and other prizes) recognizes the best student presentation of original research in a paper session at the SAA Annual Meeting. Submission deadline: March 1, 2017 Committee chair: Natalie Munro, e-mail: [email protected] Student Poster Award This award ($250) recognizes the best student presentation of original research in a poster session at the SAA Annual Meeting. Submission deadline: March 1, 2017 Committee chair: Gabriel Wrobel, e-mail: [email protected] Nomination deadline: February 3, 2017 Committee chair: Rolfe Mandel, e-mail: [email protected] Institute for Field Research Undergraduate Student Awards These awards recognize an outstanding student paper and poster, each with a $1,000 prize provided by the Institute for Field Research. Submission deadline: March 1, 2017 Committee chair: Wes Bernardini, e-mail: [email protected] CARRYL B. MARTIN RESEARCH AWARD Sponsored by the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society The Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society (AAHS) has received a substantial bequest from the estate of Carryl B. Martin, an avocational archaeologist and longtime member of AAHS. Carrly’s wish was to specifically support research. In her honor, AAHS is pleased to announce the Carryl B. Martin Research Award. A single award of $5,000 will be given annually to a high-quality archaeological or historical research project that focuses on significant questions in the archaeology of the Southwest United States or Northwest Mexico. In the spirit of Carryl Martin, projects that allow opportunities for participation by avocationalists will receive special consideration. Applications for the first award cycle will be accepted through our website, www.az-arch-and-hist.org between November 1 and 30, 2016. All applicants must be members of AAHS. Applications will be reviewed by the AAHS Research Committee and the awardee confirmed by the Board of Directors. The successful awardee is expected to submit information on the research topic for use by AAHS in its publications and online media as well as a final report on completion. 40 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 IN MEMORIAM HERBERT WRIGHT, JR. 1917–2015 H erbert E. Wright, Jr. was born in Malden, Massachusetts, on September 13, 1917. He died November 12, 2015, in St. Paul, Minnesota. He attended Harvard University for his B.A. (1939), M.A. (1941), and Ph.D. (1943) degrees in geology. His advisor was Kirk Bryan. Wright was finishing his dissertation when the United States entered World War II. He joined the Army Air Corp and received his Ph.D. while serving as a B-17 pilot in the 8th Air Force in England. In 1946, while at Brown University, he interpreted the stratigraphy at Ksar Akil Cave, an Upper Paleolithic site in Lebanon. This began Wright’s long association with Robert Braidwood of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. In 1951, he investigated the Middle Paleolithic site of Barda Barka in Iraq, in 1954–1955 he was with the Jarmo project in Iraq looking at Neolithic sites, and in 1960, he was at Lake Zeribar, Iran interpreting the regional surficial geology and paleoecology. In 1968–1970 Wright joined Braidwood at Cayonu, Turkey, working on the environmental background to the Neolithic revolution. Wright came to the University of Minnesota in 1948. He established a pollen laboratory there in 1956, recognizing the potential of pollen in lake cores to reconstruct past environments and climates. Soon realizing that lakes had paleo-environmental research potential beyond pollen, Wright established the Limnological Research Center in 1959. He perfected a technique for obtaining and interpreting sediment cores. In 1963, he co-authored a southeastern Minnesota pollen study that established the basic post-glacial vegetational sequence for the Upper Midwest, giving prehistoric cultures an environmental context. In 1966, Wright joined the Minnesota Messenia expedition in Greece to help reconstruct the Bronze Age environment. In the early 1960s, Paul Martin asked for Wright’s assistance in explaining late Pleistocene extinctions of megafauna. In the mid-1970s, William Fitzhugh asked Wright to help with archaeological research in Labrador. He spent portions of five summers there, studying the fire history. Wright then spent parts of six summers in the Peruvian Andes working with archaeologist John Rick and Christine Hasdorf reconstructing the glacial geology and paleoenvironment, focusing on the synchronies of southern to northern hemispheres. Wright assisted Minnesota archaeology graduate student Tom Shay with interpreting the early prehistoric Itasca Bison Site. Wright later assisted many other Minnesota archaeological graduate students, including Julie Stein and Scott Anfinson. The 1971 publication of Shay’s Itasca Bison Kill brought Wright to the attention of Midwestern archaeologists. His contributions to the understanding of the prehistoric environment of North America were soon widely recognized. He assisted Julie Stein and Patty Jo Watson on reconstructing the fluvial and environmental history of the Green River in western Kentucky. With Anfinson, Wright challenged the accuracy of Late Prehistoric climatic periods, noting that climatic trends were best represented by a single curve. He stressed that climatic conditions of the Midwest were not mirrored to the east. In 1984, Herb Wright was given the Pomerance Award for Scientific Contributions to Archaeology by the Archaeological Institute of America. In 1989, he was given the Rip Rapp Archaeological Geology Award from the Geological Society of America. In 1993, the Society for American Archaeology gave him the Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary Research. Wright’s record of helping archaeology is marked by almost 70 years of contributions. This impressive professional accomplishment is only part of the story. Colleagues and former students, whenever together, are quick to lapse into “Herb stories,” reminiscing about the character-building adventures that inevitably occurred in the field with Herb. His ability to withstand the most miserable, life-threatening, and often reckless expeditions, even into his last decade, only adds to the shared bond and sense of pride that former students and friends feel when thinking about Herb Wright. The Quaternary research community will deeply miss this amazing scientist, mentor, and friend. Scott Anfinson, Department of Anthropology University of Minnesota [email protected] Julie Stein, Burke Museum and Department of Anthropology University of Washington [email protected] September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 41 IN MEMORIAM JAMES J. HESTER 1931–2016 I recall meeting Jim while he was a graduate assistant for Professor Frank C. Hibben at the University of New Mexico. This was in 1960, when George Agogino, also at one time a graduate assistant of Hibben, and I were investigating the geochronology of Sandia Cave. After getting his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona in 1961, Jim went to work for the Museum of New Mexico in Santa Fe, where he worked with the director, Fred Wendorf, in pioneering the field of salvage archaeology, later to be known as Cultural Resource Management (CRM). Jim assisted Fred in forming the Society of Professional Archaeologists. In 1962, Jim Hester became a major player in Wendorf’s Southern High Plains Paleoecology project, centered mainly in the Llano Estacado (Staked Plains) of eastern New Mexico and western Texas (Wendorf and Hester 1975). That summer, I was hired by Wendorf to work as a geologist with Jim. We visited most of the Paleoindian sites and many playa lake deposits to collect samples with stratigraphic control for paleoecological studies by such specialists as Kathryn Clisby, James Schoenwetter, and Frank Oldfield studying fossil pollen, Matthew H. Holn, diatoms, Bob Slaughter, vertebrates, and Robert H. Drake, mollusks, to name a few. Our work centered on the gravel pit exposures at Blackwater Locality No. 1, the Clovis type site. The owner and miner of gravel, Sam Sanders, allowed me and Jim to camp on the property using his abandoned Airstream trailer. It became a comfortable dwelling only after we divested it of buckets full of dead moths and eolian silt. In late November, Sam’s mining equipment exposed the skeleton of a mammoth while geologist F. Earl Green of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, was present. With the help of James M. Warnica, founder of the El Llano Archaeological Society, they were able to get Sam to stop mining in that part of the pit, while Jim, with some members of the El Llano Archaeological Society, and Earl, with a crew from Lubbock, began scientific recovery of what turned out to be the remains of five mammoths with associated Clovis artifacts (Warnica 1966). Fred Wendorf then assigned Jim Hester to represent the State of New Mexico at the Clovis site, where Jim not only conducted excavations, but began the systematic documentation of the 1962 finds as well as those of all previous excavations back to 1934. The result is his monumental book Blackwater Locality No. 1, published in 1972. 42 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 In it he not only covers the history of all previous excavations at the site, but also adds sections on all of the artifacts known from the site at that time and includes extensive tables on the typological aspects in Appendix I and on the location, association, and date of finds in Appendix II. In Appendix III, he provides tables of the vertebrate fossil finds and their association with strata, artifacts, and other faunal elements. He includes sections by vertebrate paleontologist Ernest Lundeius, Jr. and stratigrapher Roald Fryxell, who recovered stratigraphic monolithic columns that are archived at Eastern New Mexico University (ENMU) and have yet to be studied. I missed out on the 1962 mammoth finds because, at the recommendation of archaeologist H. Marie Wormington, I had been hired by the Nevada State Museum to study the geology of the Tule Springs site during a major effort to evaluate the archaeological and paleoecological significance of this, at the time, a probable pre-Clovis site from which Willard Libby had obtained a radiocarbon age in excess of 28,000 B.P. Whereas our work showed no evidence of pre-Clovis occupation at Tule Springs, it did provide significant paleoecological data for the Las Vegas Valley (Wormington 1967). By the time I got back to Blackwater Draw in early 1963, the Clovis type site had come under the control of ENMU, with George Agogino in charge. Jim Hester had returned to Santa Fe, frustrated that the plundering of artifacts by some amateur individuals was beyond his control in part because some were close friends of Sam Sanders. But Jim went on to publish his indispensable tome. Wendorf and Jim made a major effort to have the north wall part of the site set aside as a state monument by having the governor visit the spectacular display of the mammoth skeletons. Sanders had agreed to sell that part for $80,000, but the deal was not approved, so the skeletons were removed to storage at ENMU by Agogino and his student crews. Earl Green took one to Lubbock, while Sanders resumed stripping off the late Pleistocene strata to access the commercial gravels below. This exposed a spring conduit with strata containing Clovis, Folsom, and Agate Basin artifacts. Once again, Sanders held off while Earl Green and Jim Warnica salvaged what they could from the fresh exposures (Haynes and Warnica 2012). Before the Clovis site work, Jim had published the first scientific evaluation of the time of the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna in North America based on all available radiocarbon dates at that time (Hester 1960). He continued with the Paleoindian theme in several subsequent publications, including the contributions that 14C dating by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) had made (Hester 1987). His study of the Elida Folsom site (Hester 1962) shows what significant information can be gleaned from a surface scatter of artifacts in a blowout when systematically collected (by Warnica in this case). He also published on the origins of the Clovis culture (Hester 1966). Jim’s interest in Paleoindian studies continued undiminished even as he went on to other endeavors, including what, at the time, was the ultimate archaeological salvage project. This was in 1963 to help recover archaeological data from the Nile Valley in Egypt and Sudan before its flooding by construction of the Aswan High Dam. In my geoarchaeological work with Wendorf’s Combined Prehistoric Expeditions in 1974 at Nabta Playa, it was interesting to learn that Jim Hester had discovered the Neolithic sites there a decade before us (Hester and Hobler 1969). The Egyptian Antiquities Department requires all expeditions to maintain a log book in which all finds are recorded and with photographs tipped in. This huge album is taken to the field each season so recording may be accomplished at the time of discovery. In it we found Hester’s entries for 1963 when our Egyptian agent, Ahmed Hindi, showed it to us in 1974. The locality, a deflated mud flat with thousands of stone artifacts and ceramic fragments scattered about, was not called Nabta Playa at that time, only a site by number. It became a major focus of Wendorf’s field work for many decades thereafter (Wendorf and Schild 1980). Jim’s Bedouin guide in 1963 was Ayed Marif, who happened to be our guide in 1974 and for my expeditions for many years thereafter. On my second visit to Wendorf’s camp at Bir Terfawi, an Acheulian site about 200 km west of Nabta, I was being driven there in the company of Ayed and Dr. Rushdi Said, then director of the Geological Survey of Egypt. Rushdi and Fred were classmates at Harvard in the 1950s. Rushdi had the driver go via a remote blockhouse overlooking a shallow well at Bir Nakhlai north of the border with Sudan. Three of these had been made for Anglo-Egyptian forces during the Dervish war to prevent enemy use of the few watering places that exist in this hyperarid region of the Sahara. As we climbed the rickety wood ladder to the rampart of this small doorless edifice, Ayed said that in 1963 he and Hester had found a desiccated human body inside. It was dressed in Khaki pants, and a wallet contained Algerian currency of the 1940s. There was a bullet hole in the sternum. We moved the ladder to the square hole on top so as to enter the interior but found no body. A year or so ago I asked Jim to tell me more about this situation. He said it was at the blockhouse at Bir Shep, not Nakhlai, where they found the body. He said the fact that it was dressed in Khaki pants and not a traditional Bedouin galabiyah suggested to them that the body probably was that of a Sudanese camel caravan person taking camels to a market in Egypt, and perhaps the death was the result of dissention among the ranks. As to why Ayed told us of the body being at Bir Nakhlai instead of Bir Shep, my best guess is that it is because we were not going by Bir Shep, 30 km to the west-southwest, so he told us the story as if it took place here. The stone blockhouses are identical and that at Bir Shep is on an ancient caravan route, the Darb el Arbain or Road of Forty Days, which is still used by camel caravans, whereas Bir Nakhlai is on a route that has not been used by caravans in the twentieth century. This was pretty close to my last conversation with Jim Hester. He is survived by his wife, Adrienne, and sons, Michael A. Allen, Frederick Randal, and John David. I will miss him dearly. Vance Haynes Regents Professor Emeritus University of Arizona References Haynes, Caleb V., Jr., and James M. Warnica 2012 Geology, Archaeology and Climate Change in Blackwater Draw, New Mexico: F. Earl Green and the Geoarchaeology of the Clovis Type Site. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 15:1–205. Hester, James J. 1960 Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating. American Antiquity 26(1):58–77. 1962 A Folsom Lithic Complex from the Elida Site, Roosevelt County, New Mexico. El Palacio 69(2): 92–113. 1966 Origins of the Clovis Culture. Proceedings of the XXXVI International Congress of Americanists, pp. 127–138. 1972 Blackwater Locality Nol. 1:A Stratified Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Southern Methodist University, pp. 1–239. Hester, James J., and Philip M. Hobler 1969 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Libyan Desert. Anthropology Papers No. 92, Nubian Ser. 4, University of Utah Press, pp. 1–174. Warnica, James M. 1966 New Discoveries at the Clovis Site. American Antiquity 31(3):345–357. Wendorf, Fred, and James J. Hester (editors) 1975 Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Publication No. 9, pp. 1–290. Wendorf, Fred, and Romauld Schild 1980 Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–414. Wormington, H. M., and Ellis D. (editors) 1967 Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, pp. 1–411. September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 43 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports Archaeological Research in Asia Editors: A. Howard, C.O. Hunt JASREP is aimed at those engaged with WKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIVFLHQWLȇFWHFKQLTXHVDQG methodologies to all areas of archaeology. 7KHMRXUQDOSXEOLVKHVSDSHUVRIH[FHOOHQW archaeological science, with regional or ZLGHULQWHUHVWLQFOXGLQJFDVHVWXGLHV reviews and short papers. )LQGRXWPRUHE\YLVLWLQJ Editor-in-Chief: R.L. Bettinger ARASUHVHQWVKLJKTXDOLW\VFKRODUO\ UHVHDUFKFRQGXFWHGLQEHWZHHQWKH %RVSRUXVDQGWKH3DFLȇFRQDEURDGUDQJH RIDUFKDHRORJLFDOVXEMHFWV,WSXEOLVKHVZRUN RQWKHIXOOWHPSRUDOUDQJHRIDUFKDHRORJLFDO LQTXLU\ZLWKDVSHFLDOHPSKDVLVRQWLPH SHULRGVXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGLQRWKHUYHQXHV )LQGRXWPRUHE\YLVLWLQJ elsevier.com/locate/ara elsevier.com/locate/jasrep 'LVFRYHUEHQHȇWVRISXEOLVKLQJZLWK(OVHYLHU 1. Reach more readers 2. Enjoy innovative services 0DNHDVSODVK 4. Monitor impact 5. Get peer reviewed 6. Learn and develop ,PSURYH\RXUPDQXVFULSW :LGHQDUWLFOHRXWUHDFK 9. Choose open access HOVHYLHUFRPDXWKRUEHQHȇWV )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWPRUHMRXUQDOVLQRXUSRUWIROLRYLVLW elsevier.com/archaeology #(OVHYLHU$UFKDHR 44 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016 CALENDAR SEPTEMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 22 NOVEMBER 15 SAA Annual Meeting Submission Deadline Free Online Seminar: Interacting with the Media: Strategies for Pitching and Interviewing (3-4pm EST) Online Seminar: Yes you CAN do that! Creative Mitigation and Section 106 Undertakings (2pm-4pm EST) SEPTEMBER 27 SAA Annual Meeting: Nonmember Participant Join Deadline Online Seminar: Using R Statistical Computing Language for Archaeological Analysis (2pm-4pm EST) DECEMBER 1 SEPTEMBER 17 The Pre-Columbian Society of Washington, D.C., will host its 23rd annual symposium, “Divine Kingship: The Political Ideology of Pre-Columbian Rulers,” on Saturday, September 17, 2016 at the U.S. Navy Memorial and Naval Heritage Center, Washington, D.C. Scholars who specialize in the ideology of rulership will assess the applicability of divine kingship to both Mesoamerican and Andean societies and will examine how rulers used this concept to legitimate their authority. See www.pcswdc.org for details and information about registration. Online Seminar: Tribal Consultation Basics (2pm-4pm EST) OCTOBER 12 Knowledge Series online lecture: If You’re Not Having Fun You’re Not Doing It Right (3pm-4pm EST) DECEMBER 7 Knowledge Series online lecture: Campus Archaeology Programs: Why and How to Create Them (3pm-4pm EST) NOVEMBER 10 Free Online Seminar: Working With Metal Detectorists: Citizen Science at historic Montpelier and Engaging a New Constituency (3pm-4pm EST) JANUARY 30 2017 SAA Annual Meeting: SAA Member Participant Renewal Deadline To learn more about SAA’s Online Seminar Series and lectures, visit www.saa.org and click on the SAA Online Seminar Series banner. SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1111 14th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Change Service Requested Non-Profit Org US POSTAGE PAID HANOVER, PA 17331 PERMIT NO 4 We Want You! Volunteers Needed for the Annual Meeting! SAA is seeking enthusiastic volunteers for the 82nd Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada, who are not only interested in archaeology but who are also looking to save money and have fun. To continue to give volunteers flexibility, SAA will again require only 8 hours of volunteer time! The complimentary meeting registration is the exclusive benefit for your time. Training for the March 29–April 2 meeting will be provided via detailed manuals along with on-the-job training. Training manuals and the volunteer schedule will be sent out via e-mail on Monday, February 6, 2017. As always, SAA staff will be on hand to assist you with any questions or problems that may arise. For additional information and a volunteer application, please go to SAAweb (www.saa.org) or contact Berceste Demiroglu at SAA: 1111 14th Street, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005, Phone +1 (202) 559-7382, Fax +1 (202) 789-0284, or e-mail [email protected]. Applications will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis until February 1, 2017.
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz