The SAA Archaeological Record - September 2016

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
User Guide for Luminescence The Untapped Potential

Values-Based Management of
Archaeological Resources at a Sampling in Archaeological of Magnetic Survey in the
Landscape Scale and Geological Contexts +FGPVKƂECVKQPQH2TGEQPVCEV
Francis P. McManamon, John Doershuk, William D. Lipe, Tom McCulloch,
Michelle S. Nelson, Harrison J. Gray, Jack A. Johnson, Tammy M. Rittenour,
James K. Feathers, and Shannon A. Mahan
Archaeological Sites in
Wooded Areas
Christopher Polglase, Sarah Schlanger, Lynne Sebastian,and Lynne Sullivan
Historically, there are examples of large public include: the Wetherill Mesa program at Mesa
INTRODUCTION Feathers 2003; Jacobs and Roberts 2007; Lian and Roberts 2006;
projects in which more broadly conceived Verde National Park (Hayes 1964); the Dolores Liritzis et al. 2013; Preusser et al. 2008; Rhodes 2011; Rittenour Lisa Hodgetts, Jean-Francois Millaire, Edward Eastaugh,
approaches have been used to assess the value Archaeological Program in southwestern Colorado Use of geochronologic techniques has become a cornerstone
of archaeological research, Quaternary geology, and paleoen-
2008; Roberts 1997; Wintle 2008). The number of publications
reporting luminescence results has increased substantially since and Claude Chapdelaine
of archaeological resources in a management (Dolores Archaeological Program 2015); the vironmental reconstruction. Luminescence dating, including the development of single-aliquot and single-grain dating
area prior to development or for the mitigation Theodore Roosevelt Dam Studies (Theodore optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating (Huntley et al. methods (Figure 1). Due to the increased demand for lumines- Wooded sites are often among the best preserved typical of such sites. Unfortunately, evaluating
1985) and thermoluminescence (TL) dating (Aitken 1985), can cence dating, we present a sampling guide for archaeologists
QHKPHTCUVTWEVWTGRTQLGEVKORCEVUVQUKIPKƂECPV Roosevelt Dam Studies 2015); the Jamestown be an important tool for archaeologists and geologists, as the and geologists who wish to apply luminescence dating to their precontact archaeological sites in North America the archaeological potential of wooded areas
archaeological resources (Altschul 1997). Examples Archeological Assessment (Brown and Horning technique is widely applicable to diverse archaeological settings research. (Note: Terms that appear in bold are defined in the since they are protected from ploughing, which is challenging because many of the techniques
and depositional environments (e.g., see reviews by Duller 2004; glossary in the sidebar.)
of such management and mitigation approaches 2006; Colonial National Historical Park 2001); and often destroys the small, shallow features that archaeologists use to locate and map
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
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. Û>Õ>Ì}Ìi>ÀV>i}V>«ÌiÌ>vÜì`>Ài>ÃÃvÌi`vwVÕÌLiV>ÕÃi>ÞvÌiÌiVµÕiÃ>ÀV>i}ÃÌÃVÞ
Public agencies at all levels of government and other organizations that manage archaeological resources often face the problem of ÕÃiÌV>Ìi>`>«>ÀV>i}V>ÃÌiÃiÃiÜiÀi>ÀiiÃÃivviVÌÛiÌiÌÀiiÃ°ÀÕ`VÛiÀìÀÃÌiÛÃÕ>ìÌwV>Ìv
Sampling strategies are diverse and can be customized depending on local circumstances, although all sediment samples need to
>ÞÕìÀÌ>}ÃÌ>ÌViVÌÛiÞ«>VÌ>À}iÕLiÀÃv`Û`Õ>ÞÃ}wV>Ì>ÀV>i}V>ÀiÃÕÀViÃ°-ÕVÃÌÕ>ÌÃ>ÀÃi ÃÕÀv>Vi>ÀÌv>VÌÃ`ÕÀ}«iìÃÌÀ>ÃÕÀÛiÞ]>`ÌiÌÀiiV>«Þ«iìÃ>ÞvÌiÌiVµÕiÃÕÃi`Ì>«>Ài>ÃvÌiÀiÃÌ]ÃÕV
include a light-safe sample and material for dose-rate determination. The accuracy and precision of luminescence dating results are
when an agency is managing a large area, such as a national forest, land management district, park unit, wildlife refuge, or military >Ã«ÌV>Ìi`ÌiÃ>`*-°-ÛiÌiÃÌ«ÌÌ}]ÜV`ÃÌÕÀLÃÌiÌi}ÀÌÞvÃÌiÃ>`«ÀÛìÃÌi`VÌiÝÌÕ>vÀ>Ì]
directly related to the type and quality of the material sampled and sample collection methods in the field. Selection of target material
ÃÌ>>Ì°/iÃiÃÌÕ>ÌÃ>Ã>Þ>ÀÃiÀi}>À`Ì>À}iÃV>iìÛi«iÌ«ÀiVÌÃ]ÃÕV>ÃiiÀ}ÞìÛi«iÌÃ]}Ü>ÞÃ] ÃÌiÃÌViÌ`ÕÃi`ÌiÛ>Õ>ÌiÜ`ÌÃÌ`>Þ°}ÌvVÀi>Ã}ÌiÀiÃÌvÀ`}iÕÃ«i«iÃÌ}
for dating should include considerations of adequacy of resetting of the luminescence signal (optical and thermal bleaching), the
ÀiÃiÀÛÀÃ]ÌÀ>ÃÃÃiÃ]>`ÌiÀ>ÀvÀ>ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi«ÀiVÌÃÌ>ÌVÛiÀÃÕLÃÌ>Ì>>Ài>Ã°"ÛiÀÌi]Ìi>VVÕÕ>Ì Ìi«>VÌv>ÀV>i}V>ÜÀÌiÀVÕÌÕÀ>iÀÌ>}i]Üi>ÀiÌiÃÌ}iÃÃÛ>ÃÛiiÌ`ÃÌV>Ìi>`>«>ÀV>i}V>
ability to characterize the radioactive environment surrounding the sample (dose rate), and the lack of evidence for post-depositional
v«>VÌÃvÀÃ>ÃV>i«ÀiVÌÃÌ`Û`Õ>>ÀV>i}V>ÀiÃÕÀViÃ>Þì}À>ì>`ÃV>«iÀÀi}>ÃV>iVÕÌÕÀ> ÃÌiÃÜÌÜì`>Ài>Ã°iÀi]Üi«ÀiÃiÌÌiÀiÃÕÌÃv>>}iÌVÃÕÃVi«ÌLÌÞÃÕÀÛiÞ>Üì`«ÀiVÌ>VÌÃÌiÃÕÌiÀ
mixing (bioturbation in soils and sediment). Sample strategies for collection of samples from sedimentary settings and fired materials
«ii>°/Þ«V>Þ]ÌiÃi«>VÌÃ>ÀiÌ}>Ìi`>ÌÌiÃÌiiÛiÜÌÕÌÀi}>À`ÌÜÌi«>VÌÃÌ`Û`Õ>ÀiÃÕÀViÃ>vviVÌ
are discussed. This paper should be used as a guide for luminescence sampling and is meant to provide essential background +ÕiLiV]ÜiÀiÌiÌiVµÕiÀ>«`ÞìÌiÀi`ÃÌiÌÃ>`««Ìi`ÌiV>ÌvÃiÛiÀ>}ÕÃiÃ>`ÌiÀvi>ÌÕÀiÃ°
ÌiLÀ>ìÀ««Õ>ÌvÀiÃÕÀViÃ°ƂVÌÃÌÌ}>Ìi«>VÌÃÀ>ÀiÞ>ÀiìÃ}i`Ì`ÀiÌ>>Û`ÀiÃÕÀViÃÀiÃÕÀi
information on how to properly collect samples and on the types of materials suitable for luminescence dating. 7iÀi}i}V>V`ÌÃ>ÀiÃÕÌ>Li]ÌÃiÌ`VÕ`VÃìÀ>LÞÀi`ÕViÌiVÃÌ>`«>VÌv>ÀV>i}V>>ÃÃiÃÃiÌ
ÃiiÛiv`>Ì>ÀiVÛiÀÞ>ÌÃ}iÃÌiÃ°-ÕVÌ}>Ì>VÌÛÌiÃ>ÀiV>«>Liv>``ÀiÃÃ}ÀiÃi>ÀVµÕiÃÌ>Ì>>`ÃV>«iÀ
>`ÛiÃÌ}>ÌvÜì`ÃÌiÃLÞLÌVÕÌÕÀ>ÀiÃÕÀVi>>}iiÌ
,®>`>V>ìV>ÀV>i}ÃÌÃ°
Ài}>ÃV>i°
½jÛ>Õ>Ì`Õ«ÌiÌi>ÀVj}µÕi`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃiÃÌÃÕÛiÌ>À`ÕiDV>ÕÃiì>«ÀjÃiViìÃ>ÀLÀiÃµÕÀj`ÕÃiÌ
ÃÀ}>ÃÃ«ÖLVÃìÌ`ÃÃÛiiÃì}LiÀÞÌÀ>ÃÀ}>â>ViÃµÕi>`ÃÌÀ>ÀiVÕÀÃÃ>ÀµÕi}VÃ>iÕ` La datación por luminiscencia proporciona una estimación directa de la edad del último momento en el que el cuarzo o los minerales ìLi>ÕVÕ«½ivwV>VÌjìÃÌiVµÕiÃVÕÀ>iÌÕÌÃjiÃ«ÕÀV>ÃiÀiÌV>ÀÌ}À>«iÀiÃÃÌiÃ>ÀVj}µÕiÃ°iVÕÛiÀÌ
ÃiivÀiÌ>>«ÀLi>ìÕV>Ãi«ÀiÃ>Ã`Û`Õ>iÃµÕi>viVÌ>>Õ}À>ÖiÀìÀiVÕÀÃÃ>ÀµÕi}VÃÃ}wV>ÌÛÃ de feldespato se expusieron a la luz o al calor y que se ha aplicado exitosamente a depósitos, superficies rocosas y materiales
Ûj}jÌ>Ài``vwVi½ìÌwV>ÌÛÃÕiiìÃ>ÀÌiv>VÌÃiÃÕÀv>ViiÌiVÕÛiÀÌvÀiÃÌiÀLµÕiiÃÃ}>ÕÝÕÌÃjÃ«>ÀÕ}À>`
`Û`Õ>iÌi° ÃÌiÌ«ìÃÌÕ>ViÃÃi«ÀiÃiÌ>VÕ>`Õ>>}iV>iÃ>}iÃÌìÕ?Ài>}À>ì]VÕLÃµÕi expuestos al fuego en distintos contextos arqueológicos y geológicos. Las estrategias de muestreo son diversas y pueden ser
LÀiìÌiVµÕiÃìV>ÀÌ}À>«iViiÃÌj`ÌiÃ«ÌµÕiÃiÌiÃ*-`vvjÀiÌiÃ°>jÌì>«ÕÃVÕÀ>iÌ
>V>]`ÃÌÀÌì>`ÃÌÀ>V]Õ`>`ì«>ÀµÕi]ÀivÕ}ìÛ`>ÃÛiÃÌÀi]>ÃÌ>>VÌ>À°/>Lj«ÕiìÃÕÀ}Ài individualizadas dependiendo de las circunstancias locales, aunque todas las muestras de sedimentos deben incluir una muestra
Ài>VVÃ«ÀÞiVÌÃììÃ>ÀÀ>}À>iÃV>>]V>iÛÕVì>iiÀ}>]V>ÀÀiÌiÀ>Ã]iL>ÃiÃ]i>ÃìÌÀ>ÃÃÞ
ÕÌÃji>ÕÕÀ`½Õ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃiÃÌ>«ÀÃ«iVÌ«>ÀÃ`>}i]ÕiÌiVµÕiµÕ«iÀÌÕÀLiiÃÀiÃÌiÃ>ÀVj}µÕiÃiÌ
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
ÌÀÃ«ÀÞiVÌÃìvÀ>iÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀ>«ÀÌ>ÌiÃ°
iÌi«]>>VÕÕ>VìÌ>iÃ«>VÌÃÌ>Lj«Õiìì}À>`>Ài«>Ã>i vÕÀÌ«iÕ`½vÀ>ÌVÌiÝÌÕii°
ÃViÌÃì½ÌjÀkÌVÀÃÃ>ÌìÃ«iÕ«iÃ>ÕÌVÌiÃ«ÕÀÌiÀ½«>VÌìÃÌÀ>Û>ÕÝ
datación por luminiscencia están directamente relacionadas con el tipo y la calidad de los materiales muestreados y los métodos de
ìiÃV>>Ài}>ÃviiÃVÕÌÕÀ>iÃ° À>iÌi]iÃÌÃiviVÌÃÃiÌ}>V>VViÃ`Û`Õ>iÃÃÌiiÀiVÕiÌ> >ÀVj}µÕiÃÃÕÀiÕÀ«>ÌÀiVÕÌÕÀi]ÕÃ>ÛÃÌiÃÌjìÃjÌìÃÃÛ>ÃÛiÃ«ÕÀV>ÃiÀiÌV>ÀÌ}À>«iÀiÃÃÌiÃ
recolección de muestras en el campo. La elección del material de estudio para su datación debe incluir las siguientes consideraciones
VÃ«>VÌÃ>ÃÀiVÕÀÃÃ`Û`Õ>iÃ>viVÌ>>>«L>Vi}iiÀ>ìÃÀiVÕÀÃÃ°ƂVViÃ«>À>Ì}>ÀÃ«>VÌÃ >ÀVj}µÕiÃ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃ° ÕÃ«ÀjÃiÌiÀÃViÃÀjÃÕÌ>ÌÃìÌÀ>Û>ÕÝìÌjj`jÌiVÌ`>ÃÕLÃj`ÕÃÕ``Õ
en torno a la idoneidad de poder reposicionar la señal de luminiscencia (blanqueador óptico y térmico), la capacidad de caracterizar
À>À>ÛiâiÃÌ?`Ãi>`Ã«>À>>ViÀ>}?ÃµÕi>Ãi}ÕÀ>ÀÕViÀÌÛiìÀiVÕ«iÀ>Vì`>ÌÃiÃÃÌÃ`Û`Õ>iÃ° ÃÌi +ÕjLiVÙÕi«ÀÃ«iVÌ«>ÀÃÕÃVi«ÌLÌj>}jÌµÕiÕÃ>«iÀÃìÀ>«ìiÌ`jÌiÀiÀiÃÌiÃ`½ÕÃÌi«ÀjVÌ>VÌ
el ambiente radiactivo que rodea la muestra (la tasa de la dosis) y el que no exista evidencia de una alteración posdeposicional
Ì«ì>VÌÛ`>ìÃìÌ}>VÃV>«>ViÃì>ViÀvÀiÌi>>«Ài}ÕÌ>ìÛiÃÌ}>ViÕ«>Ã>iiÃV>>Ài}>° iÌìV>ÃiÀ«ÕÃiÕÀÃ>ÃÃ}ÕiÃiÌ>ÕÌÀiÃÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÃ>ÀVj}µÕiÃ°DÙiÃV`ÌÃ}j}µÕiÃÃÌv>ÛÀ>LiÃ]ViÌÌi
(bioperturbación en suelos y sedimentos). Se discuten las estrategias de muestreo para la recolección de muestras de contextos
jÌì«ÕÀÀ>ÌVÃ`jÀ>LiiÌÀj`ÕÀiiV×ÌiÌ½«>VÌìÃÌiÀÛiÌÃ>ÀVj}µÕiÃ`>ÃiÃâiÃLÃjiÃ`>ÃiV>`Ài
sedimentarios y de materiales expuestos al fuego. Este artículo debe utilizarse como una guía para el muestreo por luminiscencia
ìÌÀ>Û>ÕÝ`½>ÀVj}iVÌÀ>VÌÕiiÕ>V>`jµÕi°
y tiene la 2.
FIGURE intención de proveer
Illustration información
of traditional básica de
OSL sample cómo recolectar
collection muestras
by pounding y sobre
a tube intolos
antipos de materiales
outcrop exposure:apropiados para la
(a) circle depicts
datación
area por luminiscencia.
of surrounding sediment that should be uniformly sampled for dose-rate analysis; (b) measurement of the burial depth,
Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(2), 2016, pp. 132–148 indicating any recent changes to depth through deposition or erosion..
Copyright 2016© The Society for American Archaeology Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(1), 2016, pp. 41–54
DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.4.2.132 Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(2), 2015, pp. 166–177 Copyright 2016© The Society for American Archaeology
Copyright 2015© The Society for American Archaeology DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.41
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 8 Ora Marek-Martinez
American Scholarships Committee
Volunteer Profile: Dorothy Lippert 10
Call for Editor: American Antiquity 11
Welcome to Vancouver: 12 Andrew Martindale and Mark Guerin
A Place of Contestation about the Past
Member Survey: Repatriation and 14 Diane Gifford Gonzalez

SAA’s Relationship to NAGPRA
SAA Repatriation Survey Analysis 15 Elise Alonzi
Responses to Survey Results 21
Sharing Space: Football Meets the 28 E. Cory Sills

5,000-Year-Old LSU Campus Mounds
Coyote Skull and Digging Sticks: Behavioral Models 32 R.E. Burrillo
and Preservation Imperatives in the Archaeological
Southwest
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 Anna Marie Prentiss
(ISSN 1532-7299) is published five
times a year and is edited by Anna
Marie Prentiss. Submissions should Anna Marie Prentiss is Professor in the Department of Anthropology at The University of Montana.
be sent to Anna Marie Prentiss, anna
[email protected], Depart-
ment of Anthropology, The Universi-
ty of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812.
Deadlines for submissions are:

December 1 (January), February 1 The September 2016 issue of The SAA Archaeological Record (tSAR) is largely dedicated
(March), April 1 (May), August 1
(September), and October 1 (Novem-
to presentation and discussion of the results of SAA’s 2015 survey of membership
ber). Advertising and placement ads regarding repatriation and SAA’s position regarding the Native American Graves Pro-
should be sent to SAA headquarters, tection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The survey was initiated by SAA’s Board of
1111 14th St. NW, Suite 800, Wash- Directors under previous SAA President Jeff Altschul. The summary and responses
ington, DC 20005. provided in this issue of tSAR were organized and edited by our current president,
The SAA Archaeological Record is Diane Gifford-Gonzalez. Content includes the summary itself by Elise Alonzi and
provided free to members. SAA responses by Robert Bettinger, Ann Kakaliouras, Keith Kintigh, Sarah Gonzalez, Ora
publishes The SAA Archaeological Marek-Martinez, Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, and Joe Watkins.
Record as a service to its members
and constituencies. SAA, its edi-
tors, and staff are not responsible This issue includes several additional articles covering diverse subject matter. We offer
for the content, opinions, and infor- our regular columns, Volunteer Profile (Lippert) and Native American Scholarship
mation contained in The SAA recipient (Marek-Martinez). Majewski and Nichols introduce SAA’s new publishing
Archaeological Record. SAA, its edi- partnership with Cambridge University Press. Sills discusses the politics of preserving
tors, and staff disclaim all war- two Native American mounds on the campus of Louisiana State University. Burrillo
ranties with regard to such content,
offers a creative examination of several challenges in public archaeology on landscapes
opinions, and information pub-
lished in The SAA Archaeological in the desert southwest. Martindale and Guerin provide us with a nuanced introduc-
Record by any individual or organi- tion to First Nations and archaeological practice in Vancouver, BC, the host city for
zation; this disclaimer includes all SAA’s 82nd meeting next spring.
implied warranties of mer-
chantability and fitness. In no event Finally, I want to encourage the membership to consider submitting articles for publi-
shall SAA, its editors, and staff be cation in tSAR. As of this writing we have published our entire backlog and are actively
liable for any special, indirect, or
consequential damages, or any
seeking new content. While we have a number of special issues in the works, we also
damages whatsoever resulting from want to continue our long-standing tradition of publishing stand-alone submitted man-
loss of use, data, or profits arising uscripts. Please refer to the guidelines on the SAA website for details regarding style.
out of or in connection with the use Thanks!
or performance of any content,
opinions, or information included
in The SAA Archaeological Record.
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 develop-
ments required Executive and Board
actions, outlined below.
the remains of Zuni ancestors and to begin heal-
ing the damage done to a Zuni ancestral site….”1
Other tribes signed the MOA, as did the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Ari-
zona State Museum (ASM), and Archaeological
Conservancy.
Amity Pueblo
On May 20, 2016, on the advice of the Amity SAA’s decision was not taken lightly. The APTF
Pueblo Task Force (APTF), the Board of Direc- recommended signing, while the Board also
tors voted to sign the January 22, 2016, “Memo- weighed concerns of AZSHPO in light of the
randum of Agreement Regarding the Mitigation final work plan. Board consensus was that, as a
of Adverse Effects to and Long-Term Preserva- concurring party, SAA would be in a better posi-
tion of the Amity Pueblo (AZ Q:15:74[ASM]) tion to press for fulfillment of stipulated treat-
near the Town of Eagar in Apache County.” In ment of human remains, associated funerary
December 2014, SAA was asked by Pueblos of objects, and non-funerary objects in the dis-
Zuni and Acoma, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation to join turbed section of the site. A new SAA Task Force overseeing
them as a consulting party in negotiations with U.S. Fish and MOA compliance is on the job, with three members from the
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Arizona Department of Game APTF and one new member. Recovery operations are underway,
and Fish (AZGF) on mitigation of impacts on the Amity Pueblo. and we continue to monitor these for compliance with the
Members will recall that, using a USFWS grant to construct a MOA.
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. Tercera Conferencia Intercontinental Postponement
On June 21, responding to violent civil disturbances in the Mex-
Under then President Jeff Altschul, the Board appointed the ican State of Oaxaca, the SAA Executive Committee, in consul-
APTF to serve as SAA’s observers and communicators with tation with conference organizers, postponed the third Conferen-
other consulting parties. Protracted negotiations with USFWS cia Intercontinental, scheduled for Oaxaca City on August 3–6,
and AZGF over Section 106 compliance responsibilities ensued, 2016. We did this with heavy hearts, but with the security of our
with human remains and funerary objects still left exposed. members in mind, as roads in the State were blockaded and sev-
During 2015–2016, SAA commented in detail on MOA drafts, eral demonstrators were killed in confrontations with police. As
demanding greater detail and clearer commitment by USFWS of the writing of this column, the roads continue to be blockad-
and AZGF to an archaeologically acceptable work plan. In ed by the Oaxaca CNTE teachers’ union and their allies, the
November 2015, the AZ State Historic Preservation Office press reports dwindling food supplies, and the national govern-
(AZSHPO) withdrew from MOA negotiations, citing concerns ment warns of decisive action to clear the roads. Thus, the
over proposed treatment of non-burial associated artifacts. potential for further violence and disruption continues.
On February 11, 2016, the Pueblo of Zuni elected to sign the These events’ proximity in time to Conferencia meeting dates
January 22, 2016 MOA “[i]n the interests of moving forward and the unlikelihood of swift refund of SAA’s hotel security
with constructive activities to appropriately collect and rebury 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 imme- Douglass outlined this in the June Government Update. Dou-
diately by email, registrations were refunded, and participants glass’s report coincides with publication of three Task Force arti-
were advised to cancel their reservations in SAA’s block of hotel cles in Advances in Archaeological Practice that advocate for this as
rooms. well as other strategies for best managing archaeological sites and
landscapes. SAA engagements for cultural heritage preservation
A number of Latin American participants informed us that their are producing results useful not just with energy development
airline reservations could be used only through April 2017. but also in climate change risk assessment.
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 Upcoming Vote on New Principle of Archaeological Ethics
Oaxaca State at the end of this year may produce some positive In September, please do vote on a new Principle of Archaeolog-
political shifts, but we will remain vigilant. With our continued ical Ethics: Principle No. 9. Safe Educational and Workplace
commitment to the Oaxaca venue, our organizing team remains Environments. As reported at SAA’s Business Meeting, the
the same: the Local Arrangements Chair is Nelly García Robles, Board has voted to adopt a statement on sexual harassment and
and the Program Chair is Luís Borrero. 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
Predictive Modeling Takes a LEAP Forward (150) is a shared ethical responsibility. It therefore is putting a new
SAA has been participating for three years in Leaders in Energy Principle to member vote (see sidebar). Voting will open Sep-
and Preservation (LEAP), formerly Gas and Preservation Partner- tember 19, 2016 and close October 19, 2016.
ship (GAPP). LEAP brings together cultural heritage preservation
advocates with representatives from the energy sector, now
including alternative as well as petroleum sectors. Substantive Note
progress can now be reported: the industry side is now investing 1. Letter from Zuni Governor Val. R. Panteah Sr. to Mr. Cliff
company time and skills to work with SHPOs to construct land- Schleusner, Chief, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Feb-
scape-scale predictive models for an entire state—Ohio. John ruary 11, 2016.
26–29 de Abril del 2017

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 Register for a room at any of the meeting hotels for the SAA
2, 2017 in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Having been there in 2008, we meeting by January 24, 2017, and your name will be entered
are returning to Vancouver by popular demand. The sessions, into a drawing for a one-year membership. There will be a draw-
exhibit hall, and posters will all be housed at the Vancouver Con- ing from each of the five SAA hotels.
vention Centre. Other meetings will be scheduled in the head-
quarters hotel, the Hyatt Regency Vancouver. Because the meet-
ing is a bit earlier than usual, the deadline for Advance Registra- Tweeting and the Meeting
tion is March 1, 2017. Please mark your calendars. The Prelimi- We are proud to announce the official 82nd Annual Meeting
nary Program will be posted on SAAweb in mid-December and hashtag: #SAA2017. If you haven’t already, please connect with
will be mailed in late December. We hope to see you there! SAA on Facebook (facebook.com/SAAorgfb), Twitter
(@saa.org), and LinkedIn (linkedin.com/groups/Society-Amer-
Requirements for entry into Canada have changed. Links to the ican-Archaeology-2639725). Students have their own hashtag:
appropriate Canadian websites are available at SAAweb. #SAAStudents.
Remember your passports!
Service on SAA Committees—Open Call for Volunteers
More on SAA’s 2017 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, BC For the seventh year, SAA membership will receive an email
The headquarters hotel for the 82nd Annual Meeting in Vancou- with an open call to volunteer for specific committees. Volun-
ver, as noted above, is the Hyatt Regency Vancouver, with three teer terms will begin at the close of the Annual Business Meet-
overflow properties: the Vancouver Marriott Pinnacle Down- ing in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Terms for most committees are
town, the Pinnacle Vancouver Harbourfront Hotel, and the three years.
Coast Coal Harbour Hotel. There is one property exclusively for
students, the Days Inn. Two of the overflows, the Marriott Van-
couver Pinnacle and the Pinnacle Vancouver Harbourfront, Re-appointments
have student blocks, as well. If you are currently serving on a committee and would like to
volunteer for a second term, please fill out an application
Complete reservation information for all of the properties is through the open call.
available on SAAweb and, of course, is included in the Prelimi-
nary Program. Please click the “2017 Hotel Information” button
on SAA’s homepage (http://www.saa.org) to see this informa- Student Slots on Committees
tion now. Please pay particular attention to the cut-off dates for Students should note that most committees are structured to
the various properties. Updated information on hotel availabili- have two slots specifically for students. This is a wonderful way
ty will always be posted in this location on SAAweb. 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, Statements
March 29–April 2, 2017, the Society for American Archaeology Please be aware that you are required to write a statement intro-
would like to invite all nonmember Canadian archaeologists ducing yourself to the committee and sharing what you are able
(including students) to register at special discounted rates for this to contribute. The statement is significant in the decision-mak-
meeting. Details will be included in the Preliminary Program. ing process.

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
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 for-
mer manager, Publications, Liz Haberkorn. KWF communicat-
2017, the Society will begin a formal partnership with Cam- ed with possible publishers, received proposals, and provided
bridge University Press (CUP) to publish the journals. Rapid detailed analysis and comparisons. Interviews were then con-
changes in scholarly publishing in recent years have created new ducted with a final group of publishers, and KWF prepared a
opportunities and also challenges. Self-publishing by societies detailed analysis of the final proposals that were presented to
such as SAA has become increasingly difficult in the face of the SAA Board. The chair of the Publications Committee, Tere-
declines in institutional subscriptions, digital technology costs, sita Majewski, joined the Board last fall for its discussion of pro-
the practice of libraries purchasing journals in bundles, reduced posals from publishers. The SAA also retained the services of a
support for editors by universities, and the expectations of legal firm that specializes in publishing contracts for profes-
authors and readers for hosting of supplemental information. In sional societies. In short, solicitation of proposals, reviewing
this article, we hope to answer some potential questions that proposals and contract negotiations, and concluding the final
may be raised about the partnership, and SAA is committed to partnership with CUP was an intense, year-long process, a
disseminating more information in the future in various venues. reflection of the importance of the SAA journals to the Society’s
leadership and its members.
As a result of extended discussions, the SAA leadership deter-
mined that the Society cannot continue to self-publish its jour- The partnership with CUP, a distinguished scholarly publisher,
nals and provide the digital platform features and marketing allows SAA to address the immediate needs of sustaining and
that have become the norm in scholarly publishing and also be enhancing our journal publishing program while retaining
financially sustainable. The Board gave serious consideration as ownership and editorial control of its journals, including
to how to balance the financial stability of its journals, maintain appointment of editors and editorial boards. All SAA members
high quality, and facilitate dissemination. In 2015, then–SAA will receive digital subscriptions to all SAA journals as part of
Treasurer Jim Bruseth laid out the financial implications of a their membership, along with an option for one journal in
move to full/gold Open Access and to make our journals avail- paper copy at no additional cost.
able without subscription. The SAA Archaeological Record
already is published as fully Open Access. The Board concluded Beginning in 2017, the SAA journals will be hosted on the Cam-
that, at this time, a fully subsidized Open Access model is not a bridge Core portal with a range of enhanced features for read-
viable financial option. ers, authors, and editors, including journal homepages on their
website; content alerts; First View, which allows articles to be
Following a trend in similar societies, including the American published more quickly; and the ability to include supplemental
Anthropological Association, the Society for Historical Archae- materials. With their large professional staff, CUP will be
ology, and the American Geophysical Union, the SAA Board responsible for everything post-acceptance (when manuscripts
concluded that for the near term SAA should pursue a partner- are exported from Editorial Manager©), and will see papers
ship with an established publisher experienced in producing through copyediting and typesetting to publication.
scholarly journals. In order to obtain and review proposals from
possible publishing partners, the SAA followed best practices. Marketing and distribution of the journals will also be handled

PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP
by the press. CUP’s dedicated marketing team will prepare a members, authors, and readers want their research as widely
plan to generate usage, increase demand, and to drive citations disseminated as possible. CUP explained the difference
of journal articles globally. In the plan, CUP will develop the- between “free” access and “open” access. Free access is used for
matic marketing strategies and collaborate with the editors to promotional purposes (i.e., context is “ungated” for a period of
craft journal-specific campaigns. In addition to more effective time); Open Access refers to a publishing model that allows for
marketing of its journals, the profit-share agreement between content to be made available and used openly. There are two
the Society and CUP ensures the financial sustainability of our ways to achieve Open Access, both of which are supported by
journals for the next five years. The SAA Board voted to invest CUP: “gold,” where the author or funding organization pays for
some of these funds in technology and revamping of the SAA completely free access, and “green,” the standard Open Access
website and web services and also created a publishing develop- option, where the author can post (archive) a version of the arti-
ment fund to recognize that rapid changes in publishing will cle for free. The latter meets UK Open Access policies. The part-
require on-going assessment as well as investment. nership with CUP follows a “hybrid” model, and our journals
will continue to meet the standards for “green” Open Access.
On July 26, 2016, the CUP team hosted the SAA editors, Execu- Further details on Open Access and open data options will be
tive Director Tobi Brimsek, former manager, Publications, Liz available through Cambridge Core, the SAA website, and in the
Haberkorn, and Publications Committee Chair Teresita Majew- forthcoming revised version of the SAA Style Guide.
ski at their offices in New York for a transition meeting that
focused primarily on marketing and production tasks. We left Watch for more information on this exciting transition, and if
this extremely productive meeting feeling very optimistic about you have questions about the publishing partnership that were
the benefits that this partnership will provide to the SAA on so not answered here, contact SAA Publications Committee Chair
many levels. Terry Majewski ([email protected]) or SAA manager, Pub-
lications, 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\

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 In my classes at Berkeley, I learned about various techniques
Scholarships Committee (NASC) holds a silent auction to used in archaeological fieldwork, and I became interested in the
raise money for six competitive scholarships that are awarded potential of nondestructive geophysical techniques for use on
annually to Native students and employees of Native cultural the Navajo Nation, which practices a very restrictive policy for
preservation programs. Silent auction earnings are combined excavation. I was referred to the National Park Service’s training
with an endowment fund, individual donations, book royal- on “Current Archaeological Prospection Advances for Non-
ties, and grants to support the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship, Destructive Investigations,” which is held every summer at var-
three National Science Foundation scholarships for archaeo- ious places across the U.S. and introduces cultural resources
logical training, and awards in support of undergraduate and personnel to various geophysical techniques and data analyses.
graduate archaeology education. This is the fifth installment I applied for the 2007 Arthur C. Parker Scholarship and was
of a series of articles featuring former scholarship recipients. awarded a grant to cover the expenses for this class, which was
—Tsim Schneider, Department of Anthropology, University of in Richland, Washington. After presentations in the training
California, Santa Cruz center, the class surveyed a historic cemetery and then applied
information presented in class to determine the locations of
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
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
honored to receive the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship in 2007 and Angeles, California on “Cultural and Natural Resources: An
again in 2014 as part of the Navajo Nation Archaeology Depart- Integrated Management Strategy.” The training provided an
ment (NNAD). I am currently the Tribal Historic Preservation overview of pertinent legislation and discussions based on vari-
Officer and the Director of the Navajo Nation Historic Preserva- ous management approaches designed for our unique needs.
tion Department. The training provided NNAD archaeologists with tools for inte-
grating natural and cultural resources management approaches
I began working for the NNAD as a student archaeologist in in their work on the Navajo Nation and to develop a manage-
1999 while also attending classes at Northern Arizona Universi- ment approach that is more in line with Navajo traditions.
ty (NAU). I was able to attend classes and work part time, apply-
ing the methods taught in my undergraduate anthropology and The Navajo people view the land as a Traditional Cultural Land-
archaeology classes at NAU. I was fortunate to learn from sever- scape (TCL) that they refer to as Dine’ Bikeyah, or Navajo home-
al archaeologists who dedicated their careers to investigating lands. These sacred lands are bound by the four sacred moun-
Southwestern prehistory. I was encouraged to continue my edu- tains in each direction: Mount Blanca (Tsisnaasjini) to the east,
cation at NAU, where I embarked upon my graduate education Mount Taylor (Tsoodzil) to the south, San Francisco Peaks
in 2001 in applied cultural anthropology with an emphasis on (Doko’oosliid) to the west, and Mount Hesperus (Dibé Nitsaa) to
tribal cultural resources management. In 2004, I entered the the north. The Navajo Nation officially encompasses a sprawl-
doctoral program in archaeology at the University of California, ing 17 million acres of semi-arid, mountainous land that more
Berkeley. 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 The Arthur C. Parker Scholarship benefited me and a part of my
represents the journey and development of the Nihooka’ Dine’e’ community, and it afforded us with an opportunity to serve our
Bila Ashdla’ii (the five-finger earth surface people), which is communities in a culturally appropriate and sensitive manner.
manifested in the landscape imbued with sacred and cultural The 2014 training helped us to develop an approach to heritage
meanings. management that provides Navajo communities with the ability
to contribute to the investigation and use of both natural and
The NNAD training aided the preparation of Navajo Nation cultural resources found throughout Dine’ Bikeyah. Funding
employees to address environmental and cultural heritage con- contributed to the positive and beneficial capacity building of
cerns for undertakings on Dine’ Bikeyah. Materials from the the Navajo Nation in its pursuit to protect, preserve, and man-
class provided employees with a toolkit to help facilitate ways to age tangible and intangible aspects of Navajo cultural heritage
consider, evaluate, and mitigate effects on the TCL and Tradi- that are irreplaceable. Ahe’hee’, or thank you, to the Native Amer-
tional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that benefit the Nihooka’ ican Scholarship Committee and the SAA for the fantastic
Dine’e’ Bila Ashdla’ii. Such an approach is now standard operat- opportunities provided by the Arthur C. Parker Scholarship.
ing 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 pref-
erence for hire at the rank of associate professor or full professor. The successful candidate will have proven excellence in teach-
ing, whose theoretical and regional expertise can strengthen our undergraduate program and expand work with our archaeolog-
ical collections of Upper Hudson Valley material culture. We seek candidates with topical interests that include, but are not lim-
ited 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 geo-
graphic course open to area, and two advanced offerings that will include a practicum course working with archaeological mate-
rials. Candidates are required to have a doctorate. Applicants for appointment as associate or full professor must have a distin-
guished 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 Octo-
ber 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

VOLUNTEER PROFILE
volunteer profile
Dorothy Lippert
I’ve been a mem- After this, it all starts to blend together. I served on the Repatri-
ber of SAA for ation Committee, the Native American Scholarship Committee,
more than 25 a Program Committee for an annual meeting, and as a member
years and had of the Board of Directors. All of these gave me insight into how
never really the Society actually functions. It’s a complex organization with
thought of service many working parts. I remember that one of the tasks I took on
to the organiza- for the Board was viewing the movie Apocalypto after issues with
tion in terms of the film were raised by members. I also learned just how much
volunteering, but the SAA staff does behind the scenes. We show up at the annual
rather as a way to meeting and have programs, an organized exhibit space, name
get more deeply involved in the mission of the Society. My first tags, etc. etc. It takes a hardworking team to pull all this togeth-
role was serving as a member of the Committee on Native er. My third lesson is that the SAA is more complicated than you
American Relations. I was in graduate school at the time and might realize and, therefore, there are a variety of ways to get
felt honored that my peers thought I could contribute to the involved.
work of the committee. I remained on the committee for two
terms and was asked to take over as chair from Kurt Dongoske. My work with SAA began at the time when archaeologists and
This was another honor, but this also allowed me to review my American Indian tribes were first negotiating new interactions
previous service and I quickly figured out that my major quali- in the post-NAGPRA world. These relationships continue to
fications for becoming chair were the fact that I had been so change and evolve, sometimes in mutually beneficial ways and
conscientious about replying to Kurt and participating in com- sometimes in ways that will bring new challenges. In order to
mittee business. This was my first lesson about volunteering: maximize the benefits of these relationships, it is important to
the eager participant is highly welcome, the resume-filler not so be fully involved in the discipline, including participating in the
much! work of SAA. I am fortunate to have had a cohort of Native
American archaeologists with whom I’ve worked alongside in
During my two terms on the committee, there were a lot of low- volunteering for SAA. We sometimes see our efforts pay off in
level conflicts between Native Americans and archaeologists making the discipline and the Society better and there will defi-
playing out as people began to organize how to respond to the nitely be more opportunities to work on issues. My final lesson
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act about volunteering may be related to my long years of service
(NAGPRA). Uncertainty about how repatriation would be imple- and that is: get involved early and often; there’s a lot of work to
mented caused some archaeologists to view Native participants do, you have unique experience, and Apocalypto notwithstand-
in SAA either as troublemakers or as converts to the “cause of ing, it’s often a lot of fun!
archaeology.” From my perspective as an Indigenous archaeolo-
gist, 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 perspec-
tive is unique, and that makes their input valuable.

CALL FOR EDITOR
CALL FOR EDITOR

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
T he Society for American Archaeology (SAA) invites appli-

cations for the editorship of American Antiquity—the first
journal published by the Society, currently in its eighty-
first volume. The editorial term is for a period of three years; it
may be renewed for one additional term. The editor position
the other SAA journals and the SAA Publications Committee
throughout his/her editorship. The SAA Style Guide is current-
ly being updated.
Although editors of the SAA’s journals have often been senior

falls vacant on March 31, 2018, when the current editor, Robert scholars with many years of experience, individuals of less-
L. Kelly, completes his term. The editorship is preceded by a senior standing may also be able to devote the necessary time
transition period with the current editor beginning with the edi- and attention to the journal that it requires. Specific editing
tor-designate’s appointment in Spring 2017 through to the start experience is helpful.
of the new editor’s term in Spring 2018.
Applications should include: (a) discussion of the applicant’s
American Antiquity has now been joined by Latin American vision for the journal and how it would be achieved during the
Antiquity and Advances in Archaeological Practice, and all three term of the editorship; (b) relevant qualifications and experi-
journals are part of what is offered to SAA members and insti- ence, including a current curriculum vitae (for both applicants
tutional subscribers. The SAA has self-published its journals and an assistant, if one is recommended); and (c) a realistic
since the Society’s founding, but has now entered into a partner- budget for the editorial term. The editors do not receive com-
ship agreement, beginning with the 2017 volume year, with pensation for their service, but applications should contain a
Cambridge University Press. This partnership will enhance the financial proposal that demonstrates how the expenses of the
journals’ visibility and impact worldwide and streamline the editorial office will be met through support from SAA as well as
production process from the editor’s perspective. However, as the applicant’s institution/employer. The editor should receive
noted elsewhere in this issue, SAA will continue to own its jour- enough release time from his/her employer to ensure that they
nals, and the journal editors will continue to implement their have sufficient time to carry out their duties, and a letter from
own editorial visions during their terms. The SAA Board is the host institution/employer confirming the level of support
strongly committed to providing the means by which all of the should be included in the application.
Society’s journals will flourish in changing conditions for aca-
demic publishing. Potential applicants for the editorship should make an expres-
sion of interest to the chair of the editorial search task force at
In addition to encouraging submissions, the editor oversees the the earliest possible date so that the chair can make contact,
progress of an article from the time it is submitted electronically answer any questions they may have, and as appropriate,
through the Editorial Manager© system until a decision is encourage them to complete and submit a proposal for the edi-
made. Although the editor is responsible for substantive editing torship. Submit application materials electronically to Lynne
of an article, technical copy-editing will now be done by Cam- Goldstein, Chair of the SAA American Antiquity Editorial Search
bridge University Press as part of the production process. The Task Force and Professor of Anthropology and Director of Cam-
editor has final responsibility for all journal content within gen- pus Archaeology, Michigan State University, Tel: (517) 353-4704;
eral policies established by the SAA Board but will work closely Email: [email protected] by no later than January 1, 2017.
with SAA’s publishing team at Cambridge University Press and
SAA’s manager, Publications, and interface with the editors of

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

Archaeology Annual Meeting, an
Indigenous artist has designed the
meeting logo. Mark Guerin is from the
Musqueam Indian Band, one of four First
indigenous scholarship. Much archaeology
in the Vancouver area offers grounds for
such optimism. It is hard to think of a major
research project in the province that does not
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 under- indigenous perspectives and scholarship
standings coming together. Its traditional into the curriculum. Several are jointly
circle form reflects Coast Salish artistic tra- taught by archaeologists and Indigenous
ditions as well as the symbolism of the community members. Many publications on
Moon, associated with traditional knowl- the 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 archaeo-
when seen in motion. The process then logical research and monitoring offices.
utilizes computer graphics to color and Indigenous scholars in the province have
reproduce the image, bringing modern It is the artist’s hope that the become archaeologists (Reimer 2010), adopt-
and traditional techniques together. It is piece is reflective of one of ed archaeology for their own purposes (Men-
the artist’s hope that the piece is reflective zies 2015), or considered the cultural content
of one of the ideals behind the meeting: to the ideals behind the meet- of the western scholarly perspective’s influ-
bring understanding of past and present, ing: to bring understanding ence on Indigenous knowledge (Atleo 2004).
aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and tradi- of past and present, aborigi-
tional knowledge and technological per- Such partnerships began as early as 1949
spectives together.
nal and non-aboriginal, and when pioneering archaeologist Charles Bor-
traditional knowledge and den sought permission to work on
The logo is an optimistic view of the pres- technological perspectives Musqueam heritage sites on Indian Reserve
ent and the future, one in which the archae- lands in the Point Grey area of Vancouver.
together.
ological endeavor works in concert with His work, often in collaboration with

82ND ANNUAL MEETING
Musqueam community member Andrew Charles, Sr., created ble to seeing a history he believed existed. Our limitations can
the foundational archaeological chronology of the area, one that be overcome by data, but also by symmetrical partnerships with
remains largely intact today. As Susan Roy (2010) notes, howev- descent communities whose knowledge and record of their own
er, archaeological memory of Charles Borden tends to be selec- history is both scholarly and accurate, even as it exists in forms
tive. His use of race as a construct to undermine indigenous his- and places distant from archaeology. These are contested issues
tory and territoriality is rarely noted. Archaeologists are also less and Vancouver is not a place where we have forged many solu-
aware of Borden’s political influence as the architect of the tions, but it is a place where fulsome discussions are emerging.
province’s Heritage Conservation Act, legislation that drew We invite you to join us in 2017.
funds from construction projects to support archaeological sal-
vage. This relationship between destruction of heritage and
archaeological research continues to define archaeology in References
British Columbia today. Thus, despite our somewhat naïve opti- Ames, Christopher, Andre Costopoulos, and Colin D. Wren
mism, archaeology in British Columbia reverberates with the 2010 8,000 Years of Technological Change in the Gulf of Georgia: Is
legacy of colonialism. There a Major Transition at 4850 cal. B.P.? Canadian Journal of
Nowhere is this history more visible than in the “c̓əsnaʔəm, the

Archaeology 34(1):32–63.
Atleo, Eugene R.
city before the city”1 series of exhibits at the Museum of Vancou- 2004 Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview. UBC Press, Vancouver,
ver, Musqueam Cultural Centre, and Museum of Anthropology. British Columbia.
c̓əsnaʔəm, known archaeologically as The Great Fraser Midden,

Focusing on the ancient landscape and living culture at 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
the Marpole Site, and DhRs-1, this award-winning partnership
Inequality in the Salish Sea Region, 4000–3500 Cal B.P. American
explores Musqueam history and identity refracted through the
Antiquity. 81(2):294–315.
history of archaeology and colonialism. The last of these
Grier, Colin, and Lisa Shaver
exhibits, at the Museum of Vancouver, will be the focus of one 2008 Working Together: The Role of Archaeologists and First
of our tours (more on these in the November issue of The SAA Nations in Sorting Out Some Very Old Problems in British Colum-
Archaeological Record). bia. The SAA Archaeological Record. 8(1):33–35.
La Salle, Marina, and Rich Hutchings
Archaeology in British Columbia is primarily the interpretation 2016 What Makes Us Squirm—A Response to “Community-Orient-
of indigenous history by non-native people who devote limited ed Archaeology” Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 40(1):164–180.
attention to the challenges of understanding indigenous ways of Martindale, Andrew, Natasha Lyons, George Nicholas, Bill Angelbeck,
knowing and recording their past. There are few avenues for Sean P. Connaughton, Colin Grier, James Herbert, Mike Leon,
Indigenous contribution or critique within the discipline of Yvonne Marshall, Angela Piccini, David M. Schaepe, Kisha Super-
archaeology or its presentation of the past to the public. The nant, and Gary Warrick
legal arena in which Aboriginal rights and titles are debated 2016 Archaeology as Partnerships in Practice: A Reply to La Salle
continues to place greater value on archaeological than indige- and Hutchings. Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 40(1):191–204.
nous knowledge. These tensions reveal an ongoing debate Menzies, Charles
about the cultural content of archaeological knowledge and the 2015 Revisiting “Dm Sibilhaa’nm Da Laxyuubm Gitxaała (Picking
persistence of double-standards in our discipline. These are Abalone in Gitxaała Territory)”: Vindication, Appropriation, and
challenging issues, which some argue undermine the legitima- Archaeology. BC Studies. 187 (Autumn):129–155.
cy of archaeology entirely (see, for example, La Salle and Hutch- Reimer, Rudy
2010 Nach’en or Transforming into a Squamish Nation Indigenous
ings 2016, but see Martindale et al. 2016 for a counter-view).
Archaeologist. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists,
edited by George Nicholas, pp. 258–266. Left Coast Press, Walnut
If our future aspires to the more equitable archaeology of our
Creek, California.
logo, then the archaeology in and around Vancouver points us
Roy, Susan
in a few directions. There is considerable thirst for evidence- 2010 These Mysterious People: Shaping History and Archaeology in a
based science and empirically sound assessments of the archae- Northwest Coastal Community. McGill-Queens University Press.
ological 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 Note
reassessment of artifact types, which showed greater evidence 1. http://www.thecitybeforethecity.com
of continuity than change, and upended by Coupland et al.’s
(2016) recent discoveries. Borden, like many of us, was vulnera-

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
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
by several SAA committees. The survey was opened for who have seen NAGPRA and other repatriation initiatives
member response in early 2015. Data from the Repatriation emerge, I asked younger members who represent bioarchae-
Survey were analyzed by Ms. Elise Alonzi, a doctoral student ological, land management, and cultural/historical preserva-
at Arizona State University, under the supervision of Past tion as well as academic perspectives. Cross cutting these
President Keith Kintigh, in 2015. Ms. Alonzi submitted her work placements are the varied and internally variable stand-
report to the Board in the fall of 2015 and presented some of points of Native and non-Native American archaeologists. I
the data at SAA’s 2016 Annual Meeting. The report and the hope you find these perspectives interesting and educational.
base response data have been posted on SAA’s website since
mid-April, 2016 at http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/ Finally, on behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to assure
RepatriationIssues/tabid/214/Default.aspx. you that one thing we have heard loud and clear from this
survey’s structured responses and free comments is that we
I thank all committee and Board members who worked hard need to do a better job of educating North American about
on developing and refining the survey, and the analysts. NAGPRA and what is involved in consultation and compli-
ance. In addition to Annual Meetings Forum formats, we are
This issue of The SAA Archaeological Record offers Ms. looking toward our online seminar series to distill and con-
Alonzi’s revised version of her report, accompanied by many vey not just the legal parameters but also views on the new
cross-tabulations of member demographic against question world of community engagements prompted by consultation
responses, available as an online supplement at and repatriation.

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
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 demograph-
to identify demographic trends that might be linked to cer- ic question.1 The omission of the responses of those who did
tain opinions about the SAA’s past, present, and future not answer specific demographic questions avoids overem-
responses to NAGPRA and similar laws. Many of the respon- phasizing the opinion of the small group of respondents
dents submitted written comments suggesting changes to who did not answer the demographic questions.
the SAA’s policies or requesting support for approaching
repatriation procedures ethically and effectively. The survey In the presentation of the tables, several categories were
has revealed no great divide within the SAA on the subject of combined to facilitate easier viewing and to avoid small sam-
repatriation. While some individuals disagree with the path ple sizes. For instance, the survey questions asked respon-
that the SAA has taken, there is no particular work setting, dents to provide their Year of Degree in five-year intervals
regional, or age group that is distinctly unrepresented in the (i.e., 1950–1955), and these categories were combined into
SAA’s current statements and policies. decade-long intervals (i.e., 1950–1960) in the tables. Similar-
ly, the Work Region2 categories, Work Setting,3 and Repatri-
The survey was sent out to 8,783 individuals, and 1,905 ation-related Activities4 categories have been compressed in
members of the SAA responded to this survey, a response these tables. Further, in order to provide a parsimonious
rate of 22%. Of the respondents, 32% (n = 609) provided analysis of the most important points uncovered by the sur-
written clarification in the open responses section. In all, the vey, not all demographic questions included in the Repatria-
survey comprises 20 questions, addressing the broad topics tion Survey have been examined in comparison to the
of: (1) demographics, (2) experience with repatriation and respondents’ answers to other questions.
opinions on repatriation-related issues, and (3) open-ended
written responses to the survey questions. Each question had Some of the tables’ cells are highlighted in gray, to show the
a response rate of 97.8% or higher, and no particular ques- most common response to the question within each demo-
tion was frequently skipped by the respondents. graphic 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% confi-
Methods dence interval. More than one most common responses may
The analysis of the survey is straightforward. The responses be highlighted if they do not significantly differ.
to demographic questions and questions about repatriation
were cross-tabulated. Percentages were calculated for each
category of response, including non-responses for the non- Section 1. Background and Representativeness of
demographic survey questions. All percentages are calculat- Respondents
ed out of the total number of respondents to the survey (n = This section addresses the demographic profiles of the
1,905). Readers should note that those who did not respond respondents in terms of Work Setting, Year of Degree, and
to a demographic question were not included in the tables Work Region. The distribution of Work Setting of the

respondents to this Repatriation Survey is similar to that of enced by the views of archaeologists with professional ties to
the respondents to the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey the United States. The next most common Work Region is
(Supplemental Table 1). Note that the percentages of stu- Mesoamerica, followed by Europe, and then Asia (Supple-
dents and retired members who responded to the Repatria- mental Table 3). Over 30% of respondents reported research,
tion Survey are higher than those of the respondents to the work, or study ties to each of the aggregated categories of the
SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey. This may be due to the Old World or Latin America (Supplemental Table 4).
wording and structure of the questions themselves, as the
2015 survey allows multiple responses for this question and A large majority (77%) of respondents reported some sort of
the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey requires the experience with “Repatriation-related Activities” (Supple-
respondent to pick the most relevant category. For example, mental Table 5). The most common experiences were Con-
a respondent to the Repatriation Survey could identify his or sultation (61.4%), which includes the categories of “Consul-
her Work Setting as both “Academic—4-year institution tation with indigenous or descendant communities,” and
without a graduate program” and “Student”; whereas a “Other communication or coordination with indigenous or
respondent to the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey could local communities,” and fieldwork or collections research
identify his or her Work Setting as either “Academic—Gradu- (57.7%), which includes the categories of “Responding to
ate Program” or “Student.” inadvertent discoveries during fieldwork,” “Field research to
determine cultural affiliation,” and “Collections-based
The summary of Year of Degree for respondents to the Repa- research to determine cultural affiliation.” The least com-
triation Survey (Supplemental Table 2) reveals that over half mon experience was drafting agreements and summaries,
(56%)5 of the respondents received their highest degree in which includes “Drafting repatriation or disposition agree-
2000 or later. While directly comparable information was not ments,” and “Drafting required summaries and invento-
available from the SAA 2010 Needs Assessment Survey, it ries.” Importantly, individuals from all regions, not just the
does appear that younger members are overrepresented in United States, were asked to answer this question, so these
the Repatriation Survey in comparison to the composition of responses do not necessarily refer to experience with NAG-
the membership of the SAA. The SAA 2010 Needs Assess- PRA and/or repatriation within the United States.
ment Survey recorded both the respondent’s age and highest
degree in separate questions. In that survey, 49% of respon-
dents had Ph.D.s, 36% had master’s degrees, and 10% had Section 2. Year of Degree, Work Setting, and Work
bachelor’s degrees. Making some reasonable assumptions Region in Comparison to Questions 10-19
about the average age at award for each degree,6 one obtains Q. 10 The NAGPRA regulation on the Disposition of Culturally
a weighted average of about 29 years of age when receiving Unidentifiable Human Remains (43 C.F.R. § 10.11) outlines a
the highest degree for the members of the SAA. That would process by which human remains that have no lineal descendant
suggest that the 23% of members younger than 35 would and have not been culturally affiliated may be transferred to cer-
have gotten their degrees about 6 years earlier than the aver- tain Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. In gener-
age, and 22% of members between the ages of 35 and 44 al, how do you think the regulation has affected archaeological
would have gotten their degrees about 16 years earlier than research?
the average. Translating those dates to the 2015 Repatriation
Survey from the 2010 Needs Assessment Survey, that would Only a small percentage (8%) of the overall respondents felt
place about 23% of SAA members in the 2010-present that the effect on the field has been positive, while 34% felt
degree category, and 22% in the 2000–2010 category, for a it had been negative, and the remainder reported mixed
total of 45% in those two categories combined. In contrast, results, little effect, or expressed no opinion. Respondents in
56% of the respondents to the Repatriation Survey received the two most recent degree categories see this regulation in
his or her highest degree after 2000, indicating that younger a somewhat more positive light than those with earlier
SAA members seem to be somewhat overrepresented in the degrees. However, even in these recent degree categories, on
more recent Repatriation Survey. the order of twice as many felt that the effect had been neg-
ative, as opposed to positive (Supplemental Table 6).
The overwhelming majority of the respondents identify the
United States as part of their regional focus of “research, Q. 11 On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very negative and 10 being
education, and/or CRM/ Heritage work,” although many very positive, what has been the effect of the NAGPRA regulation
also identify other regions (Supplemental Table 3). Not sur- on the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains
prisingly, the Repatriation Survey results are highly influ- (43 C.F.R. § 10.11) on your own work?

About 21% of all respondents indicated a negative effect Paleoindian-period human remains should be considered
(responses 1–4) while only 13% felt the effect had been pos- Native American generally decreases as the respondents’
itive (responses 7–10), with the remaining 66% providing a Years of Degree becomes more recent (Supplemental Table
neutral response (5 or 6), no opinion, or no response (Sup- 12). Archaeologists who responded that they worked, stud-
plemental Table 7). The responses do not reveal patterns of ied, or researched in the United States were evenly split on
the effects of NAGPRA based on Year of Degree. The median this question (Yes—47%; No—46%) (Supplemental Table
answer for those with an opinion is 5 for most Year of 13). The Work Setting category with the most disparity
Degree categories. between answers was Government (Yes—51%; No—42%)
(Supplemental Table 14). The “Yes” and “No” responses both
Q. 12 Do you think that human remains from the Archaic period received support from over 40% of respondents in Academ-
in the United States should be considered Native American under ic, CRM, Museum, and Private Foundation categories, indi-
NAGPRA? cating a split of opinion in these work settings (Supplemen-
tal Table 14).
Nearly every respondent had an opinion about this question,
with very few responding that they had No Opinion. Q. 14 Some consider NAGPRA legislation to be a compromise—
Responses are strongly divided, although Yes’s substantially that is, a balance between science and Native American rights. Do
outnumber No’s. The majority of respondents with more you agree?
recent degrees answered that Archaic-period remains
“should be considered Native American,” whereas the major- The responses indicate that the majority of archaeologists
ity of respondents with older degrees answered that those think of NAGPRA as a “balance between science and Native
remains should not “be considered Native American.” The American rights,” although nearly a third of archaeologists
split in opinion occurs between those with degrees before disagree with this statement. In almost all subdivisions of
and after 1980 (Supplemental Table 8). demographic categories, including Year of Degree (Supple-
mental Table 16), Work Region (Supplemental Table 17),
Of respondents who work in the United States, 54% (n = Work Setting (Supplemental Table 18), and Experience with
838) answered that human remains should be considered NAGPRA (Supplemental Table 18), nearly all respondents
Native American if they are from this period, and 38% that had an opinion and substantially more respondents con-
they should not (n = 589) (Supplemental Table 9). Archaeol- ceived of NAGPRA as a compromise than those who did not.
ogists who work in Canada and the Arctic have the highest
rate of answering “Yes” to this question (62.9%), and no cat- Q. 15 How would you evaluate the overall impact of NAGPRA on
egory stands out as having a particularly high rate of answer- archaeology?
ing “No” within the aggregated Work Region categories seen
in Supplemental Table 9. Opinions on this question also vary These data indicate that respondents were likely to think of
by Work Setting (Supplemental Table 10). For all groups NAGPRA’s impact on archaeology as mixed or positive
except avocational and retired archaeologists, “Yes” respons- (87%) with many fewer (16%) believing that NAGPRA’s
es outnumbered “No” responses (Supplemental Table 9). impact has been negative. Overall and in nearly all subdivi-
Most respondents who have worked with NAGPRA in any sions by Year of Degree (Supplemental Table 20), Work
capacity think that Archaic remains should be considered Region (Supplemental Table 21), Work Setting (Supplemen-
Native American (Supplemental Table 11). tal Table 22), and Experience with NAGPRA (Supplemental
Table 23), the most common response was “Mixed Results,”
Q. 13 Do you think that human remains from the Paleoindian with “Positive” being the next most common. This pattern is
period in the United States should be considered Native American the same as Question 14, which suggests that thinking of
under NAGPRA? NAGPRA as a compromise is connected to thinking that
NAGPRA’s effect has been positive.
Although the most common response to this question over-
all is that Paleoindian remains should not be considered Q. 16 How well does the current SAA “Statement Concerning the
Native American (47%), the majority of respondents who Treatment of Human Remains” reflect your views?
reported any experiences with Repatriation-related Activities
responded that Paleoindian should be considered Native The responses to this question indicate that SAA’s 1986
American (Supplemental Table 15). As with the Archaic Statement does not systematically misrepresent the views of
question, the percentage of those who answered that the any group of archaeologists who have different work regions,

degree years, work settings, or repatriation-related experi- plemental Table 30). Divisions based on experience with
ences. The three most common answers were “Very Well“ repatriation-related activities show similarly ambiguous pat-
(39.7%), “Varies by Issue” (21.6%), and “Somewhat” (21%), terns, with the same two most common answers mentioned
with “Not At All” being rare (3%). The largest percentage of above (Supplemental Table 31). No category has a strong
individuals responded that the SAA’s Statement reflects their majority of individuals who prefer revising the statement in
views “Very Well” regardless of their reported experiences a particular way to the option of not revising the statement.
with Repatriation-related Activities (Supplemental Table 27).
Fewer than 11.4% of any ten-year age category responded Many respondents addressed Question 17 in the written
that the statement does not reflect their views at all (Supple- comments. Some suggested specific changes to the language
mental Table 24). Only 3.9% of respondents working in the of the statement. These possible revisions include address-
United States answered that the statement did not reflect ing: the distinction between cultural and biological affiliation
their views (Supplemental Table 25). Unfamiliarity about the (e.g., ID# 3694978621); requiring archaeologists to consult
SAA’s 1986 Statement was higher amongst the respondents with Native groups before beginning work (e.g., ID#
who do not work, study, or research in the United States 3683450590); acknowledging possible changes to views on
(17.3%) than those who do (8.1%) (Supplemental Table 25). repatriation in the future (e.g., ID# 3728118139); and defin-
Of the Work Setting categories, Students had the highest rate ing and communicating the meaning of “respect” for
of unfamiliarity with the SAA’s position (17.3%) (Supple- remains and cultural views (e.g., ID# 3717789128;
mental Table 26). Respondents working in CRM were the 3716936831). Several commenters suggest that the state-
most likely to report that the SAA’s position reflected their ment emphasizes scientific goals over those of Native Amer-
views “Very Well” (48.1%), whereas around one-third of icans (e.g., ID# 3690043548; 3683390175; 3683199249),
respondents working in Private Foundations (29.3%) and as although other commenters stated that they agree with a
Students (32.5%) consider the SAA’s position as reflecting stance against repatriation of unaffiliated human remains
their views “Very Well” (Supplemental Table 26). However, (e.g., ID# 3719184024; 3718048196; 3683848848). Overall,
students presumably have a younger average age than other the comments suggest more detailed language is needed in
Work Categories, and this may have influenced the results the statement, although there is not a widespread outcry to
seen in Supplemental Table 26. change the sentiments expressed in it.
Q. 17 Do you think the current SAA “Statement Concerning the Q. 18 Given the SAA's historic and ongoing level of engagement on
Treatment of Human Remains” needs revision? repatriation issues, what level of involvement would you like to see
in the future?
The most common responses were that the statement
should be revised to “place greater emphasis on cooperation Most respondents would prefer that the SAA have “More
and balance among different stakeholder’s interests” (26.2%) involvement” or “The same level of involvement” in repatria-
and that it “Does not need revision” (25%) (Supplemental tion issues (Supplemental Table 32). Only 2.2% of total
Table 28). In only three of seven decade-long Year of Degree respondents would prefer “Less involvement.” The respons-
categories, between 1990 and the present, did over 10% of es do not clearly vary by Year of Degree category, although
respondents answer that the statement “Needs revision to 36.4% of those with a degree earned 2010-present are “not
place greater emphasis on Native American individual and familiar with the SAA’s activities on repatriation issues”
community rights,” which indicates a possible shift in (Supplemental Table 32). Of the Work Region categories,
thought of younger archaeologists (Supplemental Table 28). more of the respondents who work in the United States
Of respondents who work in the United States, 26.7% think would like the SAA to demonstrate “More involvement”
that the statement should emphasize cooperation between (36.4%), than those who work outside the United States
stakeholders more, 25.2% think that it does not need to be (22.7%) (Supplemental Table 33). Percentages of Academic,
revised, whereas only 12.4% think that it should place CRM, Government, Museum, Private Foundation, Student,
greater emphasis on “Native American individual and com- and Other respondents who would like “More involvement”
munity rights” (Supplemental Table 29). Roughly the same range from 29% (Student) to 38.3% (Museum) (Supplemen-
percentages of Academic, CRM, Government, Museum, Pri- tal Table 34). Students have the highest rate of unfamiliarity
vate Foundation, Student, and Other individuals think that “with the SAA’s activities on repatriation issues” (42.1%),
the statement “Does not need revision” as think that the although many individuals who belong to different cate-
statement “Needs to place greater emphasis on cooperation gories are also unfamiliar with the SAA’s activities on this
and balance among different stakeholder’s interests” (Sup- issue (Supplemental Table 34). Those with no reported expe-

rience with Repatriation-related Activities were most likely to laboration between archaeologists and other stakeholders.
be unfamiliar with the “SAA’s activities on repatriation These respondents suggested the establishment of a workshop
issues” (35.7%), and those with any reported experience with on collaboration and NAGPRA protocols at each SAA annual
these activities were most likely to respond that they would meeting (e.g., ID# 3694978621) and the development of a more
like to see “More involvement” (37.9% to 43.3%) (Supple- general educational program on NAGPRA legislation and best
mental Table 35). No category of individuals surveyed would practices (e.g., ID# 3689481293; 3685205152). Some individuals
like to see less involvement in these issues from the SAA. argued that NAGPRA legislations have hindered bioarchaeolo-
gy (e.g., ID# 3742180746; 3741612277; 3734533099;
Q. 19 Where do you think SAA should place its emphasis in its 3718931756; 3685792389; 3683297705; 3684571556), although
engagement with NAGPRA? others suggest that there is increasing interest in bioarchaeolog-
ical data across different stakeholders (e.g., ID# 3685065134).
Of the general population of respondents to the survey, the Some also discussed the increase in communication between
most popular answer was that the SAA’s engagement should archaeologists and tribes that came with NAGPRA (e.g., ID#
“place greater emphasis on cooperation and balance among 3684571556; 3684275253) and emphasized the importance of
different stakeholder’s interests” (30.6%), and the next most communication between these groups (e.g., ID# 3683710312).
popular answer was that the SAA’s engagement should Some commenters addressed the issue of NAGPRA as a civil
“place greater emphasis on scientific values” (20.8%) (Sup- rights legislation (e.g., ID#3689742272; 3694198847). These
plemental Table 36). The answer of “Needs revision to place responders tended to see repatriation as a reaction to historical
greater emphasis on Native American individual and com- and colonial relationships, and they thought that the SAA’s poli-
munity rights” only attained more than 10% of responses cies should be revised to reflect this.
from individuals who received their degrees after 2000 (Sup-
plemental Table 36). In contrast, the response “the SAA’s Also, several responses addressed the validity of certain ques-
engagement with NAGPRA” should “place greater emphasis tions or definitions within the survey. Questions 12 and 13,
on scientific values” was more popular with those who hold concerning whether Archaic and Paleoindian human
older degrees (Supplemental Table 36). The response that remains “should be considered Native American under NAG-
“the SAA’s engagement with NAGPRA” should “place PRA,” were commonly commented upon (e.g., ID#
greater emphasis on scientific values” was more popular 3717082586; 3717011977; 3698829457; 3683760650) and
with archaeologists working, studying, or researching within other responses pointed to the importance of these questions
the United States than elsewhere (Supplemental Table 37). (e.g., ID# 3717067736). Other qualms with the survey ques-
About a quarter of respondents who work, study, or research tions included its emphasis on repatriation in the United
outside of the United States responded that they are “not States at the expense of other regions (e.g., ID# 3730665565).
familiar with SAA’s level of engagement” (25.3%) (Supple-
mental Table 37), as are 36.1% of students working in any The responses represent a wide range of positions, which
region (Supplemental Table 38). Beliefs about “SAA’s were stated with varying degrees of conviction, and at times,
engagement with NAGPRA” pattern relatively evenly in hostility. Some notable responses are:
terms of Work Setting (Supplemental Table 38), and Year of
Degree and Work Region seem to have more influence on “I was actually shocked to read the SAA Repatriation Pol-
archaeologists understanding and beliefs about “SAA’s icy. It is extremely outdated and Eurocentric. NAGRPA
engagement with NAGPRA.” Similarly to Question 18, those [sic] is a civil rights law, not an archaeology law, and
who reported no experience with Repatriation-related Issues should be viewed as such.” (ID# 3689742272).
are most likely to have no opinion on “SAA’s engagement
with NAGPRA,” and the majority of those who reported any “The SAA Statement Concerning the Treatment of
such experience were most likely to respond that the state- Human Remains seems to put Native American archaeol-
ment needs revision to address “different stakeholders’ inter- ogists and those who work on behalf of and/or for tribes in
ests” (Supplemental Table 39). an untenable position and actually creates a rather hostile
environment for these archaeologists specifically.” (ID#
3692582425).
Section 3. Summary of Open Responses
Several themes stand out within the open responses (n = 609). “The SAA needs to provide NAGPRA training workshops
Besides personal anecdotes about experiences with NAGPRA, a at EVERY annual meeting to help educate the member-
common suggestion was that the SAA draft a protocol for col- ship.” (ID# 3694978621).

“A question on the relationship between the law and its Supplemental Materials
implementation would have been useful, since it is there
Supplemental Tables 1–39 are available as an online supple-
that the greatest tension resides.” (ID# 3716973682).
ment at www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA_Record_Sept2016_
Suppl.pdf
“SAA leadership has established and continues to update
a very responsible position on repatration [sic] and treat-
ment of human remains. I am glad the positions are Notes
increasingly objective and open to multiple views of mem- 1. Breakdown of the total number of respondents who did not
bership. Thank you.” (ID# 3685272725). answer the demographic questions:: Year of Degree (n = 4), Work
Region (n = 3), Work Setting (n = 3), and Repatriation-related Expe-
“SAA shouldn’t tell people what to do, but help them to do rience (n = 13).
it.” (ID# 3739997473)
2. The Work Region categories originally found in the survey
are: United States, Canada, Arctic-any continent, Caribbean,
Section 4. Conclusions Mesoamerica, Central America-other, South America, Oceania,
East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Asia,
This survey reveals that the majority of the members of the Europe, Africa- Northern, Africa-Sub-Saharan, and Other (please
SAA are not calling for drastic revision of the SAA’s State- specify).
ment Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains. Some
3. The Work Setting categories originally found in the survey
individuals are calling for revision to balance interests
are: Academic-Community College, Academic-4-year institution
between different stakeholders, but relatively few are calling without a graduate program, Academic-4-year institution with a
for revision to emphasize either Native American communi- graduate program, CRM-Cultural Resources Consulting Firm,
ty and individual rights or scientific values (see Supplemen- CRM-Environmental or Engineering Consulting Firm, CRM-Muse-
tal Tables 28-31). um or University-based Consulting Organization, Education (K-
12), Government-Federal, Government-Tribal, Government-State,
Many members of the SAA, especially students and younger Government-Local, Museum, Private Foundation, Avocational,
members, would benefit from learning more about the Retired, Student, and Other (please specify).
SAA’s activities concerning repatriation and other issues sur- 4. The Repatriation-related Activities categories originally found
rounding the NAGPRA legislation (see Supplemental Tables in the survey are: Not Applicable/None, Consultation with indige-
34 and 38). Opinions on some issues seem to be influenced nous or descendant communities, Other communication or coordi-
most by the respondents’ Year of Degree. Some factors that nation with indigenous or local communities, Drafting repatriation
are related to Year of Degree, for instance: (1) individuals or disposition agreements, Drafting required summaries and
with more recent degrees are more likely to consider Archaic inventories, Responding to inadvertent discoveries during field-
and Paleoindian human remains to be Native American work, Field research to determine cultural affiliation, Research on
(Supplemental Table 12, Supplemental Table 16), and (2) the history of repatriation, Research on comparative multinational
individuals with older degrees are more likely to consider repatriation legislation and processes, Independent repatriation-
that NAGPRA has had a negative effect on archaeological related ethnographic research, Participate in multinational repatria-
research (Supplemental Table 20). On the whole, Year of tion agreements, and Other (please specify).
Degree and Experience with Repatriation are more impor- 5. Note: The original survey responses for Year of Degree in the
tant underlying factors in the responses to this survey than Repatriation Survey were formatted with overlapping years (e.g.,
Work Setting and Work Region. The greatest differences 1950–1955, 1955–1960, 1960–1965, etc.). This formatting may have
amongst the members of the SAA seem to reside in differ- skewed the results because two of every five years are represented
ences of opinion between members who pursued their edu- in two ranges.
cations at different times. 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.

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 strik-
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
ing pattern in the Alonzi report is the respondents’ date-of- freedom, no longer see such research as being in their inter-
degree bias: individuals receiving degrees before 1980 would ests. The reason, at least in the case of the University of Cal-
like to see SAA advocate for greater protection for the cura- ifornia system where I worked on NAGPRA issues for nearly
tion and study of Native American human remains under three decades, is all about money.
NAGPRA. While this seems a minority view within SAA
today, it was the majority view when NAGPRA was being As state funding for the University of California system has
crafted in the 1980s. The obvious question is why SAA sup- dwindled, fundraising from private sources has become crit-
ported and worked so hard for the passage of NAGPRA, ically important. The University of California motto “Let
when the majority of its members were at best skeptical, there be light” seems to have become “Show me the loot.”
fearing NAGPRA signaled the beginning of the end for The NAGPRA connection lies in the financial support to be
research involving Native American human remains? The had by some campuses from gaming tribes, which are being
answer is that SAA did so because the skeptical majority saw aggressively pursued as sources of endowments. This cre-
the importance of compromise and were willing to go ates a conflict of interest when it comes to NAGPRA compli-
halfway to meet those holding the minority view that favored ance, pitting scientists engaged research with human
NAGPRA. Much to their credit, and despite many reserva- remains allowed under NAGPRA against fundraisers anx-
tions, this majority held that the minority view needed to be ious to please potential tribal donors. Not surprisingly, given
respected and incorporated into a compromise partnership other, nationally publicized serial lapses in judgement and
that would benefit SAA going forward. ethics, my own UC Davis administration has sided with the
fundraisers. It is hardly by chance that the two Native Amer-
Time has reversed the original majority-minority relation- ican representatives on the UC Davis NAGPRA committee
ship between these two points of view in SAA. The Society now are from the two largest gaming tribes in northern Cal-
has not done nearly so well in protecting and respecting the ifornia, one of which has already provided major funding to
interests of those who hold the now-minority view. In partic- UC Davis and is constantly courted by UC Davis fundraisers
ular, those holding the now-majority view regarding NAG- for additional donations.
PRA, especially 43 C.F.R. § 10.11, seem disinclined to give
those holding the now-minority view the same protections When they excavate, archaeologists know it is their ethical
they and their views once received. SAA, which worked tire- responsibility to save even objects they do not intend to study
lessly for the passage of NAGPRA, did not work nearly as for future research. It would behoove SAA to think likewise
hard to prevent the finalization of 43 C.F.R. § 10.11, which with regard to NAGPRA—understanding that, as the Alonzi
justified the fears of those who had major reservations report shows, values and beliefs change; that those dominant
regarding NAGPRA but put them aside in the spirit of find- today may not be dominant tomorrow; and that acting to
ing common ground within the SAA. serve only the view that is momentarily dominant will
inevitably prove short-sighted.
A good faith compromise requires that each side honor what
the other concedes by protecting the things they did not con- — Robert L. Bettinger, Professor, Department of Anthropology,
cede. SAA could have and should have done more to protect University of California, Davis
what remained of the interests of those who were skeptical
of NAGPRA but were willing to compromise.

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 fre-
The SAA’s Repatriation Survey:
quent, as reflected in the numerical results of question 18
Whither North American Bioarchaeology?
(“Given the SAA’s historic and ongoing level of engagement
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
on repatriation issues, would you like to see: more involve-
ment, 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 conversa-
tion within archaeology has largely shifted from “science vs.
slow motion lightning; one could see it coming, brace for Native America” to how NAGPRA is playing out in different
impact, or even duck and run. Charred beyond recognition regions where SAA members do their work. Further, my
in some places but only singed in others, bioarchaeology own demographic and those who attained their degrees after
continues. Bioarchaeologists still produce research, gain 2010 believe NAGPRA has had a positive effect on archaeol-
Masters degrees and Ph.D.s, and embark on careers in aca- ogy in larger numbers than do our disciplinary elders.
demic institutions, museums, and CRM settings. SAA’s
Repatriation survey took a valuable snapshot of perspectives Bioarchaeology is not what it was in 1990, nor should it be.
within the Society that bear directly on the state of bioarchae- Bioarchaeological research and interpretation have gotten
ology in the United States. I am grateful to have been asked better and better. Some bioarchaeologists work productively
by the SAA’s leadership to reflect on the survey results and with tribes and nations, others handle a repatriation claim
will, to the best of my ability, fairly represent respondents’ here and there, and others do not participate in NAGPRA
views while providing my own impressions of bioarchaeolo- consultations, for one reason or another. Many skeletal indi-
gy alongside repatriation. viduals have been repatriated, and others cursorily observed
in situ and then covered back up. However, many thousands
Like other bioarchaeologists of my generation, I was warned of Native American ancestors still lie on shelves or in draw-
early in my graduate education that I should cultivate an ers in museums and universities. In the 1980s and 1990s,
international project. Repatriation, it was said, would curtail bioarchaeologists contributed their views to the emerging lit-
excavation opportunities in the United States, so I needed a erature on repatriation. Few scholarly venues exist today,
project abroad that would solidly propel my career. Survey though, for bioarchaeologists to talk about repatriation and
respondents who discuss bioarchaeology clearly indicate that NAGPRA. I believe we need to create those spaces anew.
people are seeking both training and PI opportunities out-
side of the U.S. because of repatriation. Further, while the I urge my bioarchaeological colleagues to take the advice of
1990s saw a surge in bioarchaeological research because of many survey participants: do not shy away from engage-
NAGPRA’s inventory requirements, respondents also per- ment—with each other, with archaeologists, with Native peo-
ceive that new and innovative research contributions from ple, and with other stakeholders involved in repatriation. By
the U.S. have declined. Survey participants also comment on far the most rewarding research experiences I have had with
the climate for bioarchaeological research: they believe Native American ancestors arose directly from relationships
human remains of every era are being repatriated or of camaraderie and mutual trust with their tribal descen-
reburied too rapidly without proper analysis, researchers do dants. Bioarchaeology cannot, in good conscience, hold itself
not want to request access to skeletal remains and risk wad- above or apart from either the history of colonial collection,
ing into contentious political waters, and excavation of or the complex restorative politics that have arisen in
human remains now rarely occurs in educational (e.g., field response to that history. By choosing to be bioarchaeologists,
school) settings. This is a bleak assessment. we become part of a disciplinary descendant community,
with responsibilities to that past in the present.
Others’ comments, however, advocate repairing relation-
ships with Native communities, cite how NAGPRA (with all —Ann M. Kakaliouras, Associate Professor of Anthropology,
of its flaws) has facilitated cooperation, and press for a more Whittier College ([email protected])
nuanced consideration of Native rights in SAA policies. Like-
wise, in some very eloquent statements, participants discuss
the historical inequities that created museum and university

cases; they were also effective in communicating a clear and

understandable rationale underlying SAA’s positions.
Comments on the SAA Repatriation Survey
Second, while cooperation with Native American communi-
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 disclo-
sure: As a member of the SAA Board in 1986, I was one of
ties is both important and valuable, further elaboration on
that point here isn’t essential. These values are explicitly rec-
ognized in the Statement and are even more forcefully stated
in the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics.
the key drafters of the present statement, and I served as A final reason to leave the Statement alone is the same rea-
chair of the Task Force on Reburial and Repatriation when son we don’t invite amendments, for example, to NHPA,
NAGPRA was negotiated. Apart from my terms as SAA Pres- even though it could certainly be improved. Whenever
ident and Secretary, I was a chair, member, or advisor to the important, established language is opened up for change,
Committee on Repatriation (or the predecessor Task Force), there is a substantial risk of ending up with a worse result. A
from its establishment in 1989 until 2009. In all these capac- revision consistent with the existing principles has more
ities, I frequently represented the Society on repatriation- potential for fostering division than unity and, in any case,
related issues, including before U.S. House and Senate won’t change perceptions of archaeology in Indian Country.
Committees and the NAGPRA Review Committee.
Whether or not the statement is changed, it is essential
The survey reveals that about two-thirds of the respondents that—firmly contextualized in a balance with Native inter-
expressing an opinion on Question 17 believe that the SAA ests—SAA strongly and actively promote the value of scien-
Statement does need revision. While that represents a prima tific research on human remains and mortuary contexts. If
facie case for change, let us look closer. Of those expressing SAA cannot or will not defend principled scientific research,
an opinion, a third do not believe it needs revision and a then who will?
third think the language should better emphasize coopera-
tion and balance. Of the remaining third, more believe that Finally, a point on NAGPRA’s history. A third of the respon-
it needs a stronger emphasis on scientific values (19%) than dents expressing an opinion on Question 14 were just plain
believe Native American interests should have more empha- wrong to say that NAGPRA did not represent a compromise
sis (15%). Overall, that strikes me as a strong endorsement between science and Native American rights. Whether or not
of the principles (and less so the language) expressed by the one agrees with the particulars, it was, unquestionably, a
statement. compromise. Why else would John McCain, one of two Sen-
ators leading the fight for NAGPRA, state on the Senate
So should SAA change the Statement? Having observed SAA floor: “I believe this bill represents a true compromise”
internal debates over this issue for the last 30 years, my (Lovis et al. 2004).
answer is “no.” There are three reasons.
—Keith W. Kintigh, School of Human Evolution and Social
First, the Statement has served the Society quite well and can Change, Arizona State University ([email protected])
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 legiti- Reference Cited
mate and must be respected; that those interests should be Lovis, William A., Keith W. Kintigh, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and
balanced on a case-by-case basis assessing the scientific Lynne G. Goldstein
importance of the remains on the one hand and the strength 2004 Archaeological Perspectives on the Native American
of claimants’ relationship on the other; that all remains Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Underlying Principles.
should receive appropriate scientific documentation; and In Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources, edited by Jennifer R.
that human remains must always be treated with dignity and Richman and Marion P. Forsyth, pp. 165–184. Altamira Press,
respect. 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

yet, 25 years on, institutions report that at current rates, repa-

triation through NAGPRA and the NMAI Act, will take anoth-
NAGPRA and Archaeological Values: A Response to er 60–75 years to return the 125,000 ancestors still held in fed-
the SAA Repatriation Survey erally funded repositories (Chari and Lavallee 2013:13). And
despite the inroads of indigenous and collaborative archaeo-
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 disci-
pline’s perspective on NAGPRA. Certainly, several of the
logical approaches, we still see few articles in flagship journals
that address the impact of repatriation and indigenous per-
spectives on archaeological theory and methodology. If we
have indeed come so far, shouldn’t we see more progress?
buzzwords of archaeology in the twenty-first century—col-

laborative archaeology, community archaeology, public The SAA NAGPRA Survey
archaeology—reflect a discipline-wide shift toward a more Responding to these questions, the SAA’s Committee on
engaged, collaborative approach to archaeological practice. Native American Relations, Indigenous Populations Interest
Group, and Repatriation Committee set out six years ago to
Representative of this shift are the diversity of positive, work- survey the membership to determine how far perspectives
ing relationships established between archaeologists and within the membership of the SAA have changed. The idea
Indigenous peoples across the globe. In the United States, for the survey emerged out of a working retreat sponsored by
these partnerships range from federally or state-mandated the SAA Board that was convened following the publication
consultation to fully collaborative and community-based of 43 C.F.R 10.11, the regulations concerning the Disposi-
research and learning partnerships that demonstrate how the tion of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains. While
opening and strengthening of dialogue between our commu- discussing the Society’s response on matters related to repa-
nities has the potential to resolve complex issues surrounding triation, several of the attendees pointed out that we had no
the protection, care, and disposition of tribal heritage. quantitative or systematic qualitative data concerning where
the membership stood on the issue.
We also see changes in the ways our professional bodies and
institutions have attempted to become more inclusive of This past Spring, the survey as drafted by the NAGPRA Sur-
Indigenous peoples. Collectively, we have been the chairs of vey Committee was finally administered to the membership.
the SAA’s Committee on Native American Relations With the publication of the results, we now have a valuable
(CNAR), Indigenous Populations Interest Group (IPIG), and opportunity to understand and reflect upon the diversity of
one of us (Pattie Garcia-Plotkin) was recently elected to the perspectives within our discipline. The results of the survey
SAA Board. We are not alone in these accomplishments and document a membership still deeply divided over the impact
many of our colleagues who are working to create space for of NAGPRA, with the majority classifying those impacts as
indigenous perspectives have served in similar capacities mixed or negative for our discipline. These perspectives also
within the SAA. This past spring at the SAAs annual meet- appear to be generational, with archaeologists trained prior
ing, we also witnessed and were a part of two historic events: to 1990 more likely to support the view that both NAGPRA
President Diane Gifford-Gonzalez’s and the SAA’s official and the 10.11 regulations have had a detrimental impact
welcome and recognition of the Seminole Tribe at the open- upon North American archaeology (Alonzi 2015).
ing ceremony and the Executive Board’s sponsorship of the
Native American Welcome Reception, which draws over 50 The questions that were asked of the membership only
attendees each year. These actions signify a larger attempt on touch the surface of the larger issues that NAGPRA has
behalf of the SAA to build a path forward that allows for us— manifested. For example, the majority of the SAA member-
archaeologists and indigenous communities—to work ship that responded to the survey believes that NAGPRA rep-
towards a better understanding of each other’s roles and resents a balance of scientific interests and Native American
responsibilities within the discipline. perspectives. This legislation was drafted as human rights
legislation created to equalize the treatment of Native Amer-
NAGPRA is certainly not the only contributing factor in these ican human remains, associated and unassociated funerary
developments, but it remains a watershed moment in our dis- objects, sacred items, and items of cultural patrimony to be
cipline’s history, one that reflects both the impact of and grow- treated in a humane fashion and not simply as “scientific
ing integration of indigenous critiques and perspectives into specimens.” NAGPRA is more than a federal process that
archaeological and anthropological theory and practice. And affects museum collections or a law designed to balance

Native American and Hawaiian perspectives with science; it well as directly by the SAA President. SAA’s current pledge to
is a tool used to begin the healing process for tribal commu- support the participation of Indigenous peoples at our annual
nities whom have survived processes of colonization that meeting and directly sponsor the Native American Welcome
turned their ancestors into objects of scientific inquiry. Reception, which was previously sponsored by CNAR and
According to Zimmerman (1997) the former viewpoint IPIG, is a welcome step for building bridges between our
remythologizes the relationship between Native Americans respective communities. The recent participation of over a
and archaeologists and is part of a process of our discipline dozen tribal historic preservation offices in the SAA meetings
coming to terms with its colonial past. We thus read the cur- points to their and the Society’s willingness to listen to each
rent memberships’ view of NAGPRA as a positive sign, one other. In our respective roles within the SAA, we are commit-
that indicates a willingness to consider and integrate indige- ted to creating more platforms for such listening and healing,
nous perspectives into archaeological practice. 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 Conclusion
face in fostering ethically grounded relationships with There remains much work to be done before indigenous
indigenous communities, we also see the positive ways in land and heritage managers and tribal historic preservation
which we can use this survey to inform how we might con- officers begin to see the SAA as a welcoming space. We
tinue to work with each other to create an archaeological remain optimistic that such a change is possible if it is
community that embraces indigenous perspectives and premised on mutual understanding and respect for the dig-
respects their fundamental human rights. Education and nity and human rights of Native Americans. To reiterate the
involvement of students and practicing archaeologists in col- anonymous comment of one survey respondent, “Research
laborations and consultations with indigenous communities solely for the sake of scientific knowledge regardless of the
is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a critical venue for shaping disci- impacts to the living is not worth the cost, nor is research
plinary perspectives of repatriation and transforming our that causes great sociological harm to the living.”
relationship with tribal communities. Individually, we each
see the power of an archaeological education that is ground- As we take stock of how far our discipline has come and
ed in respect for and understanding of Native Americans where we are headed into the future, we want to acknowl-
and other indigenous and descendant communities not as edge that this SAA Archaeological Record forum is shaped by
“stakeholders” or “interest groups,” but as the traditional each of our positions within the discipline. While we might
owners of the lands and heritage with which we work on a represent a Post-NAGPRA generation of archaeologists, it is
daily basis. The positive outcomes from community-based important that we recognize our own limited perspectives as:
field schools such as the Pimu Catalina Field School (Mar- (1) professional archaeologists; (2) who work with tribal com-
tinez and Teeter 2015), Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Proj- munities in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest and California;
ect (Gonzalez et al. 2005), Eastern Pequot Archaeological and (3) who are employed by federally recognized tribes and
Field School (http://www.faculty.umb.edu/stephen_silli- a research university. The scope of analysis presented in this
man/html/northeast.html), Field Methods in Indigenous venue might look far different with the inclusion of other
Archaeology (http://blogs.uw.edu/gonzalsa/field-methods- voices and vantage points not represented and it is important
in-indigenous-archaeology-2015/), The Mohegan Field not to forget them as we push ahead.
School (Cipolla and Quinn 2016), Cayuga Field School
(Rossen 2008), and others, point to the possibilities that —Sara L. Gonzalez, Assistant Professor, Department of
emerge when archaeologists, students, and tribal communi- Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
ties come together to care for tribal heritage. ([email protected])
But education alone is not enough. As a society, we should —Ora Marek-Martinez, Department Manager and Tribal
commit to and support greater dialogue between archaeolo- Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preserva-
gists, heritage managers, and indigenous and descendant tion Department, Window Rock, AZ ([email protected])
communities. At the SAA, we have seen increasing support
for such dialogue through the development of sponsored ses- —Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director and Tribal Historic
sions by the committees on Repatriation, Native American Preservation Officer, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,
Relations, and the Indigenous Populations Interest Group, as Palm Springs, CA ([email protected])

References Cited impacted by NAGPRA. Allowing people with no experi-

Alonzi, Elise
ence—but lots of political views—to speak on the SAA policy
2015 SAA Repatriation Survey Analysis. Submitted to the on repatriation as presented in its Statement Concerning the
Society for American Archaeology. Electronic document, Treatment of Human Remains further politicizes the views at
http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/RepatriationIssues/tabid/ BOTH ends of the spectrum. If being inclusive was the goal,
214/Default.aspx, accessed August 31, 2016. then an alternative instrument structure should have been
Chari, Sangita, and Jaime M.N. Lavallee designed.
2013 Introduction. In Accomplishing NAGPRA: perspectives on the
Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protec- Alzoni’s analysis and report support the interpretation that
tion and Repatriation Act, ed. by Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. archaeologists and students who received their degrees or
Lavallee, pp. 7–18. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. training after the passage of NAGPRA are more likely to see
Cipolla, Craig N., and James Quinn or feel the positive benefits of repatriation. Alonzi (2016:38)
2016 Field School Archaeology the Mohegan way: Reflections on expresses this as: “[t]he greatest differences amongst the
Twenty Years of Community-Based Research and Teaching. members of the SAA seem to reside in differences of opin-
Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 3(2):118–134. ion between members who pursued their educations at dif-
Gonzalez, Sara, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, and Tsim D. ferent times.” The other conclusion reached by Alonzi is that
Schneider “the majority of the members of the SAA are not calling for
2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. American Indian drastic revision of the SAA’s Statement.” These are both good
Quarterly 30:388-415.
to know, and it offers me hope that future generations of
Martinez, Desireé R., and Wendy G. Teeter
archaeologists might not have to go through the struggles
2015 Ho’eexokre ‘Eyookuuka’ro “We’re Working with Each
the previous generations of archaeologists have endured in
Other”: the Pimu Catalina Island Project. The SAA Archaeologi-
this arena.
cal Record 15(1):25–28.
Rossen, Jack
2008 Field School Archaeology, Activism, and Politics in the The Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human Remains is
Cayuga Homeland of Central New York. In Collaborating at the NOT a repatriation policy, but rather a reinforcement of the
Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, rights of science. While it calls for the concerns of different
edited by S. W. Silliman, pp. 103–120. The University of Ari- cultures to be recognized and respected, it gives no indica-
zona Press, Tucson. tion that they should be afforded anything more. It presents
Zimmerman, Larry J. human remains as archaeological data and a source of infor-
1997 Remythologizing the Relationships Between Indians and mation. If I were required to “sign” a condition-of-member-
Archaeologists. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping ship stating that I agreed to abide by the SAA’s Statement, I
Stones to Common Ground, ed. by Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Don- would respectfully decline for two reasons. First, while I
goske, Roger Anyon, Alan S. Downer, pp. 44–56. Alta Mira believe it is important “‘to advocate and to aid in the conser-
Press, Walnut Creek. vation of archaeological data,” as specified in the Bylaws of
the Society for American Archaeology, I do not feel that advo-
cating for the conservation of archaeological data should pre-
clude 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
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 distribut-
ing it to people working outside the United States and those
with no direct NAGPRA experience. By including these indi-
[archaeological] record are consistent with the objectives,
principles, and formal statements of the Society for Ameri-
can 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
viduals, the results are based on opinion and anecdotes as consult with multiple stakeholders and to consider their
opposed to direct knowledge of the impact of the law on wishes and perspectives concerning our “shared” archaeo-
archaeology. While I recognize that repatriation legislation in logical record. To require me to lobby for any law that I do not
the U.S. has influenced archaeology on a global scale, I believe in merely for the “health” of my professional society
believe that, if the SAA wanted informed opinions from its is restrictive and should not be used to define me as a “pro-
members on its stance, it would have been more effective to fessional.”
limit participation to those directly experienced with or

The most useful aspect of the survey is within the various quick read gave me the impression that broad categorization
perspectives reflected in the respondents’ “Comments.” would provide an almost bell-shaped curve. To me, that is
They offer a wide range of thoughts and perspectives about where the SAA can find the most telling information on
NAGPRA, and the anonymity allowed people to answer NAGPRA, archaeologists, and Native American issues.
freely and candidly. There are nuggets of wisdom there that
will help anyone who is interested in studying the relation- —Joe Watkins, Supervisory Anthropologist,
ships between archaeologists and Native Americans. While I National Park Service
did not categorize, sort, or do content analysis on them, a
-J
OEB
4
$PSEFM
M
.FNPSJ
BM
3FT
FBSDI
"XBSE
7KH/LQGD6&RUGHOO0HPRULDO5HVHDUFK$ZDUG
VXSSRUWVVFKRODUO\UHVHDUFKDWWKH5REHUW63HDERG\
0XVHXPRI$UFKDHRORJ\XVLQJWKHFROOHFWLRQVRIWKH
PXVHXP7KHHQGRZPHQWZDVQDPHGLQKRQRURI
/LQGD6&RUGHOO3K'DGLVWLQJXLVKHGDUFKDHRORJLVW
VSHFLDOL]LQJLQWKH$PHULFDQ6RXWKZHVWDQGPHPEHU
RIWKH3HDERG\$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH
(OLJLELOLW\3URIHVVLRQDOVLQDUFKDHRORJ\DQWKURSRORJ\
DQGDOOLHGILHOGV3UHIHUHQFHJLYHQWR3K'FDQGLGDWHV
MXQLRUIDFXOW\DWFROOHJHVDQGXQLYHUVLWLHVDQG
1DWLYH$PHULFDQVFKRODUV
$ZDUG/RGJLQJIRURQHZHHNWUDYHOH[SHQVHVWR
$QGRYHU0DVVSHUGLHPDQGDVPDOOVWLSHQG
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKH&RUGHOO$ZDUG
DQGWKH3HDERG\0XVHXPHPDLO5\DQ:KHHOHUDWUZKHHOHU#DQGRYHUHGX
RUVHHXVRQWKH:HEDWKWWSELWO\SJ]9

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 contem-
porary purposes not directly related to their use in pre-
history. As the oldest known earthen mounds in the western
hemisphere, the Louisiana State University (LSU) Campus
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, subsur-
face coring, and excavations were undertaken by LSU
Mounds are an important record of the indigenous past and researchers Brooks Elwood, Rob Mann, and Rebecca Saunders
important to the cultural heritage of Louisiana. However, the (Blitzer 2010).
mounds have a long historical tradition of use, including politi-
cal, religious, and leisure events, which are quite distinct from
their archaeological importance. After the mounds were incor- Preserving the LSU Campus Mounds
porated into the LSU campus design by the Olmstead Brothers, Results of remote sensing conducted by Dr. Brooks Ellwood of
the mounds have become significant for their modern cultural LSU indicated that the mounds were eroding and slumping.
uses and their importance to local and regional groups. By Concerned archaeologists, professors, administrators, and stu-
incorporating the mounds into the built landscape at a public dents decided to take action to preserve these mounds by deny-
university, they are now part of public space, but can this space ing access to them during the 2010 LSU football home games.
be shared among the various interest groups? In addition, under Louisiana State Law Chapter 13—Archaeo-
logical Resources (R.S. 41:1601–1615) section 1604, it is unlaw-
The two LSU campus mounds are part of a mound-building ful to damage archaeological resources on state land. During the
complex not ascribed to agricultural groups, but to hunters and 2010–2011 football season, with LSU Institutional Review
gatherers who used them for ceremonial gatherings (Gibson Board approval, I spent Saturdays during home games around
1994). The mounds are a high feature (nearly 20 feet tall) sitting the mounds engaging in participant observation and conduct-
on a natural bluff overlooking the Mississippi River in a flat ing interviews on how the mounds were being used. At this
south Louisiana environment (Figure 1). Today, Tiger Football time, several LSU faculty, including Brooks Ellwood, Rob Mann,
Stadium as well as numerous campus buildings block the view Heather McKillop, and Rebecca Saunders, administrators, and
of the Mississippi River from the mounds. The mounds are part students decided to rope off the mounds at their base in order
of the Williams Plantation purchased by the State of Louisiana in to protect them, titling the campaign “Preserve the LSU
the early twentieth century to be the new location for LSU, which Mounds.” In addition to the support of the LSU administration
was moved from the original downtown Baton Rouge area and and faculty, the “Preserve the LSU Mounds” campaign was sup-
opened in 1926. The Olmstead Brothers design firm was granted ported by the Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Divi-
the architectural design contract. The firm decided to keep the sion of Archaeology. Further support came from the Red River
mounds intact by integrating the mounds into the plan. Choctaw who spent one Saturday at the mounds talking to the
public about the mounds’ importance and the Avoyel-Taensa
Until recently, limited archaeological investigations have taken Tribe/Nation of Louisiana, Inc. Roping off the mounds became
place at the mounds. In 1982, Robert Neuman (1988) cored a heated endeavor for people who previously had free access and
both mounds and reported the first radiocarbon dates for felt ownership of the mounds, especially tailgaters. In order to
Mound A. These dates ranged from 5345 ± 235 B.P. to 4510 ± provide information on why access to the mounds was being
185 B.P. Test excavations surrounding the mound indicate no restricted during game day, the LSU Department of Geography
evidence of village habitation (Homburg 1988; 1991). The and Anthropology Club stationed a canopy tent between the
mounds were listed to the National Register of Historic Places 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.
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
Figure 1. Overview of the LSU Campus Mounds showing Tiger Stadium in Tiger Athletics Foundation is self-sustaining by raising its own
the distance. Photograph by E. Cory Sills. funds to support LSU athletics and, especially, football.
Season tickets to LSU football games and the associated cost of

mation to the public (Figure 2). The mounds remained open to tailgating are expensive. Many tailgaters arrive in RVs, bringing
the public except on football game days. with them tents, large industrial grills, generators, multiple
TVs, and enough food and drink to feed extended families,
Car traffic is restricted Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 friends, and the occasional passerby for the day. So, it came as
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 allow-
ing 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 dis-

tance 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, Figure 2. The LSU Geography and Anthropology Club informational tail-
teenagers move to the top of the mounds to hang out and play gating tent. The tent was placed every Saturday and staffed with faculty
in large groups where they can be seen and where they can view and student volunteers. The goal was to engage the public by telling them
the comings and goings of others. About an hour and a half the importance of the mounds. Photograph by Heather McKillop.

ARTICLE
Tailgaters continued to actively resist the restriction of access to

the mounds. Some of the antagonism was directed at the sci-
ence behind the restrictions. One Saturday, an unknown indi-
vidual 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 cam-
pus 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 Geogra-
phy and Anthropology club, along with concerned citizens, con-
tinued 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

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
Figure 3. Kids using a “preserve the mounds” sign to sled down the mounds
same spot for over 12 years. Their t-shirts and sign, which they
during a Saturday football home game. Photograph by Heather McKillop.
hang between two crepe myrtles, sexualize the mounds (Figure
4). However, the tailgate became a way to celebrate their family,
no surprise that denying access to the mounds on game day to renew memories, and create and maintain rituals. For example,
tailgaters created tension between the tailgaters and LSU when a matriarch of the family died, the family dedicated a
administration, researchers, and students. Early initiatives to memorial plaque for an oak tree and scattered her ashes at the
restrict access to the mounds were met with vociferous resist- base of the tree. To commemorate her passing, an hour before the
ance. At the first home football game of the 2010 season, large start of each home game, the family gathers around the oak tree,
signs were placed at the base of the mounds that read “Please places a dozen roses, and toasts her memory with champagne.
Do Not Slide On The Mounds,” “Help Preserve The Mounds,”
“Look But Please Do Not Climb,” and “LSU Mounds 6,000 Years These memories and rituals—as well as others I have record-
Old.” These signs did not stay in place long as event goers dis- ed—have no ties to the mounds as a Native American feature.
regarded the signs, even uprooting them so their kids could use Instead, the mounds have been reappropriated and modified
them as slides (Figure 3). After the first game, LSU administra- without any association to the past. Nonetheless, the mounds
tion agreed to rope off the mounds, but people continued to dis- have become a place of memory and a socially constructed activ-
regard the barriers by climbing over or under ropes or tearing ity space for the current populace rather than those who occu-
them down. Finally, a large meter-high green plastic fence was pied the space originally. Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) have
staked around the base of the mounds and a security guard was referred to the tension between various representations of the
hired by LSU to restrict access on game day (Blum 2010). The past as “dissonant heritage” where the preservation of the past
larger fence minimized the foot traffic, even though I observed by various stake holders can be fragmented and have very little
a few parents lifting their children over the fence to slide down to do with the original connection to the past. The appropriation
the mound. of the LSU Campus Mounds from a Native American space to
one of additional meanings creates a disconnect between the

ARTICLE
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
Figure 4. The official sign for an extended family that tailgates between the
have clearly become a feature for invented rituals and traditions.
mounds. Photograph by E. Cory Sills.
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
past and the present. Of course, this disconnect is not just at the
that this public space will continue to be a place that everyone
LSU Campus Mounds but has been seen at other mound sites
can share.
in the United States as a product of colonization of the Americ-
as where interpretations of the past are created and recreated by
archaeologists and heritage conservation groups (Mann 2005). References Cited
Blitzer, Carol Anne
My archival research at the LSU Hill Memorial Library and the
2010 LSU Mounds Have Storied Past. The Advocate. 10 December.
T. Harry Williams Center for Oral History revealed many histor- Baton Rouge.
ical activities associated with the campus mounds in addition to Blum, Jordan
tailgating, including two notable incidents I report here that cre- 2010 Indian Mounds to Be Fenced Again. The Advocate. 1 October.
ate additional meanings for this place. The first plaque to be Baton Rouge.
placed at the mounds was not the NRHP plaque but the result Brown, W.K.
of a tragic death of an LSU student in 1984. Courtenay Elizabeth 1986 Interview by Gary Huey. 5 August 1986. Louisiana and Lower
Smoak was killed by a truck while sitting on the mounds tailgat- Mississippi Valley Collections, LSU Libraries, Baton Rouge,
ing for a football game. The results of this incident led the LSU Louisiana.
administration to construct small physical barriers and lamp Gibson, Jon L.
posts around the mounds in order to prevent vehicular traffic on 1994 Before Their Time? Early Mounds in the Lower Mississippi
the mounds. In 1986, a commemorative plaque sponsored by Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):162–186.
LSU Student Government was placed on the southern side of Homburg, Jeff
Mound A. 1988 Archaeological Investigations at the LSU Campus Mounds
Site. Louisiana Archaeology 15:31–204.
I found an oral history account in the archives describing a story 1991 An Archaeological Investigation at the LSU Campus Mounds.
of a “stripper” who was hired by Gillis Long’s opposition to Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Geography and Anthro-
make a speech during the Student Government Presidential pology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Mann, Rob
elections in 1946 (Brown 1986). Gillis Long, a respected U.S.
2005 Intruding on the Past: The Reuse of Ancient Earthen Mounds
Representative, was a cousin of the renowned Louisiana Gover-
by Native Americans. Southeastern Archaeology 24:1–10.
nor and U.S. Senator Huey P. Long. In this account by Brown,
Neuman, Robert
at the LSU campus mounds, an angry mob attacked the “strip-
1988 Report on the Soil Core Borings Conducted at the LSU Cam-
per” and threw her into a lake on the LSU campus grounds. pus Mounds Site (16EBR6), East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Unfortunately, the alleged “stripper” is nameless in history. She Louisiana Archaeology 15:1–30.
is described as being from New Orleans and possibly hired as a Tunbridge, John E., and Gregory J. Ashworth
publicity stunt. 1996 Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in
Conflict. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

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 fortune-

seekers and adventurers since time immemorial, the fos-
sils 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
Gatewood 2003:57). This sentiment rings a noble tone, and it is
undoubtedly true of many visitors to historic sites and muse-
ums, but that still leaves pleasure-seeking as a principal motiva-
tor for many—if not most—other visitors. With regard to visita-
tion of backcountry archaeological sites, it is undoubtedly the
Hutton and the subsequent chronological revolution of the vanguard motivation.
1860s by figures like Lyell and Darwin. Analyzing material
remains to infer conditions in the distant past became a popular This study presents three behavioral models—two developed in
domain of inquiry, especially with regard to the human past, behavioral biology frameworks, and one that is original. They
although through modern eyes it is easy to conflate much of differ in their levels of generality, applicability, and abstraction,
early archaeology with plundering. The first American effort to and they predict for three separate behavior sets. They converge,
manage and protect its fragile archaeological resources com- however, on the imperative desperateness of cultural resource
menced in 1906 with the federal Antiquities Act, a result of conservation in an increasingly informed culture and in increas-
increased awareness that archaeological materials are non- ingly crowded wilderness settings. It is hoped that these mod-
renewable resources—they are not, after all, making any more els, the theory that underlies them, and the datasets that inform
of them—and were being wholesale destroyed by looters. them will prove not only educational but useful for the manage-
Stronger laws like NHPA and ARPA followed, affording more ment and preservation of some of our most valuable and sacred
stringent protections for archaeological resources, and the pas- non-renewable resources.
sage 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 for- Habitat Quality and Population Density
tune-seekers and adventurers, arguably more now than ever in The Ideal Free Distribution (IFD) model from behavioral ecolo-
the case of the latter. gy is an attempt to account for settlement patterns from the
framework of optimal foraging theory (Fretwell and Lucas
As with most social trends, fascination with antiquities is a dif- 1970). The model is used most often to represent or predict set-
ficult leviathan to track, although the modern Western version tlement patterns in terms of habitat selection choices based on
probably dates back just a few generations. Known to many as economic optimization. In doing so, it makes two assumptions:
“heritage tourism,” travel to archaeological and historical sites, first, all individual organisms have the information to select—
parks, museums, and places of traditional or ethnic interest is and the ability to settle in—the most suitable habitat available.
among the most popular sectors of the travel industry. A 2003 And, second, all individual organisms are free to shift their
study in Ethnology by Cameron and Gatewood sought to under- habitat selection in response to local population density. The
stand this phenomenon, noting that “historical sites and muse- assumption, then, is that organisms will distribute themselves
ums in both North America and Europe have become increas- first in the “best” or most favorable location, in terms of desired
ingly popular visitor destinations over the past decades, a fact resources. As additional organisms move into that habitat and
prompting the observation that history has become a booming population density increases, consequent resource stress causes
industry” (Cameron and Gatewood 2003:55). The upshot of their the suitability of the habitat to drop to or below the level of the
efforts was the discovery that, in addition to pleasure-seeking, next-ranked habitat, at which point organisms will move to
many heritage tourists seek to “transcend the present and occupy it, and so on. Figure 1, adapted from Kennett et al. 2006,
engage with the past in a highly personal way” (Cameron and illustrates this concept.

ARTICLE
H1 through H3: three different habitats ranked While there will always be deep-backcountry fanatics whose
by suitability in terms of resources.
bedrock desire is to go as far as they possibly can toward the
A: the point at which population pressure on
resources has driven Habitat 1 to be no better edges of the map, the one-sigma majority is content to spend
than Habitat 2, at which point individuals are
expected to begin to colonize both of them. one or several days on a sure path that promises sure rewards.
B: the point at which population pressure on The trouble comes when such visitation increases so much that,
resources has driven Habitat 1 to be no better for many people, the qualitative resource value drops below that
than Habitat 3, at which point individuals are
expected to begin to colonize all available of harsher but less-crowded locales. Then it isn’t just the few
habitats.
fanatics pushing deeper and deeper into what Edward Abbey
called the “back of beyond.” Everyone else starts doing it, too.
Figure 1. Ideal Free Distribution model of habitat selection as a function of Illustrative examples of the quantitative effects on backcountry
resources and population density. resources come from the Grand Canyon, where usage trends
show a steady increase in both front- and backcountry overnight
Like most models, this is best conceptualized in terms of analo- permits during the past several decades (Sullivan 2015). This
gy. Say you’re a bird that eats apples, and you come upon two apparent correlation can easily be explained as part of a general
apple trees: one splendid tree that puts forth 100 apples per year, trend of increasing overall visitation, but a separate study con-
and another one that puts forth only 10. You will clearly choose ducted by Backland and colleagues (2008) suggests that this may
the tree that puts forth 100 apples per year in which to build not be the case. Their study was aimed at characterizing
your nest. Next season, four more birds take up roost in the overnight hikers in Grand Canyon National Park in terms of their
splendid tree, so that now each of you is entitled to 25 apples per preferences and motivations. The results showed that the three
year—a far cry from 100 but still better than 10. But word gets most important motive domains were, respectively, Wild Setting,
around. Within a few seasons the splendid tree is occupied by Enjoying Nature, and Solitude, the last of which included items
20 avian families, each of which is able to secure about five like “Being in an area where human influence is not noticeable”
apples apiece, and suddenly the not-so-splendid tree looks con- (Backland et al. 2008:18–19). Escaping noticeable human influ-
siderably more desirable by comparison. So you leave the tree ence means going farther afield than the last group did.
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 These researchers also found that a substantial number of hikers
(but at least they’re all yours). That, basically, is how IFD works. reported visiting archaeological sites as a planned part of the trip
(Table 1), and that the proportion of visitors who did so increased
Now consider not quantitative resources, like water or kilocalo- with respect to how far into the backcountry they traveled (for
ries of food, but qualitative resources like beauty, solitude, and those unfamiliar with the Grand Canyon zone system, it goes
novelty. More properly the realm of postmodernism than of the from Corridor for shallowest backcountry to Wild for deepest).
material positivism that characterizes the focus of most behav-
ioral ecologists, these incorporeal resources are nonetheless the And an inventory of backcountry campsites in the Grand
principal currency desired by most people who don a heavy back- Canyon by Foti and Divine (2006) reports that archaeological
pack and tramp forth into the wilderness. This notion is under- resources, ranging from pits and rock walls to rock art and arti-
scored and supported in the “get there before the crowds do”
columns that pervade magazines like Backpacker and National Table 1. Backcountry Visitation Trends in Grand Canyon
Geographic Adventure. The gems, the splendid apple trees, are National Park, from Backland et al. 2008.
those that promise breathtaking and unusual sights in the deli-
cate sweetness of undeveloped and undisturbed Nature. The Of those who visited a backcountry site:
problem, of course, is that the “crowds” decried in those maga- Felt “very”
zine articles are comprised of the very people reading them. Felt “very” Felt “very” or “extreme”
Visited an Planned to or “extreme” or “extreme” temptation to
As described by the solid theoretical framework of IFD, the archaeological do so in respect sense of take an
great bulk of recreationists will preferentially gravitate toward site advance for site sacredness artifact home
any habitat that appears most suitable in terms of the resources Zone % % % % %
they desire—beauty, solitude, and novelty—and will begin to Corridor 35.7 18.7 78.8 40.3 1.1
consider other, less desirable habitats only when population Threshold 29.7 41.5 86.9 41.2 3.2
density depresses the value or quantity of these resources below Primitive 35.0 46.7 82.0 45.0 2.8
those of its lower-ranked alternatives. This, then, is the relation- Wild 64.4 55.8 84.0 43.3 0.0
ship between most recreationists and backcountry destinations. Total 35.1 26.5 80.5 41.2 1.6

ARTICLE
facts, were present at 16.5 percent of backcountry campsites motion; i.e., a thought experiment, not unlike Schroedinger’s
(Foti and Divine 2008:8). They further note that, while this num- famous parable of the alive/dead cat, to explain why random
ber might not be enormous, where archaeological resources processes can nonetheless result in directional trends. Stephen
were present, they were impacted between 64 percent (for rock Jay Gould (1996) explained it like this:
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 A man staggers out of a bar dead drunk. He stands on the
deeper and deeper into the Grand Canyon’s imposing backcoun- sidewalk in front of the bar, with the wall of the bar on
try includes both intentional and unintentional visitation of one side and the gutter on the other… We will say that the
archaeological resources, many of which bear scars as a result. drunkard staggers in a single line only, either toward the
wall or toward the gutter. He does not move at right
Meanwhile, in the archaeologically rich Cedar Mesa area in angles along the sidewalk parallel to the wall and gutter.
southeastern Utah, recreational visitation of deep-backcountry Where will the drunk end up if we let him stagger long
areas and archaeological sites has increased dramatically within enough and entirely at random? He will finish in the gut-
the past few decades, as traditionally popular destinations like ter—absolutely every time, and for the following reason:
Grand Gulch become more and more crowded. A 1999 Deseret Each stagger goes in either direction with 50% probabili-
News article by Jerry Spangler on “new restrictions” at Cedar ty. The bar wall on one side is a “reflecting boundary.” If
Mesa noted that some 15,000 people per year were “scurrying the drunkard hits the wall, he just stays there until a sub-
through” its canyon systems at that time (Spangler 1999). That sequent stagger propels him in the other direction. In
number has since increased by an order of magnitude. Span- other words, only one direction of movement remains
gler’s article also included the following prescient statements: open for continuous advance—toward the gutter” [Gould
1996:149–150].
Two decades ago, visitors to the area were experienced,
well-prepared hikers and backpackers. Today’s weekend Which is to say, as Gould summarizes, “in a system of linear
warriors are just not as knowledgeable. “What we have motion structurally constrained by a wall at one end, random
seen is that a lot of users have become less sophisticated movement, with no preferred directionality whatever, will
as backcountry travelers. They are not as competent as a inevitably propel the average position away from a starting point
whole,” [Dale] Davidson said. Davidson relates the story of at the wall” (Gould 1996:151). Gould invokes the old heuristic as
one woman who recently got lost in Fish [Creek] Canyon, a means to explain apparent directionality in the otherwise ran-
and she kept calling the BLM offices in Monticello from domized process of biological evolution, specifically the phe-
her cell phone to have someone talk her out of the canyon. nomenon of increasing body size. Given that quanta plotted
along the X-axis in a typical graph positively increase from left
Long-time Cedar Mesa backcountry ranger Laura Lantz is quoted to right, the wall or “reflecting boundary” in a statistical model
in a later article as saying, “We are seeing an increase in what we like the Drunkard’s Walk would be at the left, with the inevitable
call softer users… Guidebooks and magazine articles have sent a directionality skewing therefore to the right. This makes sense
new breed of hiker here, hikers who have no experience in this in consideration of body size in evolution, where the left wall is
kind of environment, and who just don’t know how to behave. It the smallest possible iteration below which a species cannot
makes our job harder” (Potterfield 2006). This juxtaposition of drop; e.g., it would be impossible to have a duck the size of a
backcountry conditions with recreationists not mentally or phys- walnut that was still technically a duck, but not impossible to
ically equipped to handle them is at least partially due to people have a sloth the size of a truck—as indeed once roamed the
pushing deeper and deeper into the hinterlands in order to Pleistocene Americas. Gould’s colleague Steven Stanley expli-
escape the crowds. The Utah Office of Tourism’s website explic- cated the process, more formally known as Cope’s Rule, in a cel-
itly says as much in its section on the Owl Creek-Fish Creek Loop ebrated paper (Stevens 1973) from which Figure 2 is borrowed.
backpacking route: “This wonderful canyon trek is becoming a
popular backpack… The area is experiencing increasing visita- The relevance of this to archaeological resources may not be
tion as a result of overcrowding in Grand Gulch” (Visit Utah readily apparent, so an anecdote may help to illustrate the com-
2016). This also introduces the problem of knowledge about parison. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Fred Blackburn and
location and access to fragile archaeological resources. colleagues commenced a program of “reverse archaeology” in
the Cedar Mesa area that would culminate in a handful of cele-
brated volumes (Blackburn and Williamson 1997). Blackburn
Left Limits and Data Accumulation had become enamored of Richard Wetherill’s wanderings in
Statisticians call it the Drunkard’s Walk. It’s a paradigm for Grand Gulch while working as a BLM ranger there in the 1970s
explaining seeming directionality in certain types of random 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 mem-
bers themselves.
A myriad of other such tales can be found in the annals not only
of archaeology, but of every conceivable domain of inquiry. Pho-
tographs, drawings, reports, notes, and maps have gotten mis-
placed, damaged, or destroyed, and the limited lifespan of
humans themselves means that innumerable data have also dis-
appeared 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.
The Internet has created, so to speak, a left limit on informa-

tion—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 dissemi-
nate the location of fragile archaeological ruins can have the
same devastating effects as compromising photos or text can
Figure 2. Postulated pattern of accumulation of random quanta/changes have on a fragile marriage or career. And they can only accumu-
with a left limit. late. Just like the cumulative increase of quanta of size against
the left limit of smallest possible iterations in species’ evolution,
historic work. It didn’t take long for Blackburn et al. to find, the quanta of information about archaeological sites can only
however, that the bulk of Wetherill’s notes and photographs no accumulate against the left limit of the World Wide Web.
longer existed. Their consequent objective became one of link-
ing the artifacts from Wetherill’s expeditions housed in various
Preservation as a Function of Attention
museums with the sites from which they came, thereby estab-
lishing provenience between artifact and origin long after the Based on these and similar behavioral trends, efforts at preserv-
fact. Hence: reverse archaeology. ing fragile and irreplaceable cultural resources are up against
formidable odds. Increasing visitation at backcountry archaeo-
The upshot of this story is that, once upon a time, information logical sites by well-intended recreationists—as well as consid-
about the location and nature of archaeological sites could be— erably less well-intentioned looters and vandals—is concomi-
and routinely was—lost. Nor is this an isolated case trotted for- tant with the dual forces of (a) increasing availability of site
ward to advance a thesis. Consider another example: in 1891 a information and (b) increasing crowd presence at more well-
popular but short-lived periodical called The Illustrated American known and well-monitored front-country sites. This in turn pre-
hired archaeologist Warren K. Moorehead to lead a scientific cipitates a serious management problem: whereas people could
expedition into the Four Corners area to record and photograph formerly be counted upon to aggregate into fairly discrete con-
archaeological sites, as well as to collect artifacts for the World’s centration areas, ever greater numbers of them are dispersing
Columbian Exposition. The expedition serves as one among into backcountry settings where resources are tremendously
many exciting tales of adventure and discovery in the South- more diffuse and difficult to monitor. Coupled with perennial
west, and the associated materials would likewise serve as a funding and personnel shortfalls among land management
database of early archaeological information for the region— agencies, this problem becomes ever direr. The sole solution
had not all of the original maps, negatives, and photographs most often touted by proactive advocates is that of citizen
been lost when a fire later destroyed the Illustrated’s offices in involvement, e.g., volunteer site stewardship programs and
New York City (Gulliford 2011). All that remains are the reports “awareness campaigns” by groups like Grand Canyon Trust and

ARTICLE
it was, hence “Sacrifice Rock.” The costs are obvious when you
visit the thing: the boulder has been so heavily impacted by fin-
gers and graffiti that the petroglyphs are increasingly difficult to
Destruction
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 loca-
tion and thus obliterating its hallmark feature.
x
Similar proposals buttress and inform the publication of loca-
Attention tion beta for places like the Paria Plateau’s Wave and Escalante’s
Figure 3. Articulation of attention and destruction with regard to two Golden Cathedral, such that a weekend visit to the tiny parking
impact factor domains. area of the latter now looks like Figure 4. Other comparably
incredible sites and wonders abound in the areas surrounding
Friends of Cedar Mesa. Not that this approach doesn’t provide these places, and backcountry devotees have no trouble finding
problems of its own. them. But backcountry devotees also tend to be savvy and
respectful, and tend also not to require search-and-rescue
Conservationists are saddled with the unenviable burden of efforts. Meanwhile funneling the Weekend Warrior and Rental
aiming for an optimum on the parabolic curve described by the RV crowds toward a few resource targets that can take the hit
variables of attention and destruction (see Figure 3). When sen- incurs far lower overall costs than not telling anything to anyone
sitive cultural resources receive too much attention, they get and letting them disperse willy-nilly across the backcountry.
destroyed by over-visitation and souvenir collectors (represented Using signage and trails to direct the one-sigma majority of vis-
in the figure as b factors). Too little attention and they get itors to a few high-profile areas or sites doesn’t amount to cheat-
destroyed by erosion, by looters, or—worse—by unmitigated ing them out of a worthwhile experience, in other words, and it
development (a factors). The ideal is the point on the Attention helps to keep both the visitors and the resources safe.
axis marked x in the figure. The problem, of course, is that the
variables involved in this model are unquantifiable. This is The other and more financially costly approach takes the behav-
arguably true of the other two as well. Therefore, the curve and ioral models outlined above head-on, and that is to deploy
its associated optimum, while theoretically sound, are also greater numbers of well-informed and experienced stewards
entirely arbitrary. Where does the ideal x lie, exactly? How much into deep-backcountry settings to keep an eye on visitors and the
does yet another calendar, another poster, another book of pho- sites they’re visiting. A constant, or at least consistent, human
tography actually help? How much does it hurt? And how many presence is also a highly effective deterrent to looters and van-
citizen site stewards are too many? How few are too few? dals, and in many cases that’s how they get caught in the act.
Trained volunteers are invaluable for this, given the steadily
In conservation, as in all behavior, the appeal of a strategy is in downward-trending state of personnel funding for resource
whether—and, if so, to what extent—the benefits outweigh the management among federal agencies, but researchers and aca-
costs. And there are always costs. Take the case of Sacrifice Rock demics have a role to play as well. Research presented herein by
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 some-
place 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 par-
ticular 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 Figure 4. The Egypt trailhead in Escalante, taken by the author on Memori-
deliberately destroying its utility as a celestial marker, arguably al Day 2016; all of the 20-plus hikers interviewed were returning from the
the most important thing about it. They chose to leave it where diminutive Golden Cathedral formation.

ARTICLE
recreational investigators like Foti and Stewart testify strongly to References Cited
that, and it is hoped that the semi-informal behavioral modeling Backland, Erik A., William Stewart, and Zvi Schwartz
analysis that comprises this study proves a useful tool as well. 2008 Overnight Backcountry Visitors at Grand Canyon National Park.
Park Planning and Policy Lab, Department of Recreation, Sport,
and Tourism. University of Illinois, Champaign.
Discussion Blackburn, Fred M., and Roy A. Williamson
Not long before writing this piece, I went to visit two archaeo- 1997 Cowboys and Cave Dwellers: Basketmaker Archaeology in Utah’s
logical sites in southeast Utah: Coyote Skull, named for the Grand Gulch. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
presence of same in the site’s most prominent feature; and Dig- Cameron, Catherine M., and James B. Gatewood
2003 Seeking Numinous Experiences in the Unremembered
ging Sticks, named for a cache of what were presumed to be dig-
Past. Ethnology, 42(1):55–71.
ging implements found in one of its rooms when it was first
Foti, Pamela E., and Aaron K. Divine
recorded. The former I was visiting as part of an ongoing 2006 Grand Canyon Backcountry Campsite and Human Impact
research project utilizing historic photography as a tool for Inventory: Final Report. Manuscript on file at Grand Canyon
archaeological resource preservation. The latter I was visiting National Park, Arizona.
just to see how it’s holding up. I then posted the best photos Fretwell, Stephen D., and H. L. Lucas
from the expedition on my social media page, as my generation 1970 On Territorial Behavior and Other Factors Influencing Habitat
is wont to do, following the usual community rules about not Distribution in Birds, I: Theoretical Development. Acta Biother.
posting location information or background landscape elements 19:16–36.
that people could use to find them. The tabulated responses Gould, Stephen Jay
1996 Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin.
look approximately like this:
Three Rivers Press, New York.
Gulliford, Andrew
30 percent: Awesome photos, so jealous, thank you for 2011 The 1892 Illustrated American Exploring Expedition. Utah
sharing!” Adventure Journal, 13 November.
10 percent: You shouldn’t share photos of archaeological Hatfield, Sharon, and David Hatfield
1997 Sacrifice Rock Solstice Marker Project. Zion National Park Proj-
sites. Even if you don’t include location information, peo-
ect Report. Manuscript on file at Zion National Park, Utah.
ple might still go looking for them. I read an article, once, Kennett, Douglas J., Atholl Anderson, and Bruce Winterhalder
where...” 2006 The Ideal Free Distribution, Food Production and the Colo-
60 percent: 2 nization of Oceania. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agri-
culture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp.
Again: how much attention is too much? How little is too little? 265–288. University of California Press, Berkeley.
In alerting people to the presence of sensitive and important Potterfield, Peter
cultural resources, researchers and preservationists alike incur 2006 Hidden Treasures of Anasazi Country: Thousand Year Old
both the benefits of increased support for protection and the Ruins and Inscrutable Rock Art Add Interest in Mystery to Hiking
risks of increased visitation or looting. There is no such thing as the Scenic Canyons of Southern Utah’s Cedar Mesa. Great Out-
doors: August 19, 2006.
a free lunch. The trick is to choose the medium, and the audi-
Rosen, Jeffrey
ence, as carefully as possible; to be willing to develop a strategic 2010 The Web Means the End of Forgetting. The New York Times. 21
few sites for heritage tourism so that the rest can remain safely July.
tucked away in the hinterlands; and to advocate as strongly as Spangler, Jerry
possible for funding and resources to advance backcountry 1999 Changes at Cedar Mesa: New Restrictions Help Preserve
stewardship efforts. Unique Natural Treasures. Desert News. 6 August.
Stevens, Stanley M.
Little can be done to stem the dismal tide. Nor could we possibly 1973 An Explanation for Cope’s Rule. Evolution Vol. 27(1):1–26.
conserve all resources and preserve all archaeological sites in Sullivan, Steve
perpetuity, any more than we can generate perpetual energy or 2015 Grand Canyon Backcountry Information Center, 2015 Statis-
tics and 2000–2015 Summary. Manuscript on file at Grand Canyon
practice such healthful habits that we break the bonds of mortal-
National Park, Arizona.
ity. But we can at least make efforts to protect and preserve them Visit Utah
for as many generations as possible—for the people who love 2016 Owl Creek-Fish Creek Loop, Cedar Mesa. Electronic docu-
them, the people who study them, and the people who consider ment, http://www.visitutah.com/things-to-do/outdoor-
them sacred. A paramount component of these efforts is to try adventures/backpacking/canyon-country-southern-utah/owl-fish-
and understand the behavioral trends of people themselves, and creek-cedar-mesa/, accessed April 4, 2016.
the ways in which we articulate with our environments.


The Society for American Archaeology calls for nominations for its awards to be presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting in Van-
couver. 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 pre-
sented during the business meeting held at the Annual Meeting, a citation in The SAA Archaeological Record, and acknowledg-
ment 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 Nomination deadline: November 21, 2016
Committee chair: Elizabeth Arkush, e-mail: [email protected]
This award recognizes a recent graduate whose dissertation
is original, well-written, and outstanding. Paul Goldberg Award
Nomination deadline: October 15, 2016 (formerly the Geoarchaeology Interest Group M.A./M.S.
Committee chair: Jason Yaeger, e-mail: Research Award)
[email protected]
This award ($500) provides support for thesis research for
Fred Plog Memorial Fellowship 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 Ameri- Submission deadline: November 30, 2016
can Southwest or northern Mexico or on a topic, such as cul- Committee chair: Susan M. Mentzer, e-mail:
ture change or regional interactions, on which Plog himself [email protected]
did research.
Douglas C. Kellogg Fund for Geoarchaeological
Submission deadline: November 1, 2016 Research
Committee chair: Deborah Huntley, e-mail:
[email protected] This award ($500) provides support for dissertation research
for a graduate student at the Ph.D. level in the earth sciences
Book Award and archaeology.
This award honors two recently published books, one in the Submission deadline: November 30, 2016
scholarly category and the other for a book written for the Committee chair: Susan M. Mentzer, e-mail:
general public. [email protected]

Dienje Kenyon Memorial Fellowship Lifetime Achievement Award

In honor of the late Dienje M. E. Kenyon, a fellowship is This award recognizes the truly extraordinary, lasting, and
offered to support a female archaeologist in the early stages positive accomplishments of an archaeologist.
of graduate zooarchaeology training, Kenyon’s specialty. An
Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017
award of $1,000 will be made. To qualify for the award,
Committee chair: Barbara Voorhies, e-mail:
applicants must be enrolled an M.A. or Ph.D. degree pro-
[email protected]
gram focusing on archaeology. Strong preference will be
given to applicants in the early stage of research project Award for Excellence in Public Education
development and/or data collection, under the mentorship
of a zooarchaeologist. This award recognizes excellence in the sharing of archaeo-
logical information with the general public and is designed
Submission deadline: December 15, 2016 to encourage outstanding achievements in public engage-
Committee chair: Frank E. Bayham, e-mail: ment. The 2017 award will be presented in the Media and
[email protected] Information Technology category; the award will emphasize
how nominees used print and/or online media to educate
Award for Excellence in Latin American and and increase public awareness. This category recognizes out-
Caribbean Archaeology standing programs or products that reflect collaborative ini-
This award recognizes an individual who has made a lasting tiatives that engage diverse communities. Potential applica-
and significant contribution to archaeology in Latin America tions and nominees who feel their work is eligible should
or the Caribbean. contact the committee in early November to solicit guidance.
Nomination deadline: January 2, 2017 Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017

Committee chair: Tomas E. Mendizabal, e-mail: Acting Committee chair: Jayur Mehta, e-mail:
[email protected] [email protected]
Crabtree Award Gene S. Stuart Award

The SAA presents the Crabtree Award annually to an out- The award is made to honor outstanding efforts to enhance
standing avocational archaeologist in remembrance of the public understanding of archaeology, in memory of Gene S.
singular contributions of Don Crabtree. Nominees should Stuart (1930-1993), a writer and managing editor of National
have made significant contributions to advance understand- Geographic Society books. The award is given to the author
ings of local, regional, or national archaeology through exca- of the most interesting and responsible original story or
vation, research, publication, site or collections preservation, series about any archaeological topic published in a newspa-
collaboration with the professional community, and/or pub- per or magazine.
lic outreach. Nomination deadline: January 8, 2017
Nomination deadline: January 3, 2017 Acting Committee chair: A’ndrea Elyse Messer, e-mail:
Committee chair: Michael Shott, e-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Award for Excellence in Archaeological Analysis
Award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management This award recognizes an archaeologist whose innovative
This award recognizes outstanding efforts and advance- and enduring research has made a significant impact on the
ments in the curation, management, and use of archaeolog- discipline. The 2017 award will be presented in the Lithic
ical collections for research, publication, and/or public edu- Analysis category.
cation. The 2017 award will be presented in the Research cat- Nomination deadline: January 9, 2017
egory to an individual or a group for their significant contri- Committee chair: Barbara J. Roth, e-mail:
butions and special achievements in collections-based [email protected]
research. This type of research has analyzed legacy collec-
tions by addressing new questions, using new analytical Award for Excellence in Curation, Collections Manage-
techniques, applying multidisciplinary analyses, and/or ment, and Collections-based Research and Education
comparing old and new data sets.
This award recognizes outstanding efforts and advance-
Nomination deadline: January 6, 2017 ments in the curation, management, and use of archaeolog-
Committee chair: Joseph Schuldenrein, e-mail: ical collections for research, publication, and/or public edu-
[email protected]

cation. The 2017 award will be presented in the Research cat- Student Paper Award
egory to an individual or a group for their significant contri-
butions and special achievements in collections-based This award (valued at more than $1,000 worth of books and
research. This type of research has analyzed legacy collec- other prizes) recognizes the best student presentation of
tions by addressing new questions, using new analytical original research in a paper session at the SAA Annual Meet-
techniques, applying multidisciplinary analyses, and/or ing.
comparing old and new data sets. Submission deadline: March 1, 2017
Nomination deadline: January 11, 2017 Committee chair: Natalie Munro, e-mail:
Committee chair: Timothy Edward Baumann, e-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Student Poster Award
Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary Research for 2018 This award ($250) recognizes the best student presentation
This award recognizes interdisciplinary excellence of a scien- of original research in a poster session at the SAA Annual
tist whose research has contributed significantly to Ameri- Meeting.
can archaeology. The 2018 award will be presented in the Submission deadline: March 1, 2017
Earth Sciences category. 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.

IN MEMORIAM
HERBERT WRIGHT, JR.

1917–2015
H
erbert E. Wright, Jr. was born in Malden, Massachu- assisted Minnesota archaeology graduate student Tom Shay
setts, on September 13, 1917. He died November 12, with interpreting the early prehistoric Itasca Bison Site.
2015, in St. Paul, Minnesota. He attended Harvard Wright later assisted many other Minnesota archaeological
University for his B.A. (1939), M.A. (1941), and Ph.D. (1943) graduate students, including Julie Stein and Scott Anfinson.
degrees in geology. His advisor was Kirk Bryan. Wright was
finishing his dissertation when the United States entered The 1971 publication of Shay’s Itasca Bison Kill brought
World War II. He joined the Army Air Corp and received his Wright to the attention of Midwestern archaeologists. His
Ph.D. while serving as a B-17 pilot in the 8th Air Force in Eng- contributions to the understanding of the prehistoric environ-
land. ment of North America were soon widely recognized. He
assisted Julie Stein and Patty Jo Watson on reconstructing the
In 1946, while at Brown University, he interpreted the stratig- fluvial and environmental history of the Green River in west-
raphy at Ksar Akil Cave, an Upper Paleolithic site in Lebanon. ern Kentucky. With Anfinson, Wright challenged the accuracy
This began Wright’s long association with Robert Braidwood of Late Prehistoric climatic periods, noting that climatic
of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. In 1951, trends were best represented by a single curve. He stressed
he investigated the Middle Paleolithic site of that climatic conditions of the Midwest
Barda Barka in Iraq, in 1954–1955 he was were not mirrored to the east.
with the Jarmo project in Iraq looking at
Neolithic sites, and in 1960, he was at Lake In 1984, Herb Wright was given the Pomer-
Zeribar, Iran interpreting the regional surfi- ance Award for Scientific Contributions to
cial geology and paleoecology. In 1968–1970 Archaeology by the Archaeological Institute
Wright joined Braidwood at Cayonu, Turkey, of America. In 1989, he was given the Rip
working on the environmental background Rapp Archaeological Geology Award from
to the Neolithic revolution. the Geological Society of America. In 1993,
the Society for American Archaeology gave
Wright came to the University of Minnesota him the Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary
in 1948. He established a pollen laboratory Research.
there in 1956, recognizing the potential of
pollen in lake cores to reconstruct past envi- Wright’s record of helping archaeology is
ronments and climates. Soon realizing that marked by almost 70 years of contributions.
lakes had paleo-environmental research This impressive professional accomplish-
potential beyond pollen, Wright established ment is only part of the story. Colleagues
the Limnological Research Center in 1959. and former students, whenever together,
He perfected a technique for obtaining and interpreting sedi- are quick to lapse into “Herb stories,” reminiscing about the
ment cores. In 1963, he co-authored a southeastern Minneso- character-building adventures that inevitably occurred in the
ta pollen study that established the basic post-glacial vegeta- field with Herb. His ability to withstand the most miserable,
tional sequence for the Upper Midwest, giving prehistoric cul- life-threatening, and often reckless expeditions, even into his
tures an environmental context. last decade, only adds to the shared bond and sense of pride
that former students and friends feel when thinking about
In 1966, Wright joined the Minnesota Messenia expedition in Herb Wright. The Quaternary research community will
Greece to help reconstruct the Bronze Age environment. In deeply miss this amazing scientist, mentor, and friend.
the early 1960s, Paul Martin asked for Wright’s assistance in
explaining late Pleistocene extinctions of megafauna. In the Scott Anfinson, Department of Anthropology
mid-1970s, William Fitzhugh asked Wright to help with University of Minnesota
archaeological research in Labrador. He spent portions of five [email protected]
summers there, studying the fire history. Wright then spent
parts of six summers in the Peruvian Andes working with Julie Stein, Burke Museum and Department of Anthropology
archaeologist John Rick and Christine Hasdorf reconstructing University of Washington
the glacial geology and paleoenvironment, focusing on the [email protected]
synchronies of southern to northern hemispheres. Wright

IN MEMORIAM
JAMES J. HESTER
1931–2016
I
recall meeting Jim while he was a graduate assistant for In it he not only covers the history of all previous excavations
Professor Frank C. Hibben at the University of New Mex- at the site, but also adds sections on all of the artifacts known
ico. This was in 1960, when George Agogino, also at one from the site at that time and includes extensive tables on the
time a graduate assistant of Hibben, and I were investigating typological aspects in Appendix I and on the location, associ-
the geochronology of Sandia Cave. After getting his Ph.D. at ation, and date of finds in Appendix II. In Appendix III, he
the University of Arizona in 1961, Jim went to work for the provides tables of the vertebrate fossil finds and their associa-
Museum of New Mexico in Santa Fe, where he worked with tion with strata, artifacts, and other faunal elements. He
the director, Fred Wendorf, in pioneering the field of salvage includes sections by vertebrate paleontologist Ernest Lun-
archaeology, later to be known as Cultural Resource Manage- deius, Jr. and stratigrapher Roald Fryxell, who recovered
ment (CRM). Jim assisted Fred in forming the Society of Pro- stratigraphic monolithic columns that are archived at Eastern
fessional Archaeologists. New Mexico University (ENMU) and have yet to be studied.
In 1962, Jim Hester became a major player in I missed out on the 1962 mammoth finds
Wendorf’s Southern High Plains Paleoecology because, at the recommendation of archaeologist
project, centered mainly in the Llano Estacado H. Marie Wormington, I had been hired by the
(Staked Plains) of eastern New Mexico and west- Nevada State Museum to study the geology of the
ern Texas (Wendorf and Hester 1975). That sum- Tule Springs site during a major effort to evaluate
mer, I was hired by Wendorf to work as a geolo- the archaeological and paleoecological signifi-
gist with Jim. We visited most of the Paleoindian cance of this, at the time, a probable pre-Clovis
sites and many playa lake deposits to collect sam- site from which Willard Libby had obtained a
ples with stratigraphic control for paleoecologi- radiocarbon age in excess of 28,000 B.P. Whereas
cal studies by such specialists as Kathryn Clisby, our work showed no evidence of pre-Clovis occu-
James Schoenwetter, and Frank Oldfield study- pation at Tule Springs, it did provide significant
ing fossil pollen, Matthew H. Holn, diatoms, paleoecological data for the Las Vegas Valley
Bob Slaughter, vertebrates, and Robert H. Drake, (Wormington 1967).
mollusks, to name a few.
By the time I got back to Blackwater Draw in early 1963, the
Our work centered on the gravel pit exposures at Blackwater Clovis type site had come under the control of ENMU, with
Locality No. 1, the Clovis type site. The owner and miner of George Agogino in charge. Jim Hester had returned to Santa
gravel, Sam Sanders, allowed me and Jim to camp on the Fe, frustrated that the plundering of artifacts by some ama-
property using his abandoned Airstream trailer. It became a teur individuals was beyond his control in part because some
comfortable dwelling only after we divested it of buckets full were close friends of Sam Sanders. But Jim went on to pub-
of dead moths and eolian silt. lish his indispensable tome.
In late November, Sam’s mining equipment exposed the Wendorf and Jim made a major effort to have the north wall
skeleton of a mammoth while geologist F. Earl Green of Texas part of the site set aside as a state monument by having the
Tech University, Lubbock, was present. With the help of governor visit the spectacular display of the mammoth skele-
James M. Warnica, founder of the El Llano Archaeological tons. Sanders had agreed to sell that part for $80,000, but the
Society, they were able to get Sam to stop mining in that part deal was not approved, so the skeletons were removed to stor-
of the pit, while Jim, with some members of the El Llano age at ENMU by Agogino and his student crews. Earl Green
Archaeological Society, and Earl, with a crew from Lubbock, took one to Lubbock, while Sanders resumed stripping off the
began scientific recovery of what turned out to be the remains late Pleistocene strata to access the commercial gravels below.
of five mammoths with associated Clovis artifacts (Warnica This exposed a spring conduit with strata containing Clovis,
1966). Fred Wendorf then assigned Jim Hester to represent Folsom, and Agate Basin artifacts. Once again, Sanders held
the State of New Mexico at the Clovis site, where Jim not only off while Earl Green and Jim Warnica salvaged what they
conducted excavations, but began the systematic documenta- could from the fresh exposures (Haynes and Warnica 2012).
tion of the 1962 finds as well as those of all previous excava-
tions back to 1934. The result is his monumental book Black- Before the Clovis site work, Jim had published the first scien-
water Locality No. 1, published in 1972. tific evaluation of the time of the extinction of the Pleistocene

megafauna in North America based on all available radiocar- caravan person taking camels to a market in Egypt, and per-
bon dates at that time (Hester 1960). He continued with the haps the death was the result of dissention among the ranks.
Paleoindian theme in several subsequent publications, includ-
ing the contributions that 14C dating by accelerator mass spec- As to why Ayed told us of the body being at Bir Nakhlai instead
trometry (AMS) had made (Hester 1987). His study of the Elida of Bir Shep, my best guess is that it is because we were not
Folsom site (Hester 1962) shows what significant information going by Bir Shep, 30 km to the west-southwest, so he told us
can be gleaned from a surface scatter of artifacts in a blowout the story as if it took place here. The stone blockhouses are
when systematically collected (by Warnica in this case). He also identical and that at Bir Shep is on an ancient caravan route,
published on the origins of the Clovis culture (Hester 1966). 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
Jim’s interest in Paleoindian studies continued undiminished not been used by caravans in the twentieth century.
even as he went on to other endeavors, including what, at the
time, was the ultimate archaeological salvage project. This was This was pretty close to my last conversation with Jim Hester. He
in 1963 to help recover archaeological data from the Nile Val- is survived by his wife, Adrienne, and sons, Michael A. Allen,
ley in Egypt and Sudan before its flooding by construction of Frederick Randal, and John David. I will miss him dearly.
the Aswan High Dam. In my geoarchaeological work with
Vance Haynes
Wendorf’s Combined Prehistoric Expeditions in 1974 at Nabta
Regents Professor Emeritus
Playa, it was interesting to learn that Jim Hester had discov-
University of Arizona
ered the Neolithic sites there a decade before us (Hester and
Hobler 1969). The Egyptian Antiquities Department requires References
all expeditions to maintain a log book in which all finds are Haynes, Caleb V., Jr., and James M. Warnica
recorded and with photographs tipped in. This huge album is 2012 Geology, Archaeology and Climate Change in Blackwater
taken to the field each season so recording may be accom- Draw, New Mexico: F. Earl Green and the Geoarchaeology of the
plished at the time of discovery. In it we found Hester’s entries Clovis Type Site. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in
for 1963 when our Egyptian agent, Ahmed Hindi, showed it to Anthropology 15:1–205.
us in 1974. The locality, a deflated mud flat with thousands of Hester, James J.
stone artifacts and ceramic fragments scattered about, was not 1960 Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating. Ameri-
called Nabta Playa at that time, only a site by number. It can Antiquity 26(1):58–77.
became a major focus of Wendorf’s field work for many 1962 A Folsom Lithic Complex from the Elida Site, Roosevelt
decades thereafter (Wendorf and Schild 1980). County, New Mexico. El Palacio 69(2): 92–113.
1966 Origins of the Clovis Culture. Proceedings of the XXXVI Inter-
national Congress of Americanists, pp. 127–138.
Jim’s Bedouin guide in 1963 was Ayed Marif, who happened to
1972 Blackwater Locality Nol. 1:A Stratified Early Man Site in East-
be our guide in 1974 and for my expeditions for many years
ern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Southern
thereafter. On my second visit to Wendorf’s camp at Bir Ter-
Methodist University, pp. 1–239.
fawi, an Acheulian site about 200 km west of Nabta, I was
Hester, James J., and Philip M. Hobler
being driven there in the company of Ayed and Dr. Rushdi 1969 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Libyan Desert. Anthro-
Said, then director of the Geological Survey of Egypt. Rushdi pology Papers No. 92, Nubian Ser. 4, University of Utah Press, pp.
and Fred were classmates at Harvard in the 1950s. Rushdi had 1–174.
the driver go via a remote blockhouse overlooking a shallow Warnica, James M.
well at Bir Nakhlai north of the border with Sudan. Three of 1966 New Discoveries at the Clovis Site. American Antiquity
these had been made for Anglo-Egyptian forces during the 31(3):345–357.
Dervish war to prevent enemy use of the few watering places Wendorf, Fred, and James J. Hester (editors)
that exist in this hyperarid region of the Sahara. As we climbed 1975 Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains.
the rickety wood ladder to the rampart of this small doorless Fort Burgwin Research Center, Publication No. 9, pp. 1–290.
edifice, Ayed said that in 1963 he and Hester had found a des- Wendorf, Fred, and Romauld Schild
iccated human body inside. It was dressed in Khaki pants, and 1980 Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara. Academic Press, New York,
a wallet contained Algerian currency of the 1940s. There was a pp. 1–414.
bullet hole in the sternum. We moved the ladder to the square Wormington, H. M., and Ellis D. (editors)
hole on top so as to enter the interior but found no body. A year 1967 Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada. Nevada State Muse-
or so ago I asked Jim to tell me more about this situation. He um Anthropological Papers No. 13, pp. 1–411.
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

Journal of Archaeological Archaeological Research in Asia
Science: Reports Editor-in-Chief: R.L. Bettinger
Editors: A. Howard, C.O. Hunt ARASUHVHQWVKLJKTXDOLW\VFKRODUO\
JASREP is aimed at those engaged with UHVHDUFKFRQGXFWHGLQEHWZHHQWKH
WKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIVFLHQWLȇFWHFKQLTXHVDQG %RVSRUXVDQGWKH3DFLȇFRQDEURDGUDQJH
methodologies to all areas of archaeology. RIDUFKDHRORJLFDOVXEMHFWV,WSXEOLVKHVZRUN
7KHMRXUQDOSXEOLVKHVSDSHUVRIH[FHOOHQW RQWKHIXOOWHPSRUDOUDQJHRIDUFKDHRORJLFDO
archaeological science, with regional or LQTXLU\ZLWKDVSHFLDOHPSKDVLVRQWLPH
ZLGHULQWHUHVWLQFOXGLQJFDVHVWXGLHV SHULRGVXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGLQRWKHUYHQXHV
reviews and short papers. )LQGRXWPRUHE\YLVLWLQJ
)LQGRXWPRUHE\YLVLWLQJ elsevier.com/locate/ara
elsevier.com/locate/jasrep
'LVFRYHUEHQHȇWVRISXEOLVKLQJZLWK(OVHYLHU
1. Reach more readers 4. Monitor impact ,PSURYH\RXUPDQXVFULSW
2. Enjoy innovative services 5. Get peer reviewed :LGHQDUWLFOHRXWUHDFK
0DNHDVSODVK 6. Learn and develop 9. Choose open access
HOVHYLHUFRPDXWKRUEHQHȇWV
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWPRUHMRXUQDOVLQRXUSRUWIROLRYLVLW
elsevier.com/archaeology
#(OVHYLHU$UFKDHR

CALENDAR
SEPTEMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 22 NOVEMBER 15

SAA Annual Meeting Submission Dead- Free Online Seminar: Interacting with Online Seminar: Yes you CAN do that!
line the Media: Strategies for Pitching and Creative Mitigation and Section 106
Interviewing (3-4pm EST) Undertakings (2pm-4pm EST)
SEPTEMBER 17 SAA Annual Meeting: Nonmember Par-

SEPTEMBER 27 ticipant Join Deadline
The Pre-Columbian Society of Washing-
ton, D.C., will host its 23rd annual sym- Online Seminar: Using R Statistical
posium, “Divine Kingship: The Political Computing Language for Archaeologi-
Ideology of Pre-Columbian Rulers,” on cal Analysis (2pm-4pm EST) DECEMBER 1
Saturday, September 17, 2016 at the U.S. Online Seminar: Tribal Consultation
Navy Memorial and Naval Heritage Cen- Basics (2pm-4pm EST)
ter, Washington, D.C. Scholars who spe- OCTOBER 12
cialize in the ideology of rulership will
Knowledge Series online lecture: If
assess the applicability of divine king- DECEMBER 7
You’re Not Having Fun You’re Not
ship to both Mesoamerican and Andean
Doing It Right (3pm-4pm EST) Knowledge Series online lecture: Cam-
societies and will examine how rulers
pus Archaeology Programs: Why and
used this concept to legitimate their
How to Create Them (3pm-4pm EST)
authority. See www.pcswdc.org for
details and information about registra- NOVEMBER 10
tion. Free Online Seminar: Working With
Metal Detectorists: Citizen Science at JANUARY 30 2017
historic Montpelier and Engaging a New SAA Annual Meeting: SAA Member
Constituency (3pm-4pm EST) 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.
Change Service Requested
Washington, DC 20005
1111 14th Street, NW, Suite 800
SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
HANOVER, PA 17331
US POSTAGE PAID
Non-Profit Org
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 com-
plimentary 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.

The SAA Archaeological Record - September 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAA Archaeological Record - September 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAA Archaeological Record - September 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS

SAA rchaeological record

CALL FOR PAPERS

User Guide for Luminescence The Untapped Potential

Sarah Herr, Editor at [email protected]

Editor’s Corner 2 Anna Marie Prentiss

Member Survey: Repatriation and 14 Diane Gifford Gonzalez

Sharing Space: Football Meets the 28 E. Cory Sills

Deadlines for submissions are:

Copyright ©2016 by the Society for

2 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

FROM THE PRESIDENT

M ay through July normally sees a lull in

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 3

26–29 de Abril del 2017

4 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

Tobi A. Brimsek is Executive Director of the Society for American Archaeology.

An Invitation to Nonmember Canadian Archaeologists

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 5

SAA’S NEW PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP

T he SAA journals—American Antiquity, Latin American

6 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 7

A LOOK AT PAST SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS

Y a’at’eeh! My name is Ora Marek-Martinez. I am from the

In 2014, I applied and received the Arthur C. Parker scholarship

8 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 9

10 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

CALL FOR EDITOR

T he Society for American Archaeology (SAA) invites appli-

Although editors of the SAA’s journals have often been senior

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 11

Andrew Martindale and Mark Guerin

F or the 82nd Society for American

12 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

Nowhere is this history more visible than in the “c̓əsnaʔəm, the

c̓əsnaʔəm, known archaeologically as The Great Fraser Midden,

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 13

MEMBER SURVEY: REPATRIATION AND SAA’S

S AA’s Board of Directors, under my predecessor Jeff

14 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

SAA REPATRIATION SURVEY ANALYSIS

T his survey gauges SAA members’ positions on the

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 15

16 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 17

18 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 19

20 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

RESPONSES TO SURVEY RESULTS

I speak here as one who served on the SAA Board during

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 21

skeletal collections, and narrate the fulfilling work they do in

I grew up as a bioarchaeologist with repatriation, receiving

22 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2016

cases; they were also effective in communicating a clear and

S hould the SAA Statement on the Treatment of Human

Not only were these principles critical in guiding the Society’s

September 2016 • The SAA Archaeological Record 23