President Bill Lipe presents out-going president Bruce Smith with a special achievement award.
Minutes of the Meeting
At 6:12 p.m. President Bruce Smith called the 60th Annual Business Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology to order. The Secretary established that a
quorum existed per the bylaws, and the President sought approval of the minutes
of the 59th Annual Business Meeting (1994) in Anaheim, California, these having
been duly published in American Antiquity (January 1995 60:184-190). It
was so moved, seconded, and these minutes were approved.
The president then delivered his report (hereafter, see), including announcing record conference attendance of 2,277. The President also reviewed the near conclusion of the transfer of our society to our own home office, as well as subsequent transformation and growth under our new Executive Director Ralph Johnson. At this juncture spontaneous and sustained applause erupted. President Smith exhorted members to continue their exemplary service to the society, and thanked those who had assisted him as President.
President-elect William D. Lipe spoke (hereafter, see), with several announcements including an outline of current thoughts and studies of a possible joint Registry of Professional Archaeologists. This registry would be derived from, and with, the Society of Professional Archeologists and the Society for Historical Archaeology, and possibly the American Institute of Archaeology. Dr. Lipe specifically lauded the Native American Task Force (now upgraded to a full committee) and the Public Education Committee. Finally, he reviewed various challenges to the society such as possible revision of national laws relating to archaeology and SAA's plans and responses.
Treasurer W. Fred Limp then delivered his report (hereafter, see) indicating a strong financial position with a proposed budget of $937,000. He also thanked Executive Director Johnson and his staff including David Whitlock and Elaine Talbott, and also Finance Committee Chair Daniel G. Roberts.
Secretary Bruce E. Rippeteau delivered his report (hereafter, see), which extended thanks to the committee chairs and SAA home office, and reported election results. Incoming officers include: Treasurer-elect, Robert L. Bettinger; Executive Board Position #3, Margaret C. Nelson; Executive Board Position #4, George S. Smith; and for the 1996 Nominating Committee Members, Kathleen Deagan and Deborah Nichols. All are to assume office later in this meeting.
The Executive Director of SAA and an ex-officio Board Member, Ralph C. Johnson, delivered his report (hereafter, see) in which he expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve SAA, as well as for the high quality of his staff and the assistance of our members.
Our three SAA Editors, Michael Graves for American Antiquity, David Pendergast for Latin American Antiquity, and Mark Aldenderfer for the SAA Bulletin, all three being ex-officio Board Members, then reported (hereafter, see).
Aldenderfer spoke first recalling this past year's SAA Bulletin events. These included the range of voices heard such as Native Americans, Latin American archaeologists, consulting archaeologists, and the use of electronic mail.
Graves spoke next as Editor of American Antiquity. He reviewed the cover changes and the importance of establishing the center of journal activities at the home office. Mike also cited the contributions of Janet Walker in accomplishing this transition smoothly. He then passed the upcoming 1996 editorship to Lynne Goldstein.
Pendergast reported that Latin American Antiquity is nearly current with publishing dates and that Gary Feinman will be incoming editor next year.
Following our customary agenda, we then received remarks from the Committee on Government Affairs, Dean Snow, chairman (outgoing). Dean's report (hereafter, see) covered the "reinventing of government" events of the last year and the emergence of our own effective lobbyist Donald Craib U.S. government changes and agency reorganizations are indeed concerns for 1996.
As the highlight of our Annual Business Meeting, President Smith presented a total of 30 Awards; 29 to individuals and one to an organization.
Presidential Recognition Awards were given to Phyllis Messenger, K C Smith, and Cathy MacDonald, Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, Roger Anyon, Bruce E. Rippeteau, Mark J. Lynott, Alison Wylie, Lynne Goldstein, Keith Kintigh, Robert Drennan, Melinda A. Zeder, Paul Minnis, and Mark Aldenderfer. Awards for Excellence in Ceramic Studies were given to Prudence Rice and Frederick Matson. Awards for Excellence in Lithic Studies were given to Harry J. Shafer and Lawrence H. Keeley. The Crabtree Award went to Jeff Carskadden. The Award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management were given to Charles R. McGimsey III, Calvin R. Cummings, Lawrence E. Aten, and Shereen Lerner. The Dissertation Award went to David R. Abbott. The Distinguished Service Award went to Stuart Struever, and the Fryxell Award was given to Robert J. Braidwood. The Gene S. Stuart Award went to Nathan Seppa. The Public Service Award was given to the Grand Canyon Trust. The Outstanding Student Poster Award went to the team of Tim Hunt, Mark Madsen, and Carl Lipo, and the Outstanding Professional/Non-Student Poster Award to Brenda J. Baker and Maria A. Liston.
The awards having been presented to great acclaim, as his last official act, President Smith turned the meeting and the gavel over to now-President Lipe.
New Business consisted, first, of President Bill Lipe presenting a Special Achievement and Appreciation Award to Bruce Smith, commending him on behalf of the entire Board, the staff, and the membership.
Ceremonial Resolutions, customarily presented for readers of American Antiquity within the Secretary's Report (hereafter, see), were delivered by Chair Jon Muller who diligently prepared and presented the thank-you Resolutions for the Annual Meeting, especially our thanks to this year's Program Chair Paul Minnis and his excellent committee. Also noted were the service of Board members, and condolences for departed colleagues A standing moment of silence was observed.
The 60th Annual Business Meeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m. by President Lipe.
We are now 36 months into this new phase in the history of SAA, and as I prepare to pass the presidency on to Bill Lipe later in the Business Meeting this evening, I want to take about six or seven minutes to briefly talk about how SAA is being transformed. I say "being transformed" because while many of the central elements of the transition plan are now in place, and in many ways the transition to an independent office has been successfully accomplished, this episode of recent dramatic change has not led to a new, now-in-place, steady state existence for SAA. Rather it has engendered a number of strong forces for an expanded and accelerated second cycle of change, which we are now well into. What is the cause of this second cycle of growth and change? To a great extent it is the direct result of the establishment of a highly efficient and highly dedicated executive headquarters staff, under the remarkable leadership of Ralph Johnson.
Having worked in the federal government for many years, I have come to appreciate people who work hard, who are good at what they do, and who have a natural enthusiasm for their work--three attributes that often go together--and for me it has been a great pleasure over the last several years to watch Ralph Johnson build an outstanding staff for SAA's central office through careful selection of dedicated professionals. If you have not yet met the SAA staff here at the annual meeting make sure to stop by the SAA office in the Railway Express building near Union Station next time you are in Washington. Check out where your annual dues are going (ask to see the corporate sauna) and introduce yourself to the SAA staff--they are the strong central core of the Society for American Archaeology--and they are doing an extraordinary job for us.
A major element of the transition plan to establish our own office was to consolidate all of the various activities under one roof, and this, too, along with assembling a very dedicated hardworking staff, has contributed to the second wave of change in SAA. Donald Craib, the SAA manager of government affairs and legal counsel, has brought an impressive background and a wealth of new ideas to the society, and Janet Walker, the SAA manager of publications, has already made impressive contributions to our publications programs. As these major subcontracting elements of SAA's operation have been brought in-house, we have gained the obvious advantage of being able to better organize our day-to-day activities, and to better plan for new initiatives--things that SAA should be doing and now can take on because of our smoothly running, free-standing central office.
It was generally recognized that once the new office was up and running, that SAA could and should address a variety of challenges, and take a stronger leadership role in American archaeology--but no one anticipated either the level of expectations that would exist, or the volume and diversity of new opportunities and challenges that would emerge. As in any episode of change, many of the ideas for new initiatives come from within (the core staff and the executive board, task forces, and committees of SAA), and some are responses to external events, many of which can be traced to Congress and federal agencies. These new demands and opportunities are going to place increasing pressure upon all parts of SAA, and since I only have 90 minutes or so left before I join the ranks of the past presidents, I would like to make three simple points for you to consider regarding what SAA is, and the role we all will play in its future.
The first point to be made is that the 5,500 members of SAA are the SAA. At any one time, only about 350 people (six percent of the membership) are listed in our administrative directory of leadership positions in the society, but the leadership of SAA turns over rapidly, and while the officers and Executive Board struggle with a wide variety of issues, the more than 30 committees and task forces take up the vast majority of the work of SAA. All the members of the Executive Board are elected, and the committees and task forces are open to any SAA member. Your recent SAA Bulletin contained an open call for expression of interest in serving on them. This doesn't guarantee that you can immediately be appointed to any committee you are interested in-- but it does indicate that SAA is wide open to member participation.
The SAA, I would argue, provides an excellent vehicle or platform of positive action for any member who has ideas and a willingness to volunteer their time and energy. Any SAA member can shape the future by simply getting involved, and getting involved means more than providing casual commentary about what SAA should be focusing on. If as an SAA member you think the society should be doing something, or doing it better, be sure to pass on your ideas and opinions, but better yet, get directly involved so you can be sure that whatever it is you believe so strongly in is done right.
Behind every success story SAA has, you will find people who have taken the initiative and made a commitment to turn their ideas into reality. The second point I would like to make is that SAA now faces an interesting dilemma--on the one hand, many people have justifiably high expectations of what we can and should accomplish across a broad range of important issues, from education to resource protection to lobbying to repatriation-- but at the same time there is an interesting counter-perspective that SAA might be growing too big, too impersonal, with too big an appetite--that it is turning into the Great White Shark, the Evil Empire. So, SAA should on the one hand do more, but at the same time do less--don't get too big for your britches, but make sure to fulfill your rightful leadership obligations in archaeology.
These concerns are important ones, particularly in regard to our relationships with other organizations such as the Society for Historical Archaeology and the newly formed American Cultural Resources Association. SAA is very interested in building stronger partnerships with SHA, ACRA, and other national and regional organizations in a number of areas and, in general, supporting and fostering other archaeological organizations. Open communication and cooperation are key to the mutual development and support of complementary archaeological societies, and I think that SAA's expanding equal-partner cooperation with the Society for Historical Archaeology provides an excellent model for the future.
The final point I would like to make has to do with the internal challenges that face SAA, which promise just as exciting a future as the external initiatives involving other archaeological organizations, indigenous peoples, avocational groups, the U.S. Congress and federal agencies, and the general public.
The SAA has a diverse constituency in terms of work setting, theoretical and methodological proclivities, and topical and geographical interests, to name just a few of the axes of internal variation that exist. SAA has a strong and central interest in serving all of these various constituencies by providing a variety of support functions and forums for communication within and between them.
SAA is encouraging the development of interest groups, with today's round-table luncheons being a first step toward the establishment of better interaction between people who share common interests. The society also supports the convening of a variety of scholarly and professional organizations at its annual meeting. We foster communication through the publication of our journals and the SAA Bulletin and are making a concerned effort to reach out to include more archaeologists from throughout the Americas.
SAA is also expanding its partnerships with a number of federal agencies, and is working to increase the range and depth of services and opportunities for professional advancement and recognition that we offer to archaeologists working in governmental settings and for consulting firms in the private sector.
SAA is also working, in concert with the SHA and other organizations, to lobby against the looming threat to federal historic preservation laws and regulations, and to provide forums for reconsideration of the structure of doing public archaeology in this country.
In all of these ways, SAA is changing and expanding, while at the same time reaffirming a set of basic tenets. I believe that there are a primary set of strongly held beliefs that work to bind together archaeologists of many different kinds: a shared belief in the importance of protecting and illuminating the unwritten histories of the Americas and the need for careful curation of collections; the common fascination with discovery--finding and unraveling past patterns of human behavior; a mutual interest in fostering an open and ongoing debate on a wide range of issues; and a firm belief that whatever we as individuals happen to be doing at the moment must be close to the top in terms of what's interesting and important in archaeology today. I am interested, for example in developing CD-ROM discs of squash seed assemblages, and fully expect them to rocket to the top of the best-seller charts.
For 60 years the Society for American Archaeology has served archaeologists as individuals and as varied interest groups, and has, as a whole, provided organized forums for scholarly and professional interaction and worked for the general good of archaeology.
In closing, I want to express how much I have enjoyed working with Ralph Johnson and the SAA staff, and the officers, executive board members, and task force and committees of SAA. Thank you.
And I want to thank him for introducing me to the many duties of the Presidency in a skillful and gradual way--raising the temperature of the water ever . . . so . . . slowly. . .
I'll echo Bruce's comments about the excellence and dedication of the SAA staff. The hard work of the past several years is paying off. We have an extremely effective and efficient staff that is able to offer more and better services to a growing society membership. I urge you to get to know Ralph Johnson and his staff, either here at the meetings, or if you visit Washington.
In a few minutes, I'll be starting my two-year term in a time of change, challenge, and opportunity for American archaeology. I'm confident we can meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that are emerging. As an organization, SAA is the strongest it has ever been. This meeting is the largest we have ever had, both in terms of number of registrants and number of papers and events. And I confidently expect that we will set a new membership record as well this year.
Bruce and this past Executive Board committed themselves to a greater involvement of all segments of the membership in SAA. They ensured that existing committees and task forces were active, and new ones were established. Today, we have the Committee on the Status of Women in Archaeology, the Committee on Latin America, the Task Force on Consulting Archaeology, and the Committee on Student Affairs. I am firmly committed to continuing these efforts to promote the involvement of all the membership, and expect to see the Task Force on Consulting Archaeology converted to a regular continuing committee of the society. At our meeting tomorrow, I will ask the Board to consider establishing a Task Force on Archaeological Resource Management, so we can have better input from members working in federal and state agencies. And I believe that we must work hard to revive existing mechanisms for the representation of avocational archaeologists in the society's work, or consider new mechanisms that will be more effective.
I'm sure many, and perhaps most of you, are aware of the discussions going on among SOPA, the SAA, and the SHA. There hasn't been a great deal of general publicity about the substance of these discussions, because the boards of the various societies haven't had a chance to take a position on them until this week in Minneapolis, and several of the boards have yet to vote on whether or not to go ahead with developing the proposal. I want to assure you that nothing will be concluded without full and open discussion of a proposal by the members of all the societies involved, and that proposed new structural arrangements will be submitted to a formal vote by the members.
Discussions regarding a new relationship between SOPA and other societies are still at an early stage. The concepts that are emerging would involve converting SOPA to a Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) under the co-sponsorship of SAA, SHA, and perhaps other societies. On the basis of a meeting yesterday, it appears that the officers of the Archaeological Institute of America are very interested in exploring the possibility that AIA might also help sponsor ROPA. The concept envisions keeping SOPA's requirements for training and experience, code of ethics, standards of research performance, and grievance procedures (although these might continue to evolve to meet new requirements and circumstances). The Register would be governed by its own Board, as SOPA is now, but instead of being a separate society, the Register would be sponsored by SAA, SHA, and, possibly, AIA. Registration would remain voluntary, as SOPA certification is now.
These discussions were initiated by a joint meeting of the SAA and SOPA ethics committees in Anaheim, and have been carried forward by a joint SAA-SOPA Task Force. The report of the task force is being considered here in Minneapolis by the boards of SOPA, SAA, and SHA. If they all approve moving forward to fuller public discussion of these ideas, then you will see more about this in the SAA Bulletin.
You'll note that the concept I've just discussed originated with the ethics committees of SOPA and SAA, and was stimulated by the concerns over standards and ethics that have been building over some years. SOPA now provides, as the proposed Register would provide, a mechanism whereby archaeologists can voluntarily declare their adherence to a specific code of ethics and standards, and pledge to be accountable to that code by agreeing to participate in a grievance process if their qualifications or performance are challenged. This system of professional standards and accountability is of course only a partial solution to the larger set of questions of ethics in archaeology, but it does address some of these questions.
For a fuller discussions of ethics in archaeology, refer to the recent SAA special publication on this topic, assembled by Mark Lynott and Alison Wylie. These papers are intended to stimulate a dialog with, and among, the society's members, and I urge you to read this volume and provide your comments either directly to Mark or Alison, or to Ralph Johnson at the SAA office. These issues will need serious and continuing discussion in the coming years.
I've mentioned the efforts the society is making to ensure greater participation and input from all segments of its membership. I also am pledged to continue the efforts we are making in outreach to groups outside SAA as well. Wednesday, the Board received an excellent report from the Native American Relations Task Force, and voted to establish a continuing Committee on Native American Relations. The task force report has many good recommendations, and we are fully committed to working to build relationships with Native American communities, and to assist our members in doing so in their own areas.
The Society for American Archaeology's best success story in outreach is of course the work of the its Archaeology and Public Education Committee. Started as a result of the 1989 Taos "Save the Past" meeting, the committee now has a number of active subsections, and publishes the Archaeology and Public Education newsletter, with a circulation of over 8,500. A large percentage of the recipients are teachers in the K-12 school system. Assistance from the new SAA Foundation has enabled us to have several grant applications prepared that seek funds to support the work of the Public Education Committee. We have also placed the highest priority on assembling the funds necessary to add a staff member in the Washington office to support and help coordinate the committee's vital work in public education.
I know many, if not most of you are concerned over disturbing messages you hear from Washington, regarding possible attempts to dismantle or seriously weaken the existing national historic preservation system within which most cultural resource management archaeology is done. And those of you who follow such matters are aware that the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are currently back on the drawing table, and that new drafts are in process, probably even as we speak. I don't think the final outcomes of all of this can be predicted, but it is clear that the situation is unstable. It is also clear that SAA, along with other organizations committed to archaeology and historic preservation, must make every effort to influence those outcomes.
I'm here to assure you that the leadership of SAA is committed to doing just that. Donald Craib, the government affairs manager in the SAA office, is working well beyond full time to provide his technical expertise and support to our efforts in government affairs. I myself, as well as all the other officers of SAA, are fully committed to supporting the society's interests in the governmental arena. Further, we can expect strong leadership of the Government Affairs Committee as the chair passes from Dean Snow to Judy Bense.
Two approaches dominate our strategy for gaining an effective voice in this national debate. The first is to find common interest with other organizations and to forge effective alliances with them for political representation. Donald Craib has been working extremely hard on this front, and we are coordinating very effectively with the Society for Historical Archaeology and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. A couple of weeks ago, Donna Seifert (president of SHA) and I met with Dick Moe, the president of the Trust, who assured us of his organization's strong commitment to working with our two societies in helping preserve historic preservation. Next week, Roger Anyon, one of our board members, will be attending a meeting of the Keepers of the Treasures, a Native American cultural preservation organization, to identify areas of common concern and interest on which SAA and Keepers might coordinate. We look forward to working closely with the newly formed American Cultural Resources Association.
A second approach that is even more critical is to reinvigorate our long tradition of effective grass-roots political action. For its size, SAA has historically been extremely effective in articulating the national interest in preserving America's archaeological resources and making information about them accessible to the public. As storm clouds have gathered in Washington, we perhaps have not been sufficiently prompt in calling upon the energy and expertise of those archaeologists of my generation who have served the society so well in the past. I pledge to make those calls. But we also need to energize and incorporate all the rest of you as well. In the current SAA Bulletin, Donald Craib has issued a call for participants in a Government Affairs Network oriented toward grass-roots activity. I strongly urge you to consider signing up and helping out.
I think that archaeology and the conservation of archaeological sites enjoy wide and increasing support among the American public. We need to communicate that interest and support in the political arena. We must also be prepared to understand that some aspects of the way public archaeology is being done are likely to have much less support from the American people. We must avoid displaying an entitlement mentality, we must avoid an unreflective defense of business as usual, and we must be prepared to support honest and well-designed attempts to make public archaeology more efficient and accountable.
In closing, I want to say how honored I am to have been selected as your next President. I look forward to sharing with you the struggles and triumphs that lie ahead. On to New Orleans!
William D. Lipe
These are challenging times, however, and we must be prepared to respond to developments in Washington and elsewhere. To that end, our budget planning includes the development of a reserve fund which can be rapidly used, if circumstances warrant, to help the society represent its members concern to Congress.
The society is very fortunate in having a superb professional staff. Those with particular contributions in the fiscal arena are, of course, our Executive Director Ralph Johnson, David Whitlock, director of finance and administration, and Elaine Talbott, manager of accounting services. Their efforts regularly go beyond the normal call of duty and all society members owe them a great debt of gratitude--as they also do the members of the Finance Committee, ably chaired by Dan Roberts.
Many members have made extraordinary contributions to this society throughout the years, but I must mention two in particular. As the society moved from the Bostrom administrative structure to today's superb professional staff, there have been many challenges. Whenever they arose and whatever they were, they were responded to and solved by Bruce Smith and Vin Steponaitis. The whole story may never be known, but we would not be here today without the Herculean efforts of these two people. My heartfelt thanks to both of you.
Report of the 1995 Elections. Having been nominated by Chair Lynne Goldstein and her Nominations Committee, and having been subjected to vote and elected by the members of SAA, and here at this meeting taking office, are:
Treasurer-Elect: Robert L. Bettinger
Board Position #3: Margaret C. Nelson
Board Position #4: George S. Smith
1996 Nominating Committee Member: Kathleen Deagan
1996 Nominating Committee Member: Deborah Nichols
A total of 1,501 SAA members voted with ballots postmarked on or before March 18, 1995, thus being valid. Only 21 ballots were invalid, having been received after that deadline. The total number of ballots received (1522) is 32 percent of the SAA membership as of March 18, 1995. It is a traditional secretarial courtesy not to state publicly the vote totals, but such information is a matter of record for any member so desiring to know. I thank Ralph Johnson and his staff for efficiently conducting the elections on behalf of the Secretary.
Report of the Ceremonial Resolutions. Resolutions of the 60th Annual Meeting were respectfully submitted by Chair of Ceremonial Resolutions Jon Muller, and, on his recommendation, these being adopted by the Annual Meeting, are:
(1) Be it resolved that appreciation and congratulations on a job well done be tendered
a) to retiring officers President Bruce Smith and Secretary Bruce Rippeteau, and retiring Board Members Roger Anyon and Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, and others who have served the society on its committees and in other ways;
b) to the staff who planned the meeting, and to all the volunteers who worked at registration and other tasks;
c) to the Program Committee, chaired by Paul E. Minnis, and Timothy R. Pauketat, Jennifer A. Brady, Suzanne K. Fish, John W. Ives, Adria LaViolette, Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., Linda Manzanilla, Ben A. Nelson, Paul R. Nickens, and Lynne P. Sullivan, and
d) to the Local Advisory Committee chaired by Phyllis Messenger, and Ken Liss, with Scott Anfinson, Bettina Arnold, Carl Blair, Robert Clouse, Clark Dobbs, Thomas H. Hruby, Deborah Morse-Kahn, James Myster, Stephanie Pomonis, Eduardo Romo, Orrin Shane, and Tom Trow.
(2) And be it further resolved that thanks again be given to those who inform us of the deaths of colleagues, and finally,
(3) A Resolution of Sympathy to the families and friends of Sandor Bokonyi, Sterling Dow, Donald Collier, Bertha Pauline Dutton, Walter Fairservis, Alison Frantz, Elizabeth M. Garrett, Percy Dauelsberg Hahmann, Frederick Johnson, Timothy Mooney, Robert McCorkle Netting, Marshall T. Newman, Philip Phillips, Marcel Ravidat, Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Doris Zemurray Stone, William E. Taylor, Sol Tax, Bruce Trickey, Linda Ward-Williams, A. Helene Warren, Howard Dalton Winters, Daniel Wolfman, H. Marie Wormington, and John M. Young.
The members arose for a moment of silence in honor of our departed colleagues.
This is my final Annual Business Meeting serving as Secretary, and I thank the SAA Board, especially President Bruce Smith, immediate past Treasurer Vin Steponaitis and current Treasurer Fred Limp, and particularly SAA Executive Director Ralph Johnson and our SAA staff, for their great support and friendship.
Once again, I call specific attention to the outstanding service of the SAA committee chairs and members for creating our strong committee structure and all their hard work this past year.
As past Secretary Sherry Lerner did for me, I have passed on to my successor Keith Kintigh the "Ceremonial Good Word" and I wish him the best! I'm glad to have been of this service to our society and I thank you all for your many kindnesses.
I am personally delighted to work for you and with the leadership you have elected. Similarly, I find myself privileged to work with an extraordinary staff who are dedicated to serving you and implementing the society's programs and initiatives--which seem to grow almost daily in breadth and depth.
I am also thankful for and invigorated by the high levels of energy, enthusiasm, and insight that are displayed by the many individuals who volunteer their time to further the society's mission. Your contributions are both essential and highly valued.
I join you in celebrating the society's 60th anniversary, and have every confidence that the vital organization that has emerged since 1934 will continue to engage you, provide value to you, and sustain your efforts to enhance knowledge about the past.
One of our most important accomplishments has been the inauguration of a new column on cultural resources management. It was launched in he March/April/May 1995 issue, and is called "Insights: The Many Faces of CRM." It is edited by W. Kevin Pape of Gray and Pape, Inc. The goal of the column is to provide news and commentary of interest to the large community of CRM archaeologists in SAA.
We have also continued to develop two columns begun in years previous. "Exchanges," our column on recent developments in Latin American archaeology, continues under my direction, but our "Working Together" column on Native American-archaeologists relations has a new Associate Editor, Kurt Dongoske of the Hopi tribe. Kurt made a number of suggestions for changes in the column, and I was so grateful for them that I appointed him editor.
We have expanded our coverage of SAA news and business in a number of ways. Ralph Johnson, our Executive Director, prepares his "Briefings" column for every issue, and Donald Craib, SAA counsel, has turned the previously sporadic updates on governmental activities into a fine, regular column. His work will be especially important as archaeology and historic preservation begin to respond to the challenges posed by the new Congress as reported in the March/April/May issue of the SAA Bulletin. We continue to publish, as received, updates on a host of SAA committees, task forces, and other entities engaged in SAA business.
While content continues to be of greatest importance to us, we hope you have noticed we have not neglected the appearance and the design of the Bulletin. We have created logos for almost every column and feature, and, like the journals, we have taken on standard SAA logos and formats to provide a sense of continuity across our publications.
Finally, one of our most important achievements has been the development of an electronic SAA Bulletin. Beginning with the November/December 1994 issue, we have provided a gopher version of the Bulletin and I'm happy to report, that a World Wide Web version is now available as well. I must say I was quite worried about the Web version. However, two graduate students in archaeology at UCSB--John Kantner and Doug Kennett--got tired of hearing me worry about it and simply did it. I have them to thank for helping me keep one of my greatest promises.
What about the future? I have yet another batch of promises for you for the coming year, and I hope to have the same success in achieving them. Archaeologists have always been fascinated by and have successfully used a wide variety of technological tools in their research. I'd like to launch a new column on promising technologies of value to our field, and I'm actively casting about for yet another associate editor to take charge of this enterprise. I hope you'll be able to read the first installment of this column before the next annual meeting.
I also want to expand the Bulletin's offerings to our Latin American colleagues. The SAA Task Force on Latin America has recommended that the Bulletin make an effort to provide information of interest to these colleagues, and to that end, I plan to appoint two new associate editors: one from Argentina and the other from Mexico. These two countries have the largest SAA memberships in Latin America, and they are a logical place to begin. I hope this will make the beginning of a long and productive involvement of Latin American archaeologists in the affairs of SAA.
I am also looking at ways to expand our coverage of SAA business, and this year I hope to develop regular contact with committee and task force chairs to encourage them to publish, when appropriate, news of their activities. These committees are anonymous to many of us, yet many important things happen within them. A broader knowledge of committees will also encourage broader participation in SAA business.
Finally, I hope to continue to develop the electronic versions of the Bulletin to keep abreast of the incredibly rapid changes in information technology. Those of you who have browsed the pages of the gopher Bulletin know that you get text only. The Web version offers expanded presentation of graphics, but it is still not the paper version of the Bulletin. We'll be looking at ways to give you a complete identical electronic version of the Bulletin over this year.
I enjoyed editing the Bulletin over the past year, and I am proud of what my staff and I have accomplished. We are looking forward to another year of challenges, and I hope by the next meeting, we'll be able to report a similar string of accomplishments and yet another batch of promises for the future.
The interior of American Antiquity has also been transformed over the past two years. Part of this was already under way last year when I spoke to you. Perhaps the most notable change is that more of the space in the journal is devoted to the publication of archaeological research. This, of course, has meant that other material which we formerly published in the journal has been shortened or placed in other society publications. At the same time, we have made a number of changes to improve the readability of the journal. The size of print is larger; double columns are now used. Two columns also give us more flexibility with respect to the printing of tables and illustrations in the journal. I think they are easier to read.
Throughout this process, my first objective has been to keep the journal on its publication schedule, and in this, we have been more or less successful (despite some delays caused by the switch to the new format). The April 1995 issue should appear in the next couple of weeks and by the end of the year the journal will be back on its regular schedule. For much of this success, I must thank Janet Walker who is the new managing editor of American Antiquity, as well as director of all the publications issued by the society. The transition to a new managing editor has gone relatively smoothly.
The papers published in American Antiquity represent a good mix of topics and areas, including a few that pertain to localities outside North America, including Latin America (an area of concern to the Task Force on Latin America). I am especially pleased to have published a number of papers which report research undertaken as a result of historic preservation compliance by archaeologists employed as consultants. As always, the number of papers we can publish in American Antiquity falls well below the number we receive as submissions, and it makes for some hard decisions regarding what to accept (especially since I would like to avoid leaving my successor with a large backlog of papers to publish under her editorship).
Although I have been relatively successful in the past two years in bringing the journal back on schedule, I have been notably less effective at managing the editorial office in Hawaii. This has led to a considerable slowdown in the rate at which I have been able to process manuscripts; it can still take much too long to reach a decision on manuscripts. It is for this reason that I have suggested we begin exploring the idea of moving the front end of the editorial functions for the journal to the Washington, D.C., office. I suspect that Janet Walker and her assistants can effectively track manuscripts, answer author queries, and remind the editor that decisions need to be completed in a timely fashion.
Finally, I note that the incoming editor-designate may not be prepared to assume her duties until later this year--that is when her departmental and university support will kick in. Yet, in order to have her first issue ready by July 1996 and if we expect that issue to be product of her editorial review process, it would be necessary for Lynne to begin her duties in the next month or so. While I am prepared to continue to receive papers and send them out for review until this fall, in the future the Executive Board may want to consider shifting the issues of the journal (currently April and July) during which the editors hand off and begin their respective duties.
Michael W. Graves
LAA remains the only journal that truly attempts to serve as a medium of communication throughout the Americas, in all three of the major languages of this hemisphere. It falls far short, however, of success in the attempt because we cannot place the journal in the hands of enough of our impoverished Latin American colleagues. One potentially helpful initiative, already mentioned in the Editor's Corner, is the "Adopt-A-Scholar" program, and I urge you to read about it in Vol. 5 No. 3. A second helpful step will come with changes in membership arrangements that will take place this fall. A third, which came into being just this morning, is an effort to attract Latin American advertisers to LAA--a step that will surely convince more readers in Latin America that the journal is relevant to their lives.
Our second problem is one of language. LAA accepts manuscripts in English, Spanish, and now in Portuguese as well, but far too many of our Latin American colleagues choose to submit their work in English. This not only costs them more in both time and money, but also conveys the message that Spanish is the second language for communication in this hemisphere's archaeological world. We face several forthcoming issues without a single Spanish article, a fact that underscores the importance of convincing our Latin American colleagues that we can--as indeed we must--read their language with as much facility as they show in reading ours. I have yet to find a fully effective way to go about such convincing, and I would welcome your suggestions.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation for Janet Walker's efforts in taking on the post of managing editor in our Washington office. Her learning curve in the arcane realm of archaeology has been exceedingly steep, and yet her pace up that formidable hill has been remarkably quick. What is far more important, though, is that she has managed to maintain her sense of humor throughout her learning time. It is clear that she knows, as do I, that in the publishing game if you do not keep laughing you will soon be crying.
David M. Pendergast
The Governmental Affairs Committee membership currently includes Judith Bense, Greg Bowen, Janet Brashler, Stephen Claggett, Gary Feinman, Gwynn Henderson, Shereen Lerner, Bruce McMillan, Gordon Peters, and myself. William Lipe assumed the role of ex-officio member of the committee with his election to the presidency. The term of Judith Bense expired last April, but I was able to persuade her to continue, and President Lipe has recently asked her to take over as chair.
Contacts with members of the committee have become less frequent and members are less involved with action steps now that government affairs has a staff member in Washington. Discussions last February with Bruce Smith, Bill Lipe, Ralph Johnson, and Donald Craib led us to conclude that the development of staff capabilities required an evolution of the committee's role from the day-to-day management of information and needed action to that of a policy-recommending body for government affairs, and in fact it already has assumed this role. As issues arise, issue groups are formed to deal with them under the general guidance of the committee. However, the issue groups are ad hoc and include the committee chair, the government affairs staffer, a committee member or two with expertise in the issue at hand, and other appropriate SAA members whohave expertise and time necessary for whatever action is needed.
The year has been a busy one. We have been operating with the following list of priorities, approved by the board last September: federal agency coordination, curation, ecosystem initiatives, NHPA regulations and implementation, 1995 Farm Bill, DOD Legacy program, NSF and NEH appropriations, repatriation and NAGPRA, UNIDROIT, and extinguishing fires as necessary. Of these, one issue requiring a good deal of our attention has been the threat to the Section 106 review process and the National Historic Preservation Act. SAA must focus particular attention on the need to preserve the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the protections that Section 106 affords archaeological resources, and advertise the public benefits that have flowed from archaeological projects carried out under 106. This is a very important issue that was not identified as a high priority before the 1994 national elections.
We remain vigilant, watching federal reorganization, especially as it affects the Bureau of Land Management. While trying to flatten very hierarchical organizations within that agency, reorganizers may lose archaeology from the mix. We cannot predict outcomes and there is anxiety among rank and file archaeologists across the agencies.
Michael Kaczor alerted us to the current development of the 1995 Farm Bill, which will set farm programs for the next five years. The bill might give us an opportunity to target agricultural land with archaeological resources. The Environmental Easement Program of the earlier 1990 Farm Bill allows for the acquisition of easements on private lands that are environmentally sensitive. The inclusion of archaeological and historic sites among other sensitive resources would give us a new tool in their protection.
Also in the last year we heard of a BLM plan to allow construction of a pipeline through South Pass in Wyoming, a historically sensitive area. In addition, Wyoming has been designated a test state for streamlining Section 106 procedures. This is according to an agreement reached between the Advisory Council and the Wyoming SHPO. These two events require some careful attention. Bill Lipe met with BLM state directors in April, and Donald Craib is following the situation closely. While streamlining the 106 process is a good idea, we don't want it to lead to compliance avoidance.
We are moving incrementally in the area of Heritage Areas, following progress toward this concept of public land management. SAA has joined the National Coalition of Heritage Areas. Archaeology has much to gain from the development of heritage areas, no longer seen as second-rate substitutes for new national parks. We have also been more active recently in National Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities affairs. We follow the Society for Historical Archaeology's lead with regard to NEH matters, and it would be beneficial to coordinate more closely with the American Anthropological Association if we can resolve our differences over NSF policy.
Other issues of abiding concern include:
Establishing alliances with organizations of like interests. One of these is the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In October 1994, Donald Craib attended a Trust meeting in Boston at which archaeology was a featured topic. Sherry Lerner chaired one of the sessions. This participation advanced our goal of making arch-aeology an important part of the Trust's agenda. And the relationship continues. On April 17, Bill Lipe, with Donna Seifert, SHA president, met with Richard Moe, Trust president.
Curation--an important high-priority issue. An issue paper emanating from a meeting organized by Bruce McMillan will be used to argue for, among other things, a grants program similar to the one in place for NAGPRA.
Keepers of the Treasures. We are exploring ways to cooperate with this Native American group.
Given the changes in Washington and our ability to be more reactive with Donald on board, we have set the following priorities for the next six months: extinguish fires as necessary, Section 106 and NHPA regulations, federal agency coordination, curation, ecosystem initiatives, 1995 Farm Bill, NSF and NEH appropriations, DOD Legacy, Repatriation and NAGPRA, UNIDROIT.