HA
IG
Newsletter of the
History of Archaeology
Interest Group
Society for American Archaeology
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Greetings,
It was Christmas Day 2014 as I wrote this. When I compiled the last newsletter in June, I
optimistically thought I would be finalizing the third newsletter of the year for HAIG, but here we
are on issue number 2. Given a packed calendar for myself already in the coming year, including the
2015 Society for American Archaeology (SAA) meeting, I think two issues next year will probably be
likely as well. Part of what has kept me very busy has been related to my virtual archaeology/3D
scanning efforts, but I never keep the important history of archaeology far behind, including
maintaining involvement in HAIG.
We as a group have been quite busy. David Dye’s volume on Tennessee TVA (Tennessee Valley
Authority) archaeology is going through its final stages at the University of Alabama Press, which
has been a great press for the history of archaeology in general. This volume comes out of papers
presented at the 2012 Biennial Gordon R. Willey Symposium on the History of Archaeology at the
SAA meeting in Memphis, Tennessee. Many of the papers presented at the HAIG session in the 2013
SAAs in Honolulu, Hawaii, have or soon will be out in the Bulletin for the History of Archaeology,
which has become an open source journal. The papers on archaeologists from the 1940s to the 1960s
at this year’s Biennial Gordon R. Willey Symposium on the History of Archaeology at the SAA
meeting in Austin, Texas, organized by Pat Trader and myself, are currently being assembled, and
major editing of those papers will consume the first half of next
year by Pat and I. HAIG will of course have a presence at the 2015
SAA annual meeting in San Francisco, California. Organized by
Mark Howe and myself is a session titled “A New Deal for
Western Archaeology.” More on that session in the pages
following. You can also find Donald Ball’s overview of early
efforts to protect archaeological sites on an international level.
We already have a session lined up for the 2016 Biennial Gordon
R. Willey Symposium on the History of Archaeology at the SAA
meeting “Collaborations and Competition between Professionals
and Nonprofessionals in the Production of Archaeological
Knowledge in the Americas,” organized by David R. Wilcox and
Andrew L. Christenson. I hope we will all see you in Orlando,
Florida for those papers.
Happy New Year,
Bernard K. Means
Send contributions to: [email protected]
A Walt Kelly cover in the
public domain.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
A New Deal for Western Archaeology
Organized by Mark Howe and Bernard K. Means for the 2015 SAA Annual Meeting
Session abstract: The New Deal agencies established during the Great Depression were important
1930’s economic programs that are a dynamic part of American history. This symposium will focus
on analysis of these Alphabet Soup agencies, as they were commonly known, and the cultural
heritage projects that were sponsored west of the Mississippi River, including those devoted to
archaeology and to standing structures. These Western New Deal projects were supported by many
of the Federal agencies: Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Civil Works Administration (CWA),
Public Works Administration (PWA), National Youth Administration (NYA) and the Works Progress
Administration (WPA). Contrary to what some scholars have implied, we show that New Deal
archaeology is not confined to the southeastern United States.
Paper abstracts
The International Boundary Commission (IBC) and Projects along the U.S. – Mexico Border (1928 – 1941)
Mark Howe (US State Department – USIBWC)
The International Boundary Commission (IBC) conducted many projects along the entire U.S.
– Mexico border during the Depression. Many of the projects were in cooperation with the Mexican
Commission (Mexico) as per treaty stipulations. These projects were conducted under funds from
agencies such as the Public Works Commission (PWC), Works Progress Administration (WPA) and
others. Examination of the original documents and maps at the present International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC) offices in El Paso, Texas has shown an interesting range of individual and
Commission attitudes to structures and projects. Discussion will focus on the projects along the
border, pertaining to repairs, repainting and costs to the historic monuments defining the border that
were established in the 1800’s. Additionally, a comparison of the monuments and those down the Rio
Grande to the Gulf of Mexico will be examined and discussed.
New Deal Archaeology at Buena Vista Lake in the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Madre Mountains: The
1933-34 CWA-Smithsonian Institution Project in Southern California
Steve James (California State University at Fullerton)
Perhaps the earliest Federal Civil Works Administration (CWA) archaeological project in
California was conducted during the winter of 1933-34 at five sites along Buena Vista Lake in Kern
County by the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE), Smithsonian Institution. The project location
was chosen for several reasons: mild winter climate, high number of unemployed men from nearby
oil towns, and large, deep prehistoric sites. At the height of the excavations, the labor force amounted
to 187 men. BAE archaeologists William D. Strong and William M. Walker directed the work, with
field supervision by Edwin F. Walker (Southwest Museum), and UC Berkeley graduate student
Waldo R. Wedel, who later wrote the final report. As an outgrowth of the project and in order to
determine the boundary between the Yokuts and eastern Chumash, Strong conducted a two-week
archaeological reconnaissance in nearby Cuyama Valley and the Sierra Madre Mountains with local
cattle rancher James G. James, who had explored archaeological sites in the region containing wellpreserved perishable artifacts and was a distant relative of the author (my grandfather’s first cousin).
The significant results of the CWA-Smithsonian Buena Vista Lake project and subsequent survey by
Strong and James are discussed in this presentation.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Desert Digs: New Deal Archaeology in Southern Arizona, 1934-1941
Todd Bostwick (PaleoWest Archaeology) and Steve James (California State University at Fullerton)
The Sonoran Desert of Southern Arizona is well known for its wealth of archaeological sites
left behind by PaleoIndian, Archaic, and Formative period cultures. During the Great Depression,
archaeological surveys and excavation projects provided employment opportunities for hundreds of
young men and women seeking jobs. Bryon Cummings and Emil Haury at the University of Arizona
in Tucson and Odd Halseth at Pueblo Grande Museum in Phoenix took advantage of a variety of
New Deal work programs to undertake these archaeological investigations at a scale previously
unheard of. This presentation summarizes these important projects and discusses how their results
significantly advanced our knowledge of the prehistoric cultures of Southern Arizona through
published and unpublished reports, master’s theses, and museum exhibits. This New Deal
archaeology was undertaken between 1934 and 1941 through the Public Works Administration
(PWA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and Works Project Administration (WPA) at Ventana
Cave, Pueblo Grande, Besh-Ba-Gowah, University Indian Ruin, Valshni Village, Jackrabbit Ruin, and
other sites.
The Legacy of New Deal Programs to Northern Arizona and Southwest Archaeology
Jeanne Shofer (Coconino National Forest) and Peter Pilles (Coconino National Forest)
During the 1930s, federal New Deal programs financed and supported a number of
archaeological projects in northern Arizona. Within National Parks and Monuments, surveys and
excavations were undertaken so that people could see archaeological sites, and visitor centers were
constructed to display and interpret archaeology for the public. Several major expeditions by the
Museum of Northern Arizona were also supported by New Deal programs. Excavations from 1933 to
1939 were directed by professional archaeologists employed by the Museum with laborers and
students financed by the U.S. Civil Works Administration, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
and the Works Progress Administration. This work took place during a time when little was known
about the prehistory of northern Arizona and the field of Southwestern archaeology was relatively
new. The Museum’s excavations formed the basis for numerous publications by Harold S. Colton and
his colleagues that greatly influenced the next 80 years of archaeological research and National Park
Service interpretation. This paper explores the relationship of archaeological research conducted by
the Museum with federal New Deal Programs and its enduring legacy to the archaeological
profession and the American public.
Blast Caps and Other Stories of the CCC on the Gila National Forest: Imaging and Reimagining the North Star
Road
Wendy Sutton (USDA Forest Service, Gila NF)
The CCC and other New Deal agencies were active across the Gila National Forest during the
1930s. The North Star Road (which experienced earlier use as a Military Road) runs alongside the
Gila Wilderness, the nation’s first wilderness area, established in 1924. The road is now sandwiched
between the Gila Wilderness and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness (part of the first Wilderness
established in 1964, under the Wilderness Act). Significant work was conducted along the North Star
Road by the CCC. How does the work conducted within this corridor reflect community priorities
and values associated with the early wilderness movement? How do we manage this unique
landscape and it’s cultural, recreational, and natural values into the future?
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Ruins and Restoration on the Colorado Plateau: Earl Morris and the PWA (Public Works Administration)
Kelly Pool (Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.)
In 1934, the Carnegie Institution “loaned” archaeologist Earl Morris to the National Park
Service to supervise the repair of ruins in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, and Aztec Ruins
National Monument, New Mexico. The NPS had received funding in 1933 for long-term development
projects through New Deal emergency work relief programs, one of which was the Public Works
Administration. The PWA provided money for physical improvements in parks and monuments,
including funding for restoration and stabilization of prehistoric ruins. Morris was recommended for
the job as an acknowledged expert, with previous reconstruction experience at sites such as Chichen
Itza and Canyon de Chelly’s Mummy Cave. With the help of unemployed locals, Native Americans,
and experienced fieldhands, Morris reconstructed the Great Kiva he had excavated a decade earlier at
Aztec and stabilized the Mesa Verde ruins, most notably Cliff Palace. Morris’ work served as a model
for future projects, and a permanent MVNP stabilization team headed by PWA foreman Al Lancaster
grew out of this work. After the PWA, other New Deal programs such as the CCC continued to
undertake stabilization projects in these and other Colorado Plateau parks and monuments.
Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde. Panorama taken by Ben FrantzDale. Used under a Creative Commons License. Image
available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cliff_Palace_at_Mesa_Verde.jpg.
The Civilian Conservation Corps in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico
John Schelberg and Carla Van West (SRI Foundation)
In 1937, a unique Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) sponsored “Indian Mobile Unit” was
established in Chaco Canyon. The camp was located east of Pueblo Bonito and the goal was to train
Navajo men and a woman in stone masonry, ruins stabilization, drainage control, archaeological
excavation, and associated administrative tasks. In 1939, under the direction of National Park Service
(NPS) archaeologist Gordon Vivian, men from the Indian Mobile Unit excavated a small village site
in advance of the construction of CCC camp NP-2-N, designed to house a regular 200 man unit.
Camp NP-2-N was closed in 1941 and the Indian Mobile Unit was closed in 1942. The success of the
Mobile Unit program resulted in the establishment of permanent Ruins Stabilization Units at parks in
the Southwest. The 1939 excavation of the archaeological site, the CCC Site, exposed nine rooms and
associated sheet trash. In 1949, two deeply buried kivas were excavated by the NPS. In the mid 1970s,
the Chaco Project re-excavated portions of the two kivas and Room B in order to obtain
archaeomagnetic dates.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Asa T. Hill, the WPA, and the Fluorescence of Systematic Archaeology in Nebraska
Sandra Barnum (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District)
The most prominent New Deal work-relief program with regard to archaeology was the
Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA), which
existed from 1935 to 1943. Functioning through sponsoring universities, historical societies, and other
agencies, the WPA supported major field and laboratory projects. In Nebraska, almost all of the New
Deal archaeological projects were carried out with WPA-funded labor. Between 1936 and 1941, the
University of Nebraska or the Nebraska State Historical Society drew on such WPA laborers to
excavate numerous sites under the direction of Asa T. Hill. Marvin Kivett deemed Hill the “father of
systematic archeology in Nebraska.” Hill was a self-educated archaeologist. Hill's archeological work
led, in 1933, to his appointment as Director of the Museum and Field Archeology for the Nebraska
State Historical Society. Between 1933 and 1941, extensive surveys and excavations of sites in
Nebraska and Kansas were carried out under his direction, much of which was funded by the WPA.
He mentored or worked alongside a number of prominent figures in early Nebraska archaeology,
including Paul Cooper, Waldo Wedel, John Champe and Duncan Strong. Hill initiated the excavation
methods still used for Plains earthlodge villages.
Pawnee earthlodges at Loup, Nebraska,
with a family standing in front of a lodge
entrance. Photographed by William H.
Jackson, 1873. American Indian Select
List number 84. From US National
Archives. In the public domain.
Combatting the Erosion Menace: The Enduring Legacy of the CCC Within the Silver City Watershed
Elizabeth Toney, Gila National Forest, Silver City Ranger District
By the summer of 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) had constructed over 3000
checkdams within the Silver City Watershed. Men working in Little Walnut CCC Camp located a
few miles outside of Silver City, New Mexico were focused on rehabilitating the Silver City
Watershed from 1933-1940. Many of these features are still visible and functioning on the lands
administered by Gila National Forest, Silver City Ranger District. These water and erosion control
features are not only a testament to the craftsmanship of the CCC men who constructed them, but
also a testament to conservation ethic that in large part began with Aldo Leopold’s assertion that soil
erosion was a “menace” to the social and economic future of the Southwest. The CCC built upon this
ethic and rapidly acquired the techniques in building checkdams throughout the Silver City
Watershed so that by the end 1934 over 15,000 erosion control features had been constructed within
the watershed. This paper explores the enduring legacy of these features within the Silver City
Watershed and explores how to manage these CCC landscapes.
Discussant
Bernard K. Means (Virtual Curation Laboratory)
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
THE INTERNATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMISSION:
AN EARLY PLAN TO PROTECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Donald B. Ball
Independent Researcher, Louisville, Kentucky
Far from being a matter of concern originating among modern archaeologists, our colleagues at the dawn of
the twentieth century where likewise confronted with the dual challenges of preventing the relentless wanton
destruction of prehistoric sites and preserving both archaeological properties and remains. To this end, one
noteworthy early international attempt to address these problems had its roots in the Second Pan-American
Congress convened in Mexico City from October 22, 1901, through January 31, 1902. As a result of that
meeting, a proposal to establish an “American International Archaeological Commission” was signed on
January 29, 1902, by delegates representing Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, the United States, and
Uruguay. The following early accounts of this effort – a forerunner to later United Nations conventions on the
same subject – should be of interest to readers of the HAIG Newsletter.
The following summary of this proposal appeared in the 1902 English language edition of the conference
proceedings (Anonymous 1902a:22):
In order that the archaeological and ethnological remains existing in the territory of the several
Republics of the Western Hemisphere might be systematically studied and preserved, the conference
adopted a resolution providing for the meeting of an American international archaeological
commission in the city of Washington, D. C., within two years from the date of the adoption of the
resolution. This commission is to be composed of one delegate or more from each Republic; it is to meet
at least once in each year; it is to have power to appoint subcommissions to be charged especially with
explorations and with the cleaning and preservation of the ruins of the principle prehistoric cities,
establishing at each of them a museum to contain objects of interest found in the locality; and it is to
endeavor to establish in the city selected by a majority of the Republics, an American international
museum, which is to become the center of all the investigations and interpretations of the evidence of
prehistoric American civilization. Each government is to defray the expenses of its representatives on
the commission, and the general expenses of the commission are to be apportioned among the
Republics on the same basis as the expenses of the International Bureau of the American Republics are
apportioned. The International Bureau of the American Republics is made the accounting department
of the commission.
Before the end of 1902, the United States designated a representative to this praiseworthy attempt to bring
about international cooperation in preserving archaeological sites and while unstated curbing a growing
antiquities market. The November 13, 1902, issue of The Evening Times tersely reported (Anonymous 1902b):
STATE DEPARTMENT
Prof W. J. [William John] McGee [Figure 1], of the Bureau of American Ethnology, yesterday was
appointed by the President [Theodore Roosevelt] through the Secretary of State to represent the United
States on the American International Archaeological Commission, the creation of which was
recommended by the second international conference of American States held in Mexico last winter
A subsequent notice of the organization of the Commission appeared in the December 22, 1903, issue of The
Washington Times. As discussed therein (Anonymous 1903):
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Figure 1. William John McGee (1853-1912), one of the American representatives
to the International Archaeological Commission (public domain photograph).
COMMISSION FOR STUDY OF ARCHAEOLOGY MEETS.
Representatives of American Republics Form International Body
to Investigate and Preserve Old Relics.
With representatives present from Mexico, Peru, Central American republics, and the United
States a meeting was held in the diplomatic room of the State Department yesterday afternoon to form
the International Archaeological Commission, the principal purpose of which is to be the preservation
and study of old relics on both American continents. Mexico was represented by the Mexican
ambassador and Dr. Chavero, an eminent archaeologist from that country, and Peru’s minister, Senor
Calderon, was present. The United States had the following delegates: Prof. Holmes of the Smithsonian
Institution; Volney W. Foster of Chicago; W. J. McGee, of Washington, and Francis J. Kelsey of Ann
Arbor.
A large number of South American republics had no representation, and the meeting was
therefore adjourned until next December [1904] when a majority report on the plan will be received.
The commission grows out of the Pan-American congress in Mexico in 1901 when representatives for
the commission were appointed.
Uniformity of methods in archaeology and ethnology as well as the preservation of Indian
mounds, old ruins, and relics is the purpose of the commission.
Further elaboration of the goals of the Commission was reported in the January 10, 1904, issue of The St.
Louis Republic which noted (Anonymous 1904a):
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
INDIAN RELICS TO BE PROTECTED FROM VANDALS.
Plan to Collect Aborigines’ Handiwork for a National Exhibit Recently Agreed Upon.
REPUBLIC SPECIAL.
Washington, Jan. 9 [1904]. – Indian mounds, cliff dwellings, and other relics left by the
aborigines of North and South America are to be protected from vandals and preserved for historical
research if plans of the International Commission of Archaeology and Ethnology are carried out:
The recent meeting was attended by the Mexican Ambassador, the Peruvian Minister and
scientists representing Mexico, Peru and the United States.
A majority of the South American Republics were not represented, however, and it was decided
to postpone permanent organization until next December, by which time all [of] the countries in the
Western Hemisphere will, it is expected, declare themselves in favor of the plans of the commission.
The Pan-American Congress, held in the City of Mexico, 1901-02, started the movement for
forming the commission, the purpose of which is “to promote the unification of laws relative to
antiquities in the Western Hemisphere, to increase and diffuse knowledge concerning these antiquities,
and of the aboriginal peoples by whom they were produced, and to encourage the collection in suitable
museums of the remaining vestiges of these early peoples.”
A call was issued for a meeting at the Department of State of the United States last April 13
[1903], at which preliminary steps were taken for the organization. There is now every indication that
the commission will meet with every success.
Its work will be of incalculable benefit for historical research. A prominent archaeologist of
Washington said:
“There are on this continent relics of the aboriginal inhabitants of incalculable value to scientists
and historians could their secrets but be properly revealed. For this to be done the relics must be placed
in proper care. They are vestiges of a vanishing race, and if we do not act promptly their usefulness will
be destroyed forever.
“Vandals will wreak destruction on them, and monuments rich in lore for the student of research
will be scattered to the four winds. Bereft of their setting and environment they lose much of their
archaeological and ethnological value, and then there is the wanton destruction of historic ruins which
the settlement of ancient sites brings about.
“Take for instance the wonderful cliff dwellings and pueblos in the southwest region of Arizona
and New Mexico. There is much exploration yet to be done by archaeologists in that region, and their
researches will bring forth knowledge of great benefit to science.
“These relics should be preserved; furthermore, they should be more thoroughly investigated
and their historical treasures made use of. This is the very purpose for which the international
commission was organized. Then there are the Indian mounds, curious graveyards left by the tribes of
red men who roamed all over this continent. In these mounds the warriors were buried, with all their
paraphernalia.
“The student of Indian ethnology could have no better guide than the relics to be found in the
Indian mounds, some of which are as large as small mountains. The largest is the Kahokia [sic] mound,
in the bottoms of Illinois. The next largest is the Etowah mound, in Southern Georgia. The value of this
latter has already been impaired by vandals and the depredations of curio seekers. In Florida there are
many ancient Indian forts and ruins. In fact, all over the United States are ruins which would be well
worth preserving.
“The commission will collect Indian arrow heads, pottery and everything of that character. They
will establish one or more archaeological and ethnological museums of international character, and
these museums will be so conducted that there will be an exchange of relics. In Mexico they have a
superfluity, of Aztec sculptures and pottery which they would be willing to exchange for some relic of
the aborigines of our own country. South America is, of course, rich in archaeological relics, and they
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
are deeply interested in the plan to make a study of the early races and the antiquities of these two
continents.”
Despite the seemingly enthusiastic reception on the part of the 1902 signatories to the initial resolution and
subsequently attracting positive attention on the part of the American archaeological community (e.g., McGee
1902), newspapers of the era (e.g., Anonymous 1902c; 1902d; 1904a), and the Smithsonian Institution
(Anonymous 1905:22-24), the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution ...for the Year
Ending June 30, 1904 remarked (Anonymous 1905:23) that as of mid-February 1904 “that practically no action
was taken” to bring this proposed undertaking to fruition.” Anonymous (1904b:823) elaborated upon this
inactivity in observing that, “The Governments of Mexico, Peru, and the United States have accepted the
project as submitted, but all the other Governments of the International Union, except that of the Argentine
Republic, whose representative at Washington has informed the Director that the Argentine Republic will not
become a party to the plan, have not yet definitely acted upon it.” Thereafter the idea for creating the
International Archaeological Commission appears to have fallen by the proverbial wayside. As commendable
and desirable as the goals of the Commission may have been, it appears that its establishment was an idea far
in advance of its time. Perhaps other readers of the HAIG Newsletter might further expand upon the history of
this admirable but ill-fated early attempt to promote international archaeological collaboration.
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous
1902a Second International Conference of American States. Senate Document No. 330, 57th Congress, 1st Session.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1902b The Departments and the Department Workers. The Evening Times, Thursday, November 13, 1903, pg.
5, col. 2. Washington, D.C.
1902c Plans for International Archaeological Work. The Washington Times, Sunday, August 10, 1902, pg. 7,
cols. 1-4. Washington, D. C.
1902d To Preserve Ruins of Prehistoric Cities. The St. Paul Globe, Thursday, November 13, 1902, pg. 6, col. 2.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
1903 Commission for Study of Archaeology Meets. The Washington Times, Tuesday, December 22, 1903, pg. 2,
col. 3. Washington, D.C.
1904a Indian Relics to be Protected from Vandals. The St. Louis Republic, Sunday, January 10, 1904, Part 1, pg.
10, cols. 2-3. St. Louis, Missouri.
1904b
Boletín Mensual de la Oficina Internacional de las Repúblicas Americanas, Unión Internacional de las
Repúblicas Americanas (Bulletin of the Pan-American Union). Vol. XVIII, Octubre-Diciembre 1904. Imprinta
del Gobierno, Washington, D.C.
1905
Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution ...for the Year Ending June 30, 1904.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
McGee, W. J.
1902 Anthropology at Pittsburg. American Anthropologist 43(3):464-481.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Recent or Noteworthy Publications
Editor’s note: As is usual and very much appreciated, Marlin Hawley has worked diligently and most
of the references below result from his efforts.
Barnes, Monica
2013a John L. Cotter’s Excavations at Huánuco Pampa and his Role in the Regional Survey (1964). Andean
Past 11:291-300.
2013b John Victor Murra, Arquelogo Accidental: de Cerro Narrío a Huánuco Pampa. Actes & Mémoires de
l”institute Français d’Études Andines 34:551-574.
Coote, Jeremy
2014 Archaeology, Anthropology, and Museums, 1851–2014: Rethinking Pitt-Rivers and His Legacy – An
Introduction. Museum History Journal 7(2):126–134.
Derricourt, Robin
2014 The Changing Careers of Vere Gordon Childe. Antiquity 88(340):632-638.
Dye, David H. and Marlin F. Halwley
2014 Mentoring Tom Lewis. The SAA Archaeological Record 14 (4):17-22.
Effros, Bonnie
2012 Uncovering the Germanic Past: Merovingian Archaeology in France, 1830-1914. Oxford University Press.
Evolutionary Anthropology
2014 George Armelagos, 1936-2014. Evolutionary Anthropology 23(3):81-82.
Frison, George
2014 Rancher Archaeologist: A Career in Two Different Worlds. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Ganger, Stefanie
2014 Relics of the Past: The Collecting and Studying of Pre-Columbian Antiquities in Peru and Chile, 1837 – 1911.
Oxford University Press.
Green, Adrian
2014 Salisbury Museum and General Pitt-Rivers’s Wessex Collection, 1975–2014. Museum History Journal,
7(2): 224–243.
Grove, David C.
2014 Discovering the Olmecs: An Unconventional History. The University of Texas Press.
Hannson, Ulf R.
2014 Adolf Furtwängler (1853–1907): ‘The Linnaeus of classical archaeology.’ Antiquity 342 project gallery.
Available online at: http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hansson342
Higgins, Jr., Donald P. and Marvin D. Jeter
2010 A Prescient 1880 Study of "The Mound-Builders of Arkansas". Arkansas Archaeology 50.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Hrdy, Sarah and Patricia Wright
2014 Allison Jolly: A Supremely Social Intelligence (1937-2014). Evolutionary Anthropology 23(4):121-125.
James, Steven R., and Peter J. Pilles, Jr.
2014 Pioneering Late Nineteenth-Century Archaeologists in the Verde Valley. Archaeology Southwest
Magazine 28(2):6-7.
Kaiser, Alaon
2014 Archaeology, Sexism, and Scandal: The Long-Suppressed Story of One Woman's Discoveries and the Man Who
Stole Credit for Them. Rowan and Littlefield Publishers
Kirch, Patrick V.
2 014 Understanding the Hawaiian Past: A Personal Reflection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 5(2):109-114.
Klejn, Leo S.
2013 Soviet Archaeology: Trends, Schools, and History. Oxford University Press.
Kohl, Philip L., Irina Podgorny, and Stefanie Gänger (editors)
2014 Nature and Antiquities: The Making of Archaeology in the Americas. University of Arizona Press.
Kosakowsky, Laura J. and Norman Yoffee
2014 T. Patrick Culbert, 1930-2013. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1):5-7.
Merrillees, Robert S.
2013 Veronica Seton-Williams: A Proud Australian Archaeologist. Buried History 49.
Morton, Christopher
2014 The Place of Photographs in the Collections, Displays, and Other Work of General Pitt-Rivers. Museum
History Journal 7(2):168–187.
Moser, Stephanie
2014 Making Expert Knowledge through the Image: Connections between Antiquarian and Early Modern
Scientific Illustration. Isis 105:58-99.
Movius, Geoffrey H.
2013 Nancy Ch. De C. Movius and Her ‘Unusual Career’. Buried History 49.
Myer, William Edward. Edited by Donald B. Ball
2014 Stone Age Man in the Middle South and Other Writings. Two Volumes. Borgo Publishing.
Pearson, Charles E., and Richard A. Weinstein
2014 “The Man with Mustache:” A Previously Unknown Portrait of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. Horizon &
Tradition: The Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeology Conference 56(1):11-13.
Peebles, Giovanna M.
2013 Looking Back at Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management in the United States and Vermont
Through a Forty-Year Mirror. Journal of Vermont Archaeology 13.
Newsletter of the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group
Volume 4, Number 2
December 2014
Petch, Alison
2014 Two Nineteenth-Century Collectors-Curators Compared and Contrasted: General Augustus Henry
Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers (1827–1900) and Augustus Wollaston Franks (1826–1897). Museum History Journal
7(2):188–204.
Pitt-Rivers, A. H. L.F.
2014 On the Uses and Arrangement of Arts Museums: Illustrated by Series from the Pitt-Rivers Museums at
Oxford and Farnham, Dorset. Museum History Journal 7(2):135–154.
Podgomy, Irina
2015 Human Origins in the New World? Rorentino Ameghino and the Emergence of Prehistoric
Archaeology in the New World. PaleoAmerica 1.
Pond, Dorothy
2014 If Women Have Courage…: Among Shepherds, Sheiks and Scientists in Algeria. Africa Verlag, Frankfurt,
Germany.
Rivière, Peter
2014 General Pitt-Rivers and the Evolutionist Anthropologists. Museum History Journal 7(2): 155–167.
Robin, Cynthia
2014 Elizabeth Brumfiel, 1945-2012. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1):1-4.
Saunders, Peter
2014 ‘The Choicest, Best-Arranged Museums I Have Ever Seen’: The Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset,
1880s–1970s. Museum History Journal 7(2):205–223.
Sheets, Payson
2014 Robert J. Sharer, 1940-2012. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1):9-10.
Sheppard, Kathleen L.
2013 The Life of Margaret Alice Murray: A Woman’s Work in Archaeology. Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
Stallcop, Emmett A., Leslie B. Davis, John Brumley and Ann M. Johnson
2012 A Brief History of the Milk River Archaeological Society. Archaeology in Montana 53(2):7-14.
Stevenson, Alice
2012 An Amateur's Prehistory: A View from James A. Swan's South African Collections. The South African
Archaeological Bulletin 67 (195):52-58.
Taylor, R. E.
2014 Passing of the Last of the Three Who Established 14C Dating: A Historical Footnote. Radiocarbon 56:913921.