Search

Since at least the 1930s, archaeological investigations in the southeastern United States have placed a priority on expansive, near-complete, excavations of major sites throughout the region. Although there are considerable advantages to such large–scale excavations, projects conducted at this scale are also accompanied by a series of challenges regarding the comparability, integrity, and consistency of data recovery, analysis, and publication. We examine the history of large–scale excavations in the southeast in light of traditional views within the discipline that the region has contributed little to the ‘big questions’ of American archaeology. Recently published analyses of decades old data derived from Southeastern sites reveal both the positive and negative aspects of field research conducted at scales much larger than normally undertaken in archaeology. Furthermore, given the present trend toward the use of big data in the social sciences, we predict an increased use of large pre–existing datasets developed during the New Deal and other earlier periods of archaeological practice throughout the region.

This book is a very difficult work to read dispassionately, for a variety of reasons, such as difficulties the reader may have with a rather convoluted discussion of Daniel Wilson and the Scottish enlightenment, the categorization of many practicing archaeologists as "petrified puddle ducks", after a term borrowed from Waiter Taylor. and taking a leaf from Taylor, utilization of the term "critical" primarily as "criticism", so that almost no current significant practicing archaeologist in North America comes out unscathed. The term puddle ducks" was employed in several places. Perhaps the strongest usage when Kehoe states (p. 183) that "Compared to the political sophistication displayed by so many social anthropologists, mainstream American archaeologists have been petrified puddle ducks." The term "petrified puddle ducks" had a nice ring to it but I confess I did not remember the context that Taylor employed it in, so I repaired to the vol­ume to re-educate myself.

This volume contains 11 papers from the October 1988 seminar, held at the Amerind Foundation, to assess Charles Di Peso's (1920- 1962) contributions to American archaeology and particularly to the issues of Mesoamerican-Southwestern interaction and the role of Casas Grandes (Paquime) in that interaction. Two additional papers (Emanuel Breitburg's and Ben Nelson's) were solicited later and are included herein.

When reconstructing regional histories within American archaeology, understanding the complexities of professional and avocational social circles is a critical and necessary undertaking. As a case study, I introduce several social circles that impacted shell midden archaeology in Massachusetts during the 19 th and 20 th centuries. Here I consider how principles from Social Network Analysis (SNA) and Ingold's concepts of meshworks and wayfaring shed light on, and are even complicated by, these historical examples.

Great Excavations: Tales of Early Southwestern Archaeology, 1 888-1939, is an "intentionally selective" account of eight major archaeological expeditions to the Southwest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It succeeds in achieving the goals set forth in the prologue. The reader is taken on an "armchair tour"  of early Southwestern excavations in the hope that the resulting "basic understanding of what the early archae­ologists did" will stimulate a desire to "learn more about the intriguing prehistory of the Southwest" (pp. xiii). As a student of the history of North American archaeology, I would be amiss to speak for Elion's "layperson" audience, but my suspicion is that her presentation will indeed stimulate those readers. As an archaeologist, I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and it may well be that Elliott's journalistic approach makes this book more enjoyable because she is able to remain above the level of detail that often burden archaeolo­gists' accounts of these expeditions. I must temper this statement by noting that Elliott's journalistic hyper­ bole and tendency to oversimplify complex research and analysis are at times discomforting.

Hewett's career was notable for many things. including effective support of the 1906 Antiquities Act [United States], first director of the School of American Archaeology (later, School of American Research) in Santa Fe in 1907, first director of the Museum of New Mexico in 1909, professor of anthropology at State Teachers College, San Diego, in 1922, head of the new department of archaeology and anthropology at the University of New Mexico in 1927, and head of the anthropology department at the University of Southern California. 1932. Douglas W. Schwartz has described Hewett's career as "characterized by great energy and intelligence directed to a series of activities, but each to be superseded by the next as new interest arose...

This volume grew from the second Gordon R. WilIey Biennial Symposium on the History of Archaeology held in 1998 at the anonal meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Seattle. It is dedicated to Professor WilIey, who died April 28, 2002. Twelve papers focus on the development of Americanist archaeology prior to World War I, with special emphasis on its European connections and on the work done by women.

The It's About Time volume, which focuses upon the issues of historiography and chronology in North American archaeology, is the publication of the papers from a 1997 Society for American Archaeology symposium. The papers are for the most part on the development of various daring techniques (such as archaeomagnetism, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, or thermoluminescence) from an archaeological perspective, but there is one extremely thought-provoking critique by a social philosopher on how archaeologists "do" the history of archaeology, that for many readers may be the single most important paper in the volume.

Fred Blackburn and Roy Williamson provide a rather enjoyable, if narrowly focused, history of Basketmaker archae­ology in Cowboys and Cave Dwellers. Basketmaker Archaeology in Utah's Grand Gulch (1995). In this, the School of American Research Press has produced an aesthetically pleasing, popular treatment of early North American archaeology, of the same genre as Melinda Elliott's (1995) Great Excavations. Archaeologists who find the journalstic prose, paucity of data, and lack of citations in such popular accounts unsettling should turn to Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers From the 1990 Wetherill - Grand Gulch Symposium (Bureau of Land Management 1993). This predecessor yet companion volume contains the detail, background, and contextual information necessary to criti­cally evaluate the significant scholarly contributions of the Wetherill - Grand Gulch Research Project (1986 - 1990). Given that most readers of the Bulletin would like to see more than the popular account can offer, I have taken the liberty of reviewing both volumes.

Pueblo Bonito was originally published in 1920, twenty-five years after the Hyde Exploring Expedition first began work at the site in 1896. The re-issue of this volume, long out-of-print and difficult and expensive to obtain, marks the 1OOth anniversary of the onset of the excavation of Pueblo Bonito. The book is a most welcome addition to the list of historically important works on American archaeology and anthropology that have been reprinted during the last several decades. The University of New Mexico Press is to be com­ mended for undertaking to republish this report, especially at such a reasonable price for the paperback.

Higueras discusses three themes in his article that mirror those of recent publications by his colleagues in other Latin American countries: the need for archaeology to play a fundamental role in creating the identity of a past that the people of the nation can take justified pride in; the conflicts between national metropolitan archaeologists vs. national provincial archaeologists; and the conflicts between national archaeological agendas and foreign archaeological programs. Indeed these same three arguments dressed in slightly differ­ent verbiage, are the basis of the informative Point-Counterpoint argument by Ernesto Salazar and his colleagues in a recent Society for American Archaeology [SAA] Bulletin (Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 3, 14-15, 1996).

In the first half of the 20th century three major archaeological culture unit classifications were formulated in the United States. The most curious one was the Midwestern Taxonomic System, a scheme that ignored time and space. Alton K. Fisher suggested to W. C. McKern in the late 1920's that the Linnean model of morphological classifi­cation, which was employed in biology at a time of pre-evolutionary thinking, might be adapted to archaeologi­cal culture classification (Fisher 1986). On the basis of this idea McKern conceived the Midwestern Taxonomic System and planned to present his concept in a paper at the Central Section of the American Anthropological Association at Ann Arbor, Michigan, in April, 1932. Illness prevented him from making the presentation. The first public statement was before a small group of archaeologists at the time of an archaeological symposium, Illinois Academy of Science, May 1932 (Griffin 1943:327). After input from various archaeologists a formal account was prepared as a manuscript entitled "Culture Type Classification for Midwestern North American Archaeology" at the Chicago Conference, December 10, 1932. Other participants at this conference were Samuel A. Barrett, Fay­ Cooper Cole, Thorne Deuel, Carl E. Guthe, A. R. Kelly (Cole and Deuel 1937a:34) and James B. Griffin (as a graduate student, personal communication, 1986). This classification method was more fully and formally presented three years later, in December 1935, at the original Indianapolis Archaeological Conference (Guthe 1937). A more detailed history of the origins of the McKern system is provided by Griffin (1943).

The history of archaeology is nourished by many sources of information, including the books and monographs that reflect archaeology's changes through the years (compare, for example, the important works of Squier and Davis, of Kidder, and of Flanenry), the formal histories Of the discipline (few and far between, though we are fortunate to have the differing views of Trigger, of Willey and Sabloff, and most recently of Thomas Patterson), and not the least important, the occasional biography or autobiography of an archaeologist, such as the one here reviewed. In his foreword C. MelvinAikens writes "Jesse D. Jennings is one of the most distinguished and influential founders of North American archaeology as it is known and practiced today, and this memoir offers a glimpse of the field's crucial growth period as reflected in the real-life experience of a leading protagonist". This is a fair appraisal-during Jennings' career archaeology has undergone profound changes and lie has played a major role in .many of them.

A public conference followed by a scholarly symposium was held at Tucson, AZ in March 1986. Co-sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, The Southwest Institute for Research on Women, the Arizona State Museum, and the Department of Anthropology and the Southwest Center at the University of Arizona, "Daughters of the Desert" brought together more than 20 scholars to discuss the history of women in southwestern anthropology. The conference included an exhibit with an illustrated catalogue: Daughters of the Desert (Babcock and Parezo 1988). Now, with the publication of Hidden Scholars: Woman Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, we have, as the Woodburys state in their Foreword, "a comprehensive survey of southwestern anthropology" with an expanded history and biographical profiles of some 50-60 of the most important of the more than 1,600 women who have worked in southwestern anthropol­ogy.This volume appears when there is renewed interest in the history of anthropology, the history of women within anthropology (especially American anthropology), and the issue of gender in archaeological research. Recent symposia and conferences have focused on these topics, e.g., ''Women in Archaeology: The Second Annual Symposium on the History of American Archaeology" held at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (April 1989), and the entire 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference (November 1989).

For many years Stephen Williams has taught a course at Harvard University dealing with those aspects of Americanist archaeology that the finds to be based on fantasy rather than on carefully recovered archaeological evidence. He has now published a book based on this course, which provides a history of this archaeology. Much of the strength of this book is derived from Williams' recognition that fantastic archaeology has been an integral part of American archaeology from its earliest days, that the border between the fantastic and the scientific is problematical, and that weird ideas often fill real social needs.

The Biennial Gordon Willey Symposium on the History of Archaeology at the 2010 Society for American Archaeology (SAA) meetings this past April was well received and was one of three featured sessions at the SAA meeting. As reported in an earlier Bulletin (Means 2009), the Willey Symposium was sponsored by the SAA’s History of Archaeology Interest Group (HAIG) and was entitled ‘Shovel Ready: Archaeology & Roosevelt’s New Deal for America’.

Those who were waiting to see dramatic changes in Willey and Sabloff will be disappointed. The first five chapters are virtually identical to the previous edition, except that Indians have been transformed into Native Americans and the footnotes have been expanded somewhat to incorporate new publications. I have little to say about this section, which comprises two thirds of the book, and which does a reasonable job of covering the major archaeologists and themes of the first 100+ years of American archaeology. There are always specific points that one can take issue with but the authors make a real effort to cover American archaeology prior to 1960 in its broadest sense.

This well-produced volume honors Stephen Williams, recently retired Peabody Professor of American Archaeology at Harvard University. Section one, on Williams' life, career, and publications, is of most interest to readers of BHA. Chapter 1, by James B. Griffin details Williams' career in teaching, in museum management, and southeastern archaeology and ethnohistory. Williams served as chairman of at least 25 doctoral committees and is credited with chairing more women's committees than any other Harvard archaeologist (Claassen 1994:7). Except for mention of his recent book, Fantastic Archaeology, neither this chapter or any other provides information on Williams' interest in and contributions to the history of archaeology. Chapter 2 provides his twin brother, Philip's, perception of their early life together and divergence once they reached college. Philip seems to have had the initial interest in archaeology and both brothers went to Lloyd Wilford's 1947 summer field school in Minnesota, but Philip ended up in business while Stephen went on in archaeology.

As my tenure as Editor of the Bulletin ofthe History of Archaeology (BHA) draws to a close (31 December 2002),I think it useful to the readership that I provide a very brief history of the BRA covering its inception, early years, and my aspirations for its future. The BHA was just a passing idea in my mind in 1990 when I organized an Advanced Seminar held at the School of American Search (SAR) in Santa Fe,New Mexico (14-18 July 1990), concerning the then current state of writing the history of archaeology for the Society for American Archaeology's Committee on theHistory.of Archaeology. To a great degree the SAR advanced seminar grew out of a seminal gathering (Visitor Scholar's Conference) that Andrew Christenson had put together in 1987 at Southern Ilinois University at Carbondaie,Dlinois - a gathering of those working in the history of archaeology.

This volume contains a short 6 page history of the contributions ofWesley Robert Hurt, Jr., to Americanist archaeology,along with a 4 page 'selected' list of his publications. The review starts with his career in the Southwest, traces the shift in his research to the Plains, and especially South Dakota, and then turns to his later change of interest to South America (especially Colombia, Brazil and Uru­guay). Hurt was born September 20, 1 9 1 7 in New Mexico, and got into archaeology through his cousin, Reginald Fisher, who was working for Dr. Edgar L. Heweu. Hurt started out taking Heweu's Chaco Canyon Field School, and began working on the Jemez Archaeological project as a high school student in the 1930s. After graduating from the University of New Mexico in 1938, he worked from 1938 to 1940 as a WPAArchaeology Project supervisor on Southwest projects, and in 1941 served as the Na­tional Park Service archaeologist at Canyon de Chelly National Monument.

Christer Lindberg, of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Lund, Sweden, has completed a fairly extensive doctoral dissertation (published version 548 pages) on 'the contributions of Baron Nils Erland Rebert Nordenskiold (1877-1932) to American archaeology and ethnology. Lindberg's research interest appears to be in the history of our discipline, as seen in the four publications listed below, covering Carl V. Rartman, Rafael Karsten, Erland Nordenskiold, and Hjalmar Stolpe. Erland Nordenskiold's cousin, Gustaf, is well known to many for his archaeological work in the American Southwest.