ANUARY 2013 • V OLUME 13 • N UMBER 1 - Archaeology · JANUARY 2013 • V OLUME 13 • N UMBER 1...

SAAarchaeological recordJANUARY 2013 • VOLUME 13 • NUMBER 1

the

NATIVE HAWAIIAN PERSPECTIVES ON ARCHAEOLOGY, PART I

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 PRACTICEA Journal of the Society for American Archaeology

Edited by Christopher D. Dore, University of Arizona & ASM Affiliates, Inc.

A digital, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal focusing on methods, techniques, and innovative practices.

Advances in Archaeological Practice is a peer-reviewed journal that seeks to share solutions in the broad practice of archaeology. Launching in 2013, the full-color digitaljournal is published four times per year. The journal publishes original articles thatpresent creative solutions to the challenges archaeologists face in the ways that theyapproach the archaeological record to learn about the past and manage archaeologicalresources. “Practice” is defined broadly and topics can include, but are not limited to,

innovations in approach, technique, method, technology, business models, collaboration, compliance, process, ethics, theory, public engagement, and training.

The journal is a benefit of membership in the Society for American Archaeology (SAA).

For author guidelines, editorial board, sample articles, and much more, please visit thejournal’s page on SAAweb (www.saa.org).

Look for the link to the courtesy issues available in 2013!

You can be a part of SAA history! Now is the time to ready your manuscript for the inaugural issues.

For submission information,please contact Christopher Dore at [email protected].

Editor’s Corner

In Brief

Honolulu 2013

SAA Lu‘au

Volunteer Profile: Janet Levy

A Future of Archaeological Publishing

Salvage Archaeometry: Lessons Learned from theLawrence Berkeley Laboratory Archaeometric Archives

Google Earth as an Archaeological Tool in the Developing World: An Example from India

UAVs at Marj Rabba, Israel: Low-Cost High-Tech Toolsfor Aerial Photography and Photogrammetry

Editor’s Comments

Is Hawaiian Archaeology Really Hawaiian? A NativeHawaiian Perspective

Culture Resource Management Challenges in Hawai‘i

Following the Path: 2011 Hawai‘I Cultural StewardshipAwardee Dana Naone Hall

The Road to Cultural Justice

In Memoriam: Elizabeth Ann “Liz” Morris

In Memoriam: George H. Odell

news and notes

positions open

calendar

2 Jane Eva Baxter

3 Tobi A. Brimsek

4 Gordon F. M. Rakita

6 Kathy Kawelu and James Bayman

7

8 Compiled by Sarah Herr

14 Matthew T. Boulanger

20 Tilok Thakuria, Tosabanta Padhan, Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, and Monica L. Smith

25 Austin “Chad” Hill

30 Kathleen Kawelu

31 Sean P. Naleimaile and Lokelani Brandt

33 Kehaunani Cachola-Abad

35 Ty P. Kawika Tengan

37 Dana Naone Hall

40 Kelly J. Pool and Michael D. Metcalf

41 Michael E. Whalen

42

43

43

The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 13, No. 1January 2013

SAAarchaeological recordthe

FORUM: NATIVE HAWAIIAN PERSPECTIVES ON ARCHAEOLOGY PART 1 OF 2 GUEST EDITOR: KATHLEEN KAWELU

On the cover: Excavators at work in area

DD at Marj Rabba (see page 27).

2 The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2013

This issue of the magazine is a perfect example of why I have loved serving as the Edi-tor of The SAA Archaeological Record. The diversity of archaeology today is fascinating—the many perspectives and values that inform views of the past, the innovations in tech-nology and its applications that colleagues invent to solve archaeological problems, andthe continual renewal of archaeological materials to yield new and interesting infor-mation about those who lived before us. When Kathleen Kawelu contacted me last yearabout publishing a forum on Native Hawaiian perspectives on archaeology, I couldn’tthink of a better way to lead up to the SAA meetings in Honolulu. The content of theforum does not disappoint, and in January and March readers will have the opportuni-ty to learn about archaeology on these islands from a perspective not previously repre-sented in the magazine. I believe it will enrich many people’s experiences in Hawai’i asthey engage ideas at the meetings and indulge in sightseeing excursions that bringthem face to face with the local landscape. I cannot thank Kathy enough for her hardwork on this forum, and for her work in helping to make the upcoming meeting inHonolulu a success.

The individual articles in this issue are a perfect example of the diversity of what SAAmembers submit to share with you through the magazine: salvage archaeometry,futures in publishing, new uses for Google Earth, and really cool quadcopters and thelike! These articles were either brought to me as an idea for a piece in the magazine orsent to me as unsolicited manuscripts. While I often draw on my own resources andnetworks for content, it is always ideal when authors offer to share their experiencesand ideas through the magazine. The community of archaeologists in our organizationconsistently impresses me, and it is a privilege to facilitate exchanges among the SAAmembership.

I have mentioned before that I am working on an index for The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord from its inception in 2000 through 2012. This project is on track for completionby the time I step down as editor at the annual meetings in April, and I hope will helpyou all engage the diversity of materials the magazine covers with greater ease.

Finally, it is with great sadness that I say goodbye to John Neikirk as the SAA Manag-er of Publications. I have enjoyed working with John and appreciated his professional-ism, his commitment to collaborative work and excellent production, and his strongsense of work-life balance. All of these things have made our partnership an incrediblypleasant and productive one from my perspective, and I can assure you I could not havedone my job without his help, patience, and support. So good luck John in your futureendeavors and thanks for everything. You will be missed!

EDITOR’S CORNERJane Eva Baxter

The SAA Archaeological Record(ISSN 1532-7299) is published fivetimes a year and is edited by JaneEva Baxter. Submissions should besent to Jane Eva Baxter, [email protected], DePaul University,Department of Anthropology, 2343North Racine, Chicago, IL 60614

Deadlines for submissions are:December 1 (January), February 1(March), April 1 (May), August 1(September), and October 1(November). Advertising and place-ment ads should be sent to SAAheadquarters, 1111 14th St. NW,Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005.

The SAA Archaeological Record isprovided free to members and insti-tutional subscribers to AmericanAntiquity and Latin American Antiq-uity worldwide. The SAA Archaeo-logical Record can be found on theWeb in PDF format at www.saa.org.

SAA publishes The SAA Archaeolog-ical Record as a service to its mem-bers and constituencies. SAA, itseditors and staff are not responsiblefor the content, opinions and infor-mation contained in The SAAArchaeological Record. SAA, its edi-tors and staff disclaim all war-ranties with regard to such content,opinions and information pub-lished in The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord by any individual or organi-zation; this disclaimer includes allimplied warranties of mer-chantability and fitness. In no eventshall SAA, its editors and staff beliable for any special, indirect, orconsequential damages or anydamages whatsoever resulting fromloss of use, data, or profits, arisingout of or in connection with the useor performance of any content,opinions or information includedin The SAA Archaeological Record.

Copyright ©2013 by the Society forAmerican Archaeology. All RightsReserved.

SAAarchaeological recordthe

The Magazine of the Society forAmerican Archaeology Volume 13, No. 1January 2013

3January 2013 • The SAA Archaeological Record

A Taste of Honolulu

The 78th Annual Meeting will be a hallmark meeting for theSociety, with the second-largest number of submissions ever,and a plethora of unparalleled activities. The venue will be theHawaii Convention Center, along with the headquarters hotel,the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Please feel free to explore the con-tent and fabric of the meeting through the Preliminary Programwhich is posted on www.saa.org. Preliminary programs werealso dropped in the mail at the end of December. Even if you arealready registered because of a participant role, you will want toperuse the program and take advantage of the workshops, field-trips, lu’au, and other events now open for registration.

In addition to the President’s Forum/Opening Session, TheFuture of Archaeology: Engagement with Descendant Commu-nities, scheduled for 6 pm–8 pm on Wednesday, April 3 at theHilton Hawaiian Village, the Ethics Bowl, exhibits, symposia,forums, and posters you can choose from activities including:

�An Authentic Hawaiian Lu’au Saturday, April 6 from 6–9pm!Experience the true local flavor and Hawaiian culture on thebeautiful grounds of the Bishop Museum. The lu’au will featuretraditional Hawaiian cuisine, music, and dancing. Tickets areavailable for 300 attendees. Details are provided in the Prelimi-nary Program. This is absolutely a not-to-miss event!

�Extraordinary field trips— Including Joint POW/MIA Com-mand (JPAC), Central Identification Laboratory (CIL), LyonArboretum and Botanical Garden, a behind the scenes tour atthe Bishop Museum,Makua Training Range, and Kaniakapupu,Summer Residence of King Kamehameha III. Check them out!

�FameLab: Exploring Earth and Beyond— Sponsored by SAA,NASA, and National Geographic

FameLab EEB is fun-filled day of competition, coaching,and camaraderie that’s all about communicating! It’ssomething like American Idol for archaeologists...yougive a 3-minute powerpoint-free talk to a panel ofjudges...but unlike American Idol, the feedback is strictlyconstructive! There’s a communication training work-shop, too, so everyone wins.

We invite you to compete to convey your own research orrelated science concepts. Each contestant has the spot-light for only three minutes....no slides, no charts— justthe power of words and any prop you can hold in yourhands. A panel of experts in both science and sciencecommunication will do the judging.

The heart of FameLab EEB’s lies beyond the excitement ofthe competition element— at each event, there is a sci-ence communication workshop led by professionals inthe field. These workshops provide insight into how bestto talk to stakeholders along your career paths such asdepartment heads and political representatives, but alsovoting neighbors and relatives, youth in your communi-ties, and perhaps even to broad public audiences throughthe lens of a camera or the voice of a blog. The skills yougain in these workshops can even carry over into effectiveproposal writing!

From teaching evolution to planetary exploration to cli-mate change, public interest in science is high. In thislandscape, strong science communication skills are criti-cal to sustaining credibility and funding. And in today’smedia-intensive environment, your ability to convey yourscience can reshape the face of science exploration anddiscovery.

Join us during the SAA Annual Meeting on ThursdayApril 4 ... give a 3-minute talk, get a career’s worth of sci-ence communication networking and tips from the pros!

Registration, eligibility requirements, and more info canbe found at: http://famelab-eeb.arc.nasa.gov/

Questions can be directed to Daniella Scalice at the NASAAstrobiology Program [email protected] orApril Chabries at National Geographic Society([email protected])

�Have a look at the range of workshops from Faunal Data entryand Integration in tDAR, Best Practices in teaching Archaeolo-gy Online, Comparative and Complementary 3D Documenta-

IN BRIEFTobi A. Brimsek

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

IN BRIEF

>IN BRIEF, continued on page 24


Ijust had the privilege of reviewing the galley proofs of thePreliminary Program for our 2013 Annual Meeting in Hon-olulu this coming April. Of course, by the time you are read-

ing this, the program will have been mailed out to you and post-ed on SAAweb. The program will begin on the evening ofWednesday, April 3 and continue till Sunday, April 7 at noon.Our first event will be the President’s Forum on Wednesdayevening, “The Future of Archaeology: Engagement with Descen-dant Communities.” Given that the future of Archaeology isdependent upon positive working relationships between archae-ologists and descendant communities, I think you will agreethat this is an excellent way for us to kick off our 78th annualmeeting.

After Wednesday night, we have scheduled over 1,000 individ-ual papers and posters, 170 organized sessions, and 13 forumsfor you to attend. Over twenty of the organized sessions aresponsored by interest groups, SAA committees, private firms,journals, and other scholarly organizations, and governmentalagencies. For example, this year sees the inauguration of the Fri-son Institute Symposium with a session entitled “Dates andData: New Applications of Radiocarbon Dating to Archaeologi-cal Problems.” Friday afternoon the 2013 Fryxell symposiumwill honor the work of Anthony F. Aveni. Other sessions honorother notables including Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Patrick Kirch,Henry Wright, Bill Isbell, Ken Ames, Richard Gould, andBernard Wailes. The Rock Art Interest Group is sponsoring twosessions, “Rock Art in Broad Perspective: Method and Interpre-tation in Contemporary Practice” and “Our Land is Girt by Sea:Rock Art, Seascapes and Inscribed Meanings.” The Zooarchae-ology and Bone Technology Interest group is sponsoring a dou-ble session on beads, beadwork, and personal adornments thatwill be held Saturday. These are just a sampling of the variety ofsponsored sessions you will have to choose from.

Appropriate for the venue are the numerous sessions andforums that focus on Oceania and the Pacific Rim in generaland the Hawaiian Islands specifically. For example, on Thursdaythere will be a two-part session organized around theoreticaland methodological issues of colonization in Oceania. On Fri-

day afternoon, a number of sessions will interest Pacific Oceanscholars including “Pacific Ethnographies in World Archaeolo-gies” and “Collaborative Research in the Pacific Basin andBeyond: Re-Shaping Archaeological Practice to Provide Spacefor Communities.” These are followed by the “Binding the Cordfor a Stronger Hawaii: Hawaiian Transformations in Archaeolo-gy and Cultural Resource Management” forum on Saturdaymorning and on Sunday the “Archaeologies, Legacies, and Her-itages of Colonial Encounters in the Pacific and the Caribbean”session.

When you need a break from the papers and posters, there areevents aplenty to attend. The Ethics Bowl preliminary roundswill be held on Thursday morning with the main event Thurs-day afternoon. Many of our interest groups will be meetingThursday afternoon. Of course the exhibit hall (open Thursday,Friday, and Saturday between 9am and 5pm) will hold nearly 40different vendors, CRM firms, publishers, and affiliated associ-ations. While you are perusing the books and wares, don’t forgetto review the State Archaeology posters (cast your vote beforenoon on Friday) and place a bid at the Native American Schol-arship silent auction.

A number of events for new and current members alike arescheduled. On Wednesday evening there will be a reception forall SAA student members, new members, first-time attendees,and committee and task force volunteers. This is a great oppor-tunity to start building your professional networks. Also the Stu-dent Affairs Committee will host a Student Day on Saturday,April 6. Please don’t forget the Annual Business meeting andawards ceremony on Friday night from 5:00–6:30 pm. Wednes-day through Saturday there will be a variety of workshops ontopics such as the Digital Archaeological Record, teachingarchaeology online, 3D documentation, and airborne laserscan-ning. The CRM Expo will be held Saturday starting at 1:30pm.

As usual, there are a number of local attractions and tours avail-able. Destinations include the Joint POW/MIA Command Cen-tral Identification Laboratory, the Lyon Arboretum and Botani-cal Garden, a Behind-the-Scenes tour of the Bishop Museum’s

HONOLULU 2013Gordon F. M. Rakita

Gordon Rakita is the Program Chair for the SAA 78th Annual Meeting.

78TH ANNUAL MEETING


Perishables Fibers, the U.S. Army’s Makua Training Range, andthe Summer Residence of King Kamehameha III. And don’t for-get to purchase your ticket for the Hawaiian Lu’au held at theBernice Pauahi Bishop Museum on Saturday night from 6:00-9:00pm. Your ticket will include roundtrip transportation,authentic Hawaiian foods, contemporary Hawaiian music, Hulaperformance, and access to the Bishop Museum’s HawaiianHall and Abiga 1 Kinoiki Kekaulike Kahili Room.

Of course, I want to thank the members of the Program Com-mittee who in just a few short weeks reviewed the submittedabstracts and helped to assemble the program: Keith Ashley,Jane Eva Baxter, Caryn M. Berg, Virginia L. Butler, Ethan E.Cochrane, Liam Frink, Brett Hill, Terry L. Hunt, Joseph W.Lehner, Ernest S. Lohse, Desiree R. Martinez, Jerry D. Moore,Juliet E. Morrow, Marit K. Munson, David L. Peterson, Sean Raf-ferty, Kathryn Reese-Taylor, John D. Rissetto, Kari L. Schleher,

Rebecca H. Schwendler, Miriam T. Stark, Christina Torres-Rouff, Mary Beth D. Trubitt, Christian Wells, and David R.Yesner. I would also like to thank the SAA staff, particularly bothCheng Zhang and John Neikirk for all their support and assis-tance throughout the effort of assembling the program. Finally,I offer my sincere gratitude to my Program Assistant, ShazaWester Davis, whose skills, knowledge, hard work, and virtuos-ity with Excel made assembling the program possible.

78TH ANNUAL MEETING

Waikiki beach at dusk. IslandHawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) / Tor Johnson.

Come to FameLab!

Thursday, April 5

Exploring Earth & Beyond with NASA and National Geographic


Lu‘au in contemporary Hawaiian culture bring togetherfamily and friends to celebrate key moments in life, suchas a baby’s first year of life, a wedding, or a graduation. The

annual gathering of friends and colleagues for the SAA meetingin Honolulu is an excellent reason to celebrate.

The festivities begin with a brief welcome by keiki (children)from Punana Leo o Manoa, a Hawaiian language immersionschool. Children enrolled in ‘Aha Punana Leo schools receivetheir instruction and education in Hawaiian so the nativetongue will be perpetuated for generations to come. Throughoutthe evening we’ll be entertained by local performers as well,sharing traditional and contemporary Hawaiian music, andaccompanied by hula dancers.

Food is central to the lu‘au, and we’ve chosen Haili’s HawaiianFoods, a family owned and operated restaurant as our caterer.Since 1950, three generations of this Hawaiian-Chinese familyhave served up ‘ono (tasty) Hawaiian food to the people ofHawai‘i. Locals attending the event will not be disappointed, asthe usual fare of lu‘au food will be served. For the newcomer,this will be an opportunity to try Hawaiian delicacies such askalua pig (baked pig), squid lu‘au (squid in a taro leaf/coconutmilk stew), lomi lomi salmon (salted salmon with tomatoes and

onion), ‘uala (sweet potato), poke (raw fish), poi (baked andpounded taro), and haupia (coconut pudding). Beverages will beprovided, but beer and wine will also be available for purchase,providing guests an opportunity to sample Hawai‘i’s local beers.

The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Kalihi Valley, the site ofthe lu‘au, is the oldest anthropological institution in Hawai‘i.The exhibits in the newly renovated Hawaiian Hall will be avail-able during the lu‘au so guests can learn about Hawaiian cul-ture, from the realm of the gods through key moments ofHawai‘i’s ancient and contemporary history. Visitors will also beable to view an interpretive display of kahili, the feather stan-dards that were so vital to Hawai‘i’s traditional royalty, as well asmany other exhibits. The Museum gift shop will also be openfor guests who wish to purchase books and locally-made crafts.

Space is limited to 300 guests, so be sure to sign up for the lu‘auwhen you register for the conference. For registered programparticipants, you can still sign up for the Saturday lu‘au: simplyuse the advance registration form near the end of the prelimi-nary program, and also online at www.saa.org/annualmeeting.

Looking forward to seeing you at the lu‘au!

SAA LU‘AUKathy Kawelu and James Bayman

Kathy Kawelu (University of Hawai‘i at Hilo) and James Bayman (University of Hawai‘i at Manoa)

are the local advisory committee for the 78th Annual Meeting.

78TH ANNUAL MEETING

THE BISHOP MUSEUM. ©

THE BISHOP MUSEUM


Apparently, I joined the SAA atthe beginning of my thirdyear in graduate school, in

the middle of 1973, because I havea continuous run of AmericanAntiquity starting with the July 1973issue. But SAA became moreimportant to me when I took myfirst (and, as it turned out, long-last-

ing) permanent job at the University of North Carolina at Char-lotte, in 1980. At that time, and for several years following, I wasthe only professional archaeologist for 60 miles in any direction.I was teaching in a program of 12 sociologists and only fiveanthropologists. So, I became very much a generalist, teachingOld and New World archaeology, field school, Introduction toAnthropology, and so on. In order to maintain my identity as anarchaeologist, my networks through professional organizationswere essential. For several years, SAA and other professionalorganizations meant mostly socializing and presenting papersat annual meetings. But, I had an exemplary mentor in Prof.Patty Jo Watson, of Washington University, who had been myPh.D. advisor, and served the SAA, as well as NSF, NEH, theAAA, and her university, in many roles. So, beginning in theearly 1990s, I began participating in SAA committees.

Over the past 20 some years, I have worked for the SAA in theareas of awards, ethics, and on the Board of Directors (twice).My forte is not the big vision thing; rather, my strength is inmanaging details. I could tell you about why a professionalorganization cannot reach its goals without the active participa-tion and support of its members. I could tell you about howimportant it is for the membership to support SAA in order tosupport high-quality archaeological research, appropriatepreservation and cultural resource management policy, andskilled teaching at all levels. All true, but, the most important forme is: volunteering for SAA is fun. Of course, there are tediousmoments (although about those moments, I could say much

more from the perspective of being a department chair!), but theaccomplishments are fulfilling. And, the people I have met haveenriched my life and provided friendships I would not havemade otherwise. The staff members who work for SAA and allthe archaeologists who contribute to its governance are smart,funny, hard-working, and a great pleasure to spend time with.

Volunteering for SAA has also changed my professional trajec-tory. The SAA alone was not responsible for this, because dur-ing the same period, I have served in governance of the Ameri-can Anthropological Association and the Southeastern Archae-ological Conference as well. Together, the volunteer work I havedone for these organizations led to me to publish about genderin archaeology, ethics in archaeology and anthropology, and therelationship of archaeologists and Native Americans. Serving onStudent Paper Award committees for both SEAC and SAA andthe Dissertation Award Committee of the SAA taught me a lotabout graduate students, all of which came in handy when wewere creating our own M.A. program, which was inaugurated in2011.

Having worked in one university for over 30 years, and volun-teered for multiple professional organizations for over 20 years,I can tell you that SAA is well managed. There are structureswithin which committees and task forces must work, so notevery request is going to be successful. The globalization of boththe economy and of archaeology is challenging us to expand ourvision. The multiple needs and viewpoints of the membershipmean that we have to make hard choices. But, SAA welcomesthe insight and the energy of diverse individuals from diversework settings. I have been standing up for Old World archaeol-ogists (my original incarnation) in SAA for many years. SAAneeds your expertise. At the same time, I think you will gain asmuch as you offer: expansion of your professional networks,influence over the future of the profession, interesting travel,and great friends.

volunteer profile

Janet E. Levy

VOLUNTEER PROFILE


The business and technological models for scholarly pub-lishing are rapidly changing, and we need to understandwhat this means for books, journals, technical reports,

and data. Archaeologists are grappling with the effects digitalpublishing will have on how we disseminate and access archae-ological knowledge. These concerns affect decisions about whatand how we write, where we publish, and who can access ourwork. At the 2012 Society for American Archaeology AnnualMeeting, we held a forum titled “The Future of ArchaeologicalPublishing” to discuss the value and advantages of print versusdigital formats, the ramifications for scholarly publishing, dif-ferential access to scholarship, and who pays if we want OpenAccess.

Technologically, the future is here. Publishers and digitalarchives (such as JSTOR and Project Muse) have been providingserialized publications to academic and public libraries since1995. Increasingly, books are becoming digital products. Books,either whole or by chapter, are made available to individuals andlibraries. Scholarly publishers prepare content as PDFs and informats compatible with various e-readers. There are a variety ofdigital rights management protocols that affect the user’s abili-ty to read, download, and share files over some period of time.Digital books are distributed through publisher websites andbooksellers such as Amazon. Libraries can now acquire collec-tions of titles from the University Press Content Consortium(UPCC) at Project Muse (http://muse.jhu.edu/about/UPCC.html)—a consortium of 65 university presses— andBooks at JSTOR (http://about.jstor.org/books), a collaborationof 13 publishers offering 20,000 e-books. In addition, projectslike E-Gutenberg and Google Books make scholarly and popularbooks freely available, creating challenges for the interface ofcopyright law and digital technology. The digital medium isincreasingly enabling the publication of supplemental materialsto enhance journal articles such as data sets, videos, and graph-ics. These tend to be housed on publishers’ servers, regardlessof the digital library or archive in which the journal itselfresides. In addition, data sets, data clouds, and any product ofarchaeological research that can be digitized, can now be pre-

served in archives that are committed to preserving, maintain-ing, and enabling access in perpetuity. Initiatives for digitalarchives include the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR)developed and maintained by the Center for Digital Antiquity,Open Context, and the Archaeology Data Service at the Uni-veristy of York in the United Kingdom.

The Society for American Archaeology is cautiously movinginto the digital publishing arena, as well. In May 2012, currentissues of American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity weremade available online to members through MetaPress; currentissues for institutions are expected in 2014. The SAA Archaeo-logical Record has been online and available to the public since2001 and its predecessor the SAA Bulletin commenced digitalpublication in 1993. The SAA Publications Committee and edi-tors are currently developing guidelines for supplementalmaterials.

Few, if any, technological barriers restrain archaeologists fromusing digital media more fully in scholarly communication.However, there are several cultural and business decisions thatlimit the effective digital dissemination of knowledge by archae-ologists. One obstacle is associated with the university culture oftenure and promotion, which is heavily weighted toward refer-reed publications (e.g., see Harley et al. 2010: Executive Sum-mary, ii; and Archaeology Case Study, p. 30). Other obstaclesderive from limited access to digital information in developingcountries, and from differential access to digital informationwithin the United States based on whether an archaeologist hasuniversity library privileges or not. The differential access to dig-ital forms of knowledge within and outside the United Statesadversely affects scholarship by archaeologists employed in gov-ernment and the private sector. Access to scholarship is at thecenter of digital debates.

Open Access

Vehement arguments are being made for and against OpenAccess journals— journals that do not charge individual readers

A FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLISHINGCompiled by Sarah Herr

Sarah Herr is a Principal Investigator at Desert Archaeology and is a member of the SAA Board of Directors. She and T. J. Ferguson organized this forum for

the 2012 SAA meetings. The forum participants included: Mark Aldenderfer, Jane Eva Baxter, T. J. Ferguson, Teresa Krauss, Francis McManamon, Deborah

Nichols, Darrin Pratt, and Christine Szuter1

ARTICLE


or institutions for access. Some Open Access business modelscall for authors to pay a fee for publishing articles, a model thatis not conducive to existing forms of archaeological funding.Philosophical arguments for Open Access recognize the desir-ability of free flowing and quickly accessible information. Inaddition, government supported research (as so much ofarchaeology is) carries obligations of public access and utility.Open access is policy for some agencies, including the NationalInstitutes of Health, and some universities. Universities such asHarvard, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania havemandated that pre-publication (or post-publication, if permis-sion allows it) versions of an accepted article or book arearchived in an open repository (http://roar.eprints.org/). TheNational Science Foundation now requires applicants todescribe a data management plan that considers access andlong-term preservation of research results.

Cost-based arguments for Open Access come from an assort-ment of users. Composite packages of serialized publicationsare sold to institutional or government libraries by publishers,and archiving and cataloging services such as JSTOR, Proquest,and EBSCO. Although often priced relative to the size of theuser base, collections are expensive, and additional packagescontinue to be offered, even as library budgets are tighteningand expenditures declining. Only those with library privilegescan access these digital holdings. Research products are increas-ingly being made available to the nearly 90 percent of archaeol-ogists who work in private sector, government, museum, non-profit or other non-academic settings (Doelle and Altschul2009). Yet, the costs of access remain prohibitive for small busi-nesses, such as cultural resource management enterprises.Individual users can purchase publications, but costs accumu-late quickly at $10 to $30 per download. Given this, users insideand outside academia make strong arguments for Open Access.

Open Access is not free, however. It is a business model inwhich the costs of publication are shifted to sources other thanthe reader. Whether the cost structure is ultimately more demo-cratic can be debated. The Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics (STEM) fields have been at the forefront ofOpen Access publication, although differences in disciplinarycultures and practices mean that STEM publication models arenot easily adapted to use by anthropologists.

The Significance of Disciplinary Practices on Publishing Business Models

Scholarly communication differs across disciplines (Harley2010). For example, history tends to be a conservative field witha shared culture and common methodology. Scholarly commu-nication is through monographs produced by prestigious pub-lishers, peer review is critical, and sole-authorship is desirable.

The speed to publication is not important, as historical researchrequires a lengthy incubation of arguments and establishing thechain of transmission of ideas. On the other end of the spec-trum, those in the physical sciences, such as astrophysicists,publish primarily in referred journals, owned by scholarly soci-eties but outsourced to commercial publishers for publication.Astrophysics is a small field and research and authorship is col-laborative. Information is shared quickly, and sharing of pre-print copy is desirable, if not mandated by granting agencies,universities, or departments. Archaeology is a heterogeneousfield and publication practices are situated between those usedby the humanities and those of the other sciences. Archaeologyis characterized by a preservation ethic, slow publication, and isnot particularly open to sharing data. Publication is throughmonographs and peer-reviewed journals with prestigious pub-lishers, edited volumes, and conference proceedings.

Publishers of archaeology include large and small commercialpresses, not-for-profit university presses, and societies. Each hasits own business model. Scholars provide the content for andthe peer review of manuscripts. This time is funded with officesalary lines or project budgets, if it is compensated at all. Taskscovered by the publisher’s overhead include acquisition of mate-rial, coordination of peer review, editing, proofreading, manu-script formatting and design, printing, promotion, distribution,general administration, and inventory management. At the Uni-versity Press of Colorado (UPC), the average production cost ofone book title in print is $32,774 (Table 1). On the face of it, thissounds quite expensive until you consider that the average costper journal article in print is $9,378 in the eight journals exam-ined by Waltham (2009). Currently, the cost of book publicationis paid by individual or institutional readers, and is offset byauthor subventions, support from scholarly societies or univer-sities or, rarely, grant funding; additional support for journals isless common.

The production of digital humanities and social sciences jour-nals costs about 25 to 33 percent less per page than their print-ed counterparts (Waltham 2009). The not-for-profit UPC (Table1) digital book would be 23 percent less costly than its printcounterpart, if the title was produced solely as a digital product(and if authors were willing to forgo royalties in support of anOpen Access model). In general, digital anthropological schol-arly books cost the reader from 0 to 30 percent below the lowestprinted price, proportionate to the difference in cost betweenthe two media.

If we move to Open Access models in which the consumers donot support the costs of publication, who will pay? In the STEMfields, the author pays and support for publication is typicallybuilt into project budgets and generally an allowable cost fund-ed by granting agencies. In anthropology, the time for author-

ARTICLE


ship can be built into project budgets but the cost of publicationproduction is rarely allowed by major granting agencies such asthe Archaeology program of the National Science Foundation orcultural resource management clients. It is simply not part ofthe culture of our discipline. The funds available for archaeo-logical research are not increasing and the overhead costs ofpublishing are not declining. In author pays models, we cancurrently expect that when support for production is allowed bya granting agency, it will reduce the overall amount of moneyavailable for research. The rare exception is Open Access fundsavailable to a small proportion of archaeologists; about 47 insti-tutions worldwide have created campus-based funds to helpauthors pay some portion of their publication fees(http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_funds). Is apublishing model that puts a price on authorship really more“open” than one that places the cost burden on the reader? Willaccess to funding affect access to publication, such that instuti-tuions that have more money to put into publications will ulti-mately get more of their faculty published? What happens tojunior faculty not on the radar of funding agencies, or the manyarchaeologists who working outside academia? Is open accessfor readers rather than for authors the direction we want to takearchaeology? These are important philosophical questions thatwe need to answer.

The Anthropological Publishing Landscape

Professional societies with journals struggle to meet the highcosts of publishing. The nearly 7,000 members of the SAA cur-rently support the self-publication of two journals (with a thirdin development), a magazine, and a book press. In contrast,Wiley-Blackwell owns the journal of the American Association

of Physical Anthropologists (N =1,700 members), which is pub-lished six times per year, as well as producing an annual year-book. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) (N=11,000 members) publishes 22 journals and a newsletter sup-ported by member dues and subscription. The AAA retainsownership of its publications, but has entered into a second five-year publication partnership with Wiley-Blackwell in anarrangement that helps the association use funding generatedfrom more profitable journals to sustain the less profitable seri-als, thus supporting the intellectual diversity of the association’spublication portfolio.

Journals are a substantial member benefit of professional soci-eties. For those who do not regularly participate in the scholarlycommunity in other ways, such as attending annual meetingsor serving on committees, it might be the primary member ben-efit. When society publications are placed in digital packages,even those with one- to five-year “moving walls” that allow onlymembers the most current issues, non-members have access toa valuable member benefit, potentially lessening the incentiveto join the organization. The ensuing and critical loss of duesaffects the health of the organization and further limits thefunds available for publication. Society journals in digital pack-ages may earn usage fees. In its study of publications and sus-tainability (www.aaanet.org/issues/press/upload/Schmid-Com-patibility-Mode.pdf) the AAA estimates that these returns to thesociety do not compensate for the loss of dues (Figures 1 and 2).As the membership size of many societies currently remainsflat, the revenue stream for publications is important to the fis-cal health of the organization. Societies such as the SAA willneed to consider new business models for funding their publi-cations generally, and identify alternative sources of funding ifit they wish to move to an Open Access model.

The one hundred public and private universities that supportpresses support all of the scholarly publishing that does not goto commercial presses. Many universities do not support theirown presses. University presses do not discriminate based uponthe affiliation of the author and so take on the costs of support-ing researchers inside and outside their own insitutions. If allits book titles were published as Open Access, the UniversityPress of Colorado estimates that its level of institutional or otherpublishing support would have to triple (Table 1).

In the AAA’s study of publications, one possible resolution ofthe cost and access conundrum might be to create “PremiumPublishing” models, in which text is made available in morethan one platform. An unformatted version might be madeavailable for free in HTML. A formatted, citable, “premium” ver-sion would be available at a price better able to support the costsof production.

Table 1. University Press of Colorado Average Book Publishing Expensesper Title 2008-2011, All Disciplines (in dollars)

Print Digital

Editorial, Production, Marketing, G&A 19522 19522Royalties 2108 0Inventory (Print) Costs 7714 0Distribution Expense 3430 5934*Total Expense 32774 26456

Average Institutional Support Per Title 8238 8238Average Title Subsidy 684 684

Net Expense to Recover Per Title 23852 16534

Required Additional Support or Sales for publication of 25 books per year 596300 413342

*Digital distribution costs based on actual figures at UPC for ebookcreation and distribution on multiple ebook platforms.

ARTICLE


The online peer-reviewed Open Access journal, PLoS ONE(http://www.plosone.org), charges authors $1350. PLoS ONEfurther reduces both the time to publication and the costs ofproduction by not providing copyediting. University-based jour-nals may reduce costs by using volunteer assistants and depart-ment staff and by digital publishing through their libraries.Identifying places for reducing or streamlining costs whileassuring authors and readers of quality will be the challenge ofany Open Access journal hoping to attract top-level articles.

Authors seeking promotion and tenure prefer to publish ininfluential journals, as measured by statistics such as impact

factors. On-line journals still struggle for the legitimacy of moretraditional publishing venues, and their cost-cutting measureshave ramifications. With inconsistent quality control, variableassurances of effective peer review, and shorter track records,digital journals generally have less prestige than more main-stream journals. Open Access journals in the STEM fields andmedicine have increasingly higher impact factors. In time,anthropology journals will follow.

Part of adding authority to digital publications is establishingthem within a chain of scholarship in line with the record creat-ed by print publishing. Digital scholarly publications that presentnew data and ideas in disciplinary debates cannot be malleable ifthey are to be addressed. Only a single version of a publicationcan be the legal copy of record under a single copyright. Further,publications need to have internet addresses with permanency orDigital Object Identifiers (DOIs); publications on faculty homepages, society websites, or Academia.edu are not sufficiently sta-ble as a citation. Digital series are not systematically acquired bythe Library of Congress, as print publications are. Thus, deliber-ate inclusion of “born digital” journals or books in digital archivesprovides stability and can help prevent the loss of this record.

Other Dimensions of Access

Digital publishing is exciting when we talk about disseminatingknowledge across boundaries and changing the culture of ourdiscipline to be more inclusive of ideas by a variety of colleaguesacross the world. The technology has the potential to cross thebarriers that limit scholarship because of work setting, lan-guage, or country of practice. Publications that can be found bykeyword-based searches using CrossRef or other search enginescan dramatically change exposure for young scholars, reintro-duce rare or early works now digitized, or identify relevantworks in other disciplines.

tDAR (http://www.tdar.org/; http://core.tdar.org/document/376844; http://core.tdar.org/document/376847), with its focuson a wide variety of data, has the potential to open up the prob-lem of “gray literature” (e.g., publications that do not have ISBNnumbers). Over the years, a variety of databases, such as theNational Archaeological Database (NADB) (http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nadb/), have provided citation-level infor-mation about technical and compliance reports, althoughNADB has not been updated since 2004. Digital archives pro-vide cost-effective solutions to both the preservation of andaccess to digital documents, data sets, images, etc. from con-temporary archaeological investigations. These data can be eas-ily uploaded to a digital archive as a part of the regular projectworkflow. The cost of submitting project results to digital repos-itories is based on the amount of material. The business modelis similar to that of other curation facilities, and the investigator

ARTICLE

Figure 1: American Anthropological Association 2009 revenues (courtesy of

Oona Schmid, drafted by Susan Hall).

Figure 2: American Anthropological Association 2009 revenues without

subscriptions (courtesy of Oona Schmid, drafted by Susan Hall).


pays the cost, whether through their grant, institution, or client(Kintigh and Altschul 2010). The Archaeology Program of theNSF does permit budgeting for the digital archiving of data andreports. If contemporary archaeological studies include digitalcuration in their scope of work, the tremendous quantities oftaxpayer funded data that have only rarely been disseminatedbeyond local and agency audiences can become open to wideruse. When sensitivity of subject matter or protected classes ofdata, such as very specific site location information, are of con-cern, documents can be redacted or access otherwise limited(Watts 2011). Digital archives, like the Archaeology Data Servicerepository and tDAR, can also be used to provide access to andlong-term preservation for digital data that supplement formal-ly published books and journal articles.

Despite how many of us have received emails from Internetcafes in Yap or Yerevan, international access to digital productsremains uneven. Wide dissemination can be complicated by thecontradictory needs of American and other scholarly cultures.North America and Western Europe remain the primary mar-kets for digital scholarly publications. In fact, in those areas,paper publications without a digital counterpart are rapidlybecoming invisible to the modern researcher. In other parts ofthe world, however, paper remains the preferred medium forpublication as Internet connections and computer literacy arestill the tools of a privileged class of scholars. The digital medi-um makes it increasingly possible to consider publication inmultiple languages. Currently, it is more common and cost-effective for journal and book publishers to publish abstracts inmultiple languages. For example, the international publisherSpringer may publish an abstract in English, French, German,Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. Yet, English remainsthe international language for scholarly publication, and schol-ars in countries such as Latin America and China get more aca-demic credit for publishing in English.

The technological advances established by STEM and their pub-lishers, allow archaeologists to move from print to digital publi-cation in ways that have the potential to disseminate informa-tion, as data or prose, widely and quickly. Differences in archae-ological funding and publishing practices limit the effectivenessof the technology. Ultimately, the business models that we buildfor supporting our publications need to reflect our valuesregarding access to publishing, the quality of scholarship, thedissemination of information to a variety of stakeholders, theimportance of our scholarly societies, and our willingness toinvest in the health of our discipline. Developing effective andaccessible digital publications is an issue every archaeologistshould be concerned with.

Acknowledgments. We appreciate the help of John Neikirk (PublicationsManager, Society for American Archaeology); Oona Schmid (Director of

Publishing, American Anthropological Association); William Doelle,Hugh Jarvitz, and John Speth in preparing this article.

References Cited

Doelle, William H. and Jeffrey H. Altschul2009 Preparing for Work in the Billion Dollar CRM Industry.

Anthropology News. April 2009:27. Harley, Diane, Sophia Krzys Acord, Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon

Lawrence, C. Judson King2010 Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication:

An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disci-plines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc

Kintigh, Keith W. and Jeffrey H. Altschul2010 Sustaining the Digital Archaeological Record. Heritage Man-

agement 3(2):264–274. http://core.tdar.org/document/376850Waltham, Mary2009 The Future of Scholarly Journals Publishing Among Social Sci-

ence and Humanities Associations. Report on a study funded bya Planning Grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.www.nhalliance.org/bm~doc/hssreport.pdf. Accessed July 8,2012.

Watts, Joshua 2011 Policies, Preservation, and Access to Digital Resources: The

Digital Antiquity 2010 National Repositories Survey. Reports inDigital Archaeology Number 2, Center for Digital Antiquity,Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ http://www.digitalantiq-uity.org/publications/

Notes

1. The author affiliations are as follows: Mark Aldenderfer (Dean ofthe School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts at the Universityof California, Merced; editor of Current Anthropology, former editor ofLatin American Antiquity, former editor of the Society for AmericanArchaeology Bulletin, editorial board of Internet Archaeology); Jane EvaBaxter (Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, DePaul Uni-versity; current Editor of the SAA Archaeological Record); T. J. Ferguson(Editor, University of Arizona Anthropological Papers; Professor ofPractice at University of Arizona School of Anthropology, and Ownerof Anthropological Research, LLC); Sarah Herr (Principal Investigator,Desert Archaeology, Inc., co-chair of the Arizona Archaeological andHistorical Society Publications committee); Teresa Krauss (Senior Edi-tor, Archaeology and Anthropology Springer Press); Francis McMana-mon (Executive Director of Digital Antiquity, tDAR; former ChiefArchaeologist, National Park Service); Deb Nichols (Professor, Depart-ment of Anthropology, Dartmouth College; Chair, Society for Ameri-can Archaeology Publications Committee; Chair, American Anthropo-logical Association’s Committee on the Future of Electronic and PrintPublication); Darrin Pratt (Director of the University Press of Col-orado, Principal Investigator for the Digital Monograph Initiative);Christine Szuter (Director and Professor of Practice, Scholarly Publish-ing Graduate Certificate Program at the School of Historical, Philo-sophical, and Religious Studies at Arizona State University; formerdirector of The University of Arizona Press).

ARTICLE



Recent discussions in archaeology regarding the need fordata-management and data-sharing infrastructures (e.g.,Kansa 2010; Kintigh et al. 2011; Snow 2010; Snow et al.

2006) apply to all aspects of archaeological inquiry and to allbranches of the discipline. This includes archaeological science,or what I refer to here as archaeometry: a branch of archaeologyinvolving the application of analytical methods from chemistry,physics, and geology to the study of archaeological material cul-ture. Archaeometry shares with archaeology a “dirty little secret”(Fagan 2006): Results of analyses too frequently go unreportedand are not made available to the scientific community. How wemanage, store, and distribute our data are central to this dirtysecret, but there is little public discussion of how these mattersrelate to archaeometry. I want to open this discussion and pro-vide a clear example of why archaeometrists must begin lookingto develop standards for data storage and data distribution.

Because of my own biases as an archaeologist, I believe the bestway to direct current and future efforts is to learn from the past.Here, I describe ongoing work at the University of MissouriResearch Reactor (MURR) highlighting the centrality of data-management practices to our responsibilities as scientists. Mygoal is to provide a real-world example to help guide the futureof archaeometric data management, and to demonstrate howcurrent data-management practices directly influence futureresearch use of data. These issues are not new. Bishop and col-leagues (1984) advocated similar ideas over two decades ago,themselves expanding on earlier discussions by some of thefounders of modern archaeological science. The details of thisparticular discussion draw from my own experience at theMURR Archaeometry Laboratory working with data from one ofthe first nuclear laboratories in the world to conduct provenanceresearch on archaeological remains. My discussion focuses sole-ly on one analytical technique employed in provenanceresearch: neutron activation analysis (NAA). However, the dis-cussion that follows is applicable to virtually all archaeometricdata generated by almost any technique.

The LBL Nuclear Archaeology Program

The Nuclear Archaeology Program at Lawrence Berkeley Labora-tory (LBL), led by Isadore Perlman, Frank Asaro, and HelenMichel (Figure 1), was one of the first laboratories in the worldto conduct large-scale provenance analyses using NAA. Archae-ological research at LBL emerged in the 1960s with the use of X-ray fluorescence (Shackley 2011), and by 1968 the programincluded the use of NAA (Asaro and Adan-Bayewitz 2007).Though archaeometric research at LBL continues today, irradia-tion of specimens at the lab ended in the late 1980s with thedecommissioning of the Berkeley reactor and Asaro’s retire-ment in 1991. Throughout its lifetime the Berkeley programgenerated compositional data for over 10,000 archaeologicalspecimens. And, although primarily known for their studies ofpottery from the Near East and Mediterranean, the programanalyzed specimens from across the world (Table 1, Figure 2).

In 2006, Frank Asaro transferred a collection of LBL archivalmaterial to the Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR (Asaro andAdan-Bayewitz 2007). This material included surplus powders,over 5,000 pages of handwritten records, 20 volumes of dot-matrix elemental-abundance printouts, and a COM microfilmarchive (Figure 3). Although considerable effort was made todigitize the LBL database in the 1980s, the floppy disk suppos-edly containing these data was unreadable in 2006.

The amount of data and the presence of detailed descriptive datafor most specimens give the LBL archive significant potentialfor future research, and the documents (correspondence,records of transfer, solicitation letters, manuscript drafts, etc.)make the archive a unique primary-source for studying the his-tory of archaeometry and archaeology. However, none of thesedata are stored digitally, and all of the paper records show signsof physical degradation.

The entire body of archival material, including the COM micro-film, is in varying states of preservation. Therefore, our conser-vation efforts included generating an archival-quality digitalcopy of all documents. Paper records and photographs were

SALVAGE ARCHAEOMETRYLESSONS LEARNED FROM THE LAWRENCE BERKELEY

LABORATORY ARCHAEOMETRIC ARCHIVES

Matthew T. Boulanger

Matthew T. Boulanger is with the Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor.

ARTICLE


scanned as archival-quality *.TIFF images, and copies weredown sampled in *.PDF (documents) and *.JPEG (pho-tographs) formats for on-line viewing. In order to slow deterio-ration of the original paper documents, the archive was eventu-ally transferred to MU’s Museum Support Center.

Major focus has centered on the 20 volumes of elemental abun-dance printouts contained in the archive because of their poten-tial utility in future compositional research projects (Figure 3).Digitization of these data involved line-by-line transcription of38 abundance values. Individual values were later verified by asecond individual to minimize data-transcription errors.Descriptive and contextual data— when present— were tran-scribed directly from handwritten records. These data includearchaeological provenience (e.g., site, unit, level) and specimendescriptions (e.g., pottery type, ware, decoration). After tran-scription of all elemental data and their corresponding descrip-tive/contextual data, we transcribed all remaining descriptive/contextual data in the archive— thus providing a list of speci-mens known to have been analyzed, but for which composi-tional data have not been located.

Since 2006, work on the archive had been a part-time effortfunded through MURR’s normal operating budget. However, in2011 I, along with Michael Glascock, received a grant from Dig-ital Antiquity to aid in finalizing work on the LBL archives andto prepare them for distribution through the Digital Archaeolog-ical Record (tDAR). This grant allowed us to make publicly avail-able much of the LBL archive, and to now shift focus to locatingand digitizing LBL data not present in the archive.

Completeness of the LBL Archives

The archive contains compositional data for roughly 4,500 spec-imens. Data for an additional 600 specimens had been digitizedby the University of Manchester archaeometry program in the1990s (Newton et al. 2007). The combined database accounts forroughly half of the estimated 10,000 archaeological specimensreportedly analyzed by the LBL (Asaro and Adan-Bayewitz 2007).Data for an additional 1,000 specimens have so far been locatedin various journals and monographs. But, by far the largest por-tion of “missing” data (ca. 2,000 specimens) came from formerLBL employees and collaborators. Digitization of these data isongoing. As of this writing, MURR has digitized descriptive,contextual, and compositional data for nearly 6,600 individualarchaeological specimens analyzed at LBL. We anticipate thatgreater than 80 percent of the total sample analyzed at LBL willhave been located, digitized, and made publicly available.

Are These Data Useful?

Throughout the course of working on the LBL archive project,

ARTICLE

Table 1. Summary of Number of Specimens by Country for Archaeological Specimens Currently Represented in the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory Archive Database.

Country No. Specimens

Afghanistan 7Armenia 28Bahrain 5Belgium 4Belize 69Bolivia 5Chad 1Costa Rica 4Cyprus 1880Denmark 3Ecuador 71Egypt 566El Salvador 11France 320Georgia 29Greece 1198Guatemala 200Honduras 4Iran 440Iraq 242Israel and Palestinian Territories 2524Italy 132Jordan 32Kenya 14Kuwait 8Lebanon 4Libya 76Madagascar 9Malawi 20Mali 1Mexico 182Nicaragua 7Niger 60Nigeria 431Oman 8Peru 311Philippines 9Saudi Arabia 52South Africa 85Sudan 62Syria 277Tanzania 51Thailand 6Turkey 199Turkmenistan 3United Arab Emirates 1USA 338Russia (former USSR) 1Uzbekistan 9Zambia 7Zimbabwe 64

Σ = 10070


several colleagues have asked why MURR would go to suchlengths to preserve decades-old data from a completely differentlaboratory (Figure 4). I have three answers to his question.

1. Ethical obligations. From an ethical standpoint, it is impor-tant to note that archaeometric studies at LBL (and virtually allother nuclear-archaeometry programs in the U.S.) were sup-ported by federal funds through the Department of Energy, theNational Science Foundation, the United States–Israel Bina-tional Science Foundation, and other publicly funded grantingagencies. As such, there remains an obligation to make thesedata available. Although small portions of the LBL database havebeen published, the vast majority of data have never beenreported.

2. Potential for future research. Provenance research typicallyinvolves evaluating the provenience postulate: The idea thatgroups of chemically similar materials may represent geo-graphically restricted deposits because of similarities in forma-tional, secondary, and post-depositional processes. In theabsence of well-defined geological deposits, provenance argu-ments may be made using a criterion of abundance, which holdsthat the most-abundant compositional profile present at a sitemay be tentatively assumed to represent “local” production.Regardless of whether analyses use the provenience postulate,the criterion of abundance, or any other explanatory mecha-nism, access to as large a database of potential source materialsas possible provides greater confidence in conclusions regard-ing provenance. The LBL data provide a massive database ofcomparative specimens and recreating these data would requiresignificant labor and expense. To put this point into context,

consider that in 1988 the fee for a single analysis by NAA at LBLwas $125. Using a conservative estimate of 10,000 activationanalyses of archaeological artifacts conducted by the laboratoryover a 20-year span, and not accounting for cost increases orinflation, the costs of re-creating these data would exceed$1,250,000. Under MURR’s current NSF cost-deferment pro-gram per-specimen rate, costs for generating these data wouldexceed $500,000, and require a minimum of 4 years’ time oper-ating at peak capacity and refusing all other research projects.

3. To help avoid similar problems in the future, we can use theexperiences of preserving these data to help in learning abouthow we do science and how we can minimize the potential fordata loss moving into the future. I believe this final point isprobably the most compelling reason to work on the LBLarchive, and I would like to now turn to some specific lessonsrelating to laboratory practice and data management that can bedrawn from my experience with the LBL project.

Toward Developing Good-Practice Standards in Archaeometry

There is, as yet, no consensus in the archaeometry communityon how we ensure that our data remain usable moving into thefuture. Considering the current trend in anthropology in gener-al, and archaeology in particular, toward developing infrastruc-tures for data preservation, now is an excellent time for archae-ological scientists to consider how our treatment of data— ofarchaeological data— is connected with these concerns. I offerthe following suggestions as a first draft of sorts covering whatI believe to be essential components of any laboratory’s data-management policy. These include the use of digital and paperrecords, maintaining rich descriptive and contextual informa-tion, recording analytical protocols associated with each analy-sis, development and use of metadata structures to facilitate

ARTICLE

Figure 1: 1968 photograph of the LBL Nuclear Archaeology team with Betty

Holtzman of the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology. From left to

right: B. Holtzman, I. Perlman, H. Michel, and F. Asaro. Image © 2010

University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, used with

permission.

Figure 2: Country-level summary of specimens currently represented in the

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory archive database developed at

MURR. Locations of major archaeological sites represented in the LBL

database are shown.


recording all of these data, development of an on-line data-access portal, and retaining a surplus specimens to ensure thepossibility of repeated analysis.

Digital and Paper Records

Transcription and verification of roughly 250,800 individual ele-mental abundances (6,600 specimens x 38 elements per speci-men) as well as descriptions, contexts, and other associated datais a monstrous task, and one for which most archaeometry lab-oratories are ill suited. Digital data storage could have potential-ly eliminated the need for such a labor-intensive undertaking;however, digital files do not guarantee permanent availability ofdata. File formats change over time. Media and hardware need-ed to read digital records change even more rapidly. I remember5.25” floppy disks, but only one student in my 2011 Introduc-tion to Archaeology class knew what one of these was. More tothe point, I would be hard-pressed to locate the hardware andsoftware to read such a disk today. Lest we think that saving fileson DVD-ROM may ensure longevity, burned-disc media havean average lifespan of 2–5 years depending on quality and stor-age conditions. Recall that the 3.5” floppy disk supposedly con-taining digital copies of the LBL database was unreadable,despite the passage of less than 20 years. A shift towards WWW-based data storage and distribution may eventually make obso-lete storage media and hardware commonly used today. Giventhe rapid pace at which computer hardware and softwarechange, an important role remains for paper-based records.From a curation standpoint, laser-printed text on acid-free paperremains the single most reliable and durable method of archiv-ing information. But, while paper might be ideal for preserva-tion, it doesn’t lend itself to complex multivariate statistics typi-cally performed on compositional data.

Context and Descriptions

From the perspective of a nuclear-research laboratory, we maynot always consider the preservation of contextual and descrip-tive data. (“That’s the archaeologist’s job!”) Yet, these data arevital to providing archaeological significance to the data we gen-erate (Bishop et al. 1984; Neff and Glascock 1995:279). In theabsence of archaeological context (e.g., site, unit, level, feature)and descriptors (e.g., type, variety, decoration, temper, portion ofvessel), our elemental abundances are simply tabulations ofnumbers. Description and context are usually— but not always— provided by collaborators to the laboratory, but they arenot always transcribed or preserved in a way making them eas-ily married to compositional data.

I have heard it said by some archaeometrists that becausearchaeological classifications (e.g., pottery types) change, it ispointless to retain such information. Yes, classifications change,but this ignores the larger issue of what occurs if these data arenever recorded in the first place. Knowing even a limited amountof information about a specimen provides information necessaryto bring compositional data to bear on anthropological ques-tions. Admittedly we cannot compile every tidbit of informationon what we analyze, and the information may not be adequatefor all research questions. However, laboratories must record aminimum set of archaeological data with their analytical resultsif those results are to have any anthropological significance.

Record Analytical Protocol

Most researchers who have worked in an analytical laboratoryknow that information on analytical protocols is rarely storedalongside compositional data. Laboratories have published

ARTICLE

Figure 3: Binders of materials received by MURR from LBL for digitization.

Figure 4: 2012 photograph of the MURR team. Seated from left to right are

Cody Roush (MURR Lab Manager), Michael Glascock (MURR Lab

Director), and Matthew Boulanger. Standing is MURR student worker

Aaron Johnson.


descriptions of their procedures, although these are often mod-ified slightly. Put simply: Not all data are the same, and users ofthese data must know how data were generated, the limitationsof these data, and the limitations of analytical techniques. Forexample, the LBL group modified and refined the elementalabundances used for their standard comparator (Perlman/Asaro Standard Pottery) over the course of 20 years of analyses.Which abundances they used in an analysis changed the ele-mental abundance calculations for the archaeological speci-mens. Maintaining protocol records specific to each assay isfundamental to evaluating data quality at a later date.

Metadata

These observations illustrate the need for laboratories to devel-op, implement, and maintain database structures for data stor-age. The complex and individualistic nature of geochemical datafor archaeological research requires a structured but flexibleorganizational system. Development of metadata structures canaddress some these issues. The use of metadata has becomestandard practice in fields requiring storage and distribution ofmassive amounts of data (e.g., geographic information science)generated by disparate laboratories and by differing techniques,and it should be adopted by the archaeometry community aswell. Implementation of metadata structures could be standard-ized at the individual laboratory, or through a consortium ofative laboratories. However metadata structures are implement-ed, we must find a standardized way to record and communi-cate what these data represent and how they represent it.

On-Line Data Sharing

Snow and colleagues (2006) have suggested that Web-baseddata-sharing portals are the future for archaeological data (seealso Kansa 2010). I firmly believe such a data-sharing portal isthe future for archaeometric data as well. Regardless of whetherit is explicitly for archaeometric data or it is included as a com-ponent of archaeological portals, availability of large bodies ofraw data will increase the efficiency and quality of new research.Geochemical and associated archaeological data are simply notsuited for distribution in traditional print media. On-line sup-plementary material is certainly a step in the right direction.But, on-line components to new articles do not address thethousands of specimens for which no publication exists.

Some researchers may have concerns over posting data online:How do you ensure that your work is used with proper recogni-tion? Open-access licensing agreements (e.g., the Science Com-mons initiative) may address such concerns. Licensing is notintended to prevent inappropriate use of data, but they are oneway for laboratories to explicitly state how they expect their datato be used, including modification and redistribution. In this

way, laboratories are able to exercise some control over theirdata while still making them available. The MURR laboratoryhas made portions of its database public for more than 15 years.And, after 1000+ individual downloads, I am unaware of anyinstance in which these data have been used without propercitation. Indeed, the number of downloads suggests that thereis real need for open-access compositional data for use in com-parative research and training of students.

Inspiration for an on-line repository may come from sites suchas the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology or the UnitedStates Geological Survey’s National Geochemical Database. TheceraDAT prototype developed by Hein and Kilikoglou (2012) is apromising first step towards such a web-based portal. Yet, as Imentioned earlier, all data are not equal. Users must beinformed about data and how it may and may not be used. Howcomparable are data, generated 20 years apart at two differentNAA laboratories? Is it possible to directly compare lab-basedXRF, portable XRF, NAA, and ICP-MS data? What of the statis-tical background necessary to analyze these data? Experiencewith and understanding of these techniques and the data theyproduce is necessary. But, as several recent papers demonstrate,this seems a novel discovery for some archaeologists usingportable XRF units. These are topics best left for another venue,but there is a very real question about educating data con-sumers. MURR and some other laboratories have educationalprograms that address this concern. Web-based curricula couldcomplement such programs and introduce field archaeologiststo the complexities of compositional data analysis, but even thisshould not— and cannot— replace real-world hands-on experi-ence with experts. This is an area where archaeological scien-tists have a major role to play moving in to the future, especial-ly those considered with releasing data publicly.

More Than Data: Paperwork and Surplus Specimens

Finally, it is important to point out that laboratories do more thangenerate data. They, like the LBL archive, are libraries of corre-spondence, manuscripts, and other documents. In the case ofthe LBL records, these documents give insight into how the pio-neers of archaeological science perceived their work. Retainingthese materials allows future researchers to understand the deci-sion-making processes of the analyst and the evolution of theirdiscipline. Moreover, such documents are an essential referencefor resolving potential errors and omissions in second- or third-generation copies of data. The LBL archive, for example, containsa manifest of Greek pottery and several letters detailing theiranalyses. One letter includes corrections to the museum acces-sion numbers and the archaeological context of several sherds.Had this letter not been retained, these specimens would havebeen erroneously attributed as shown in the sample manifest,thus resulting in fallacious archaeological conclusions.

ARTICLE


Laboratory archives, like that of LBL, usually contain surplusspecimens. Changes in geopolitics since the late 1960s haveresulted in closure of some countries and regions to Westernarchaeological research, or they have made research dangerousand difficult. Museum curation policies have also changed sig-nificantly over the past 30 years. Many institutions are morereluctant toward destructive sampling. Archives of surplus spec-imens are therefore potentially irreplaceable resources that maybe drawn upon in the future for conducting new analyses (e.g.,Boulanger et al. 2012) and for evaluating inter-laboratory com-patibility.

Conclusions

Preservation of data from past, present, and future archaeome-try laboratories should be a major concern. Compositional dataand associated archaeological significance provide a major bodyof information useful for current and future research. Workwith the LBL archive demonstrates the difficulties associatedwith, and the importance of, preserving and disseminatingthese data. In presenting these issues to the broader archaeo-logical community, I hope to draw parallels with current dis-cussions in the archaeological community about data preserva-tion and sharing, and to encourage archaeological scientists toconsider how best to ensure permanence of our data. In myview, discussions on this topic must include adopting consistentand transparent data-storage policies, continued use of paper-based archives, and a commitment to open-access policies.

Importantly, I do not wish to fault past researchers for poordata-management policies. They, like current researchers, didthe best that they could with the resources at hand. Because sci-ence is a human endeavor, it is subject to very human concerns.Funding is lost, and laboratories close. Researchers retire.Although these events may, in the moment, seem unanticipat-ed, with foresight we can take steps now to ensure long-termstability of our data. We work hard to generate these data: fight-ing for funding to support our laboratories and to analyze spec-imens, struggling to convince archaeologists and museums ofthe benefits of destructive analyses, and slaving over explainingcompositional data in a manner that has anthropological signif-icance. Should we not similarly work hard to ensure that thesedata are preserved? Archaeologists are currently struggling withhow best to preserve and disseminate their data. Archaeologicalscientists are uniquely positioned to guide how a particular sub-set of these data is best managed. As such, we must join thisconversation and begin discussing how we may ensure that ourmethods, techniques, data, and results are compatible with andaccessible for future researchers.

References Cited

Asaro, Frank, and D. Adan-Bayewitz2007 The History of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Programme forArchaeological and Geological Materials. Archaeometry49(2):201–214.

Bishop, R. L., J. S. Olin, and M. J. Blackman1984 SARCAR: A New Archaeometric Resource. In ICOM Commit-

tee for Conservation, 7th Tiennial Meeting, Preprints, pp.84.8.1–84.8.2.

Boulanger, Matthew T., Richard C. Davis, and Michael D. Glascock2012 Preliminary Characterization and Regional Comparison of

the Dasht-i-Nawur Obsidian Source Near Ghazni,Afghanistan. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2320–2328.

Fagan, Brian2006 Archaeology’s Dirty Secret. In Archaeological Ethics, edited by

K. D. Vitelli and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, pp. 201–205. 2nded. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California.

Hein, A., and V. Kilikoglou2012 ceraDAT— Prototype of a Web-based Relational Database for

Archaeological Ceramics. Archaeometry 54:230–243.Kansa, Eric C.2010 Open Context in Context: Cyberinfrastructure and Distributed

Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological Data. TheSAA Archaeological Record 10(5):12–16.

Kintigh, Keith W., Francis P. McManamon, and Katherine A. Spiel-mann

2011 Synthesis and Cyberinfrastructure for SBE Research. NSFWhite Paper. National Science Foundation, Arlington, Vir-ginia.

Neff, Hector, and Michael D. Glascock1995 The State of Nuclear Archaeology in North America. Journal

of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 196:275–286.Shackley, Michael S.2011 An Introduction to X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis in

Archaeology. In X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) inGeoarchaeology, edited by Michael S. Shackley, pp. 7–44.Springer, New York.

Snow, Dean2010 Making Legacy Literature and Data Accessible in Archaeology.

In: Making History Interactive: Computer Applications andQuantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA): Proceedings of the37th International Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, UnitedStates of America, March 22–26, 2009, edited by B. Frischer,J.W. Crawford, and D. Koller, pp. 350–355. Archaeopress,Oxford.

Snow, Dean, Mark Gahegan, C. Lee Giles, Kenneth G. Hirth, GeorgeR. Milner, Prasenjit Mitra, and James Z. Wang

2006 Cybertools and Archaeology. Science 311:958–959.

ARTICLE


The use of satellite imagery for archaeological research hasdramatically improved the study of ancient sites and land-scapes. Providing an aerial view, satellite images are an

outgrowth of the discipline’s early use of aerial photography.Archaeologists in the early twentieth century eagerly adoptedthe bird’s eye perspective to identify and document patterns ofhuman activity that were otherwise invisible on the ground,such as the crop marks that indicated the remains of Roman vil-las in England in the pioneering aerial photographs taken byO.G.S. Crawford in the 1920s. Given the costs of generatingoriginal aerial photographs, archaeologists in the past twodecades have turned to satellite imagery to acquire a vertical per-spective on archaeological landscapes (for comprehensivereviews, see Fowler 2004; Parcak 2009:ch. 2).

Archaeologists utilize satellite images for a variety of researchand monitoring purposes. Images can be used to examine areasof the world in which field research is impractical or inadvisabledue to factors such as warfare and insurgency, landmines, andproblems of logistical or political access (e.g., for Afghanistansee Thomas et al. 2008; for Cambodia see Evans and Travaglia2012; for Egypt see Parcak 2009; for Iraq see Stone and Ziman-sky 2005; for Saudi Arabia see Kennedy 2011). Historical datafrom the earliest satellite programs, such as CORONA imagesstarting in the late 1950s, can be utilized to evaluate landscapesthat have subsequently changed, providing archaeologists witha more comprehensive palimpsest of ancient activities prior tomodernization (e.g., Ur 2003). Satellite images of more recentdate can be used to monitor destruction and changes due towarfare, looting, flooding, deforestation, construction encroach-ments, and other adverse impacts.

Until recently, however, the price of satellite images limited

their use. Commercial satellite images could cost hundreds ofdollars per frame, and archaeological projects often requiredseveral images to cover survey regions (particularly when thearea of interest was in the corner of an image, necessitating thepurchase of adjacent frames). CORONA images are relativelyinexpensive, but many of the photographs are marred by cloudcover and in any case the digitized images require sophisticatedprocessing to georectify prior to use. By contrast, the advent ofGoogle Earth has dramatically democratized access to archaeo-logical landscape information worldwide (Ur 2006; Zukerman2011). In developing countries such as India, satellite imagesavailable through Google Earth have provided the scope forarchaeologists at both the student and the professional level tomake use of aerial imagery.

As in the case of crop marks revealed through aerial photogra-phy to be the plans of Roman villas, satellite-based reconnais-sance can detect patterns of human activity that are very difficultto discern solely from ground-based survey, particularly in areasof dense vegetation and modern human activities such as agri-culture. Large-scale landscape modifications in the form ofmounds, embankments, and ditches often blend in with theirsurroundings, revealed only when they are viewed at a muchlarger scale and from a vertical perspective.

Finding Walled Settlements in Eastern India

We present here a case of the use of publicly available GoogleEarth satellite imagery to locate and identify archaeological sitesin eastern India. The current site-location project was an out-growth of ongoing research at the ancient site of Sisupalgarh,located in the eastern Indian state of Odisha (formerly Orissa).Sisupalgarh is an Early Historic settlement, with the earliest

GOOGLE EARTH AS AN ARCHAEOLOGICALTOOL IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

AN EXAMPLE FROM INDIA

Tilok Thakuria, Tosabanta Padhan, Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, and Monica L. Smith

Tilok Thakuria is in the Department of History and Archaeology, North-Eastern Hill University in Chandmari ([email protected]).

Tosabanta Padhan is in the Department of Archaeology at the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute in Pune ([email protected]).

Rabinda Kumar Mohanty is in the Department of Archaeology at Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute in Pune ([email protected]).

Monica L. Smith is in the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and Department of Anthropology at UCLA ([email protected]).

ARTICLE


occupation in the mid-first millennium BC and continuinguntil the middle of the first millennium AD.

Sisupalgarh was initially excavated in 1948, constituting one ofindependent India’s first major archaeological research projects(Lal 1949). Incidentally, the 1948 project also made use of thatera’s most sophisticated aerial-survey technology to illustratethe perfectly aligned ramparts and gateways, an outline that isstill preserved in Google Earth images today (Figure 1a). Therampart, measuring 1.1 kilometers square, has two formal gate-ways on each side, further identifying the construction as onethat was planned and executed on a massive scale.

Sisupalgarh has again been investigated in recent years inwhich geophysical surveys and excavations focused on the socialand economic aspects of urban life in the Early Historic period(e.g., Mohanty and Smith 2008; Mohanty, Smith and Matney2007; Smith 2008). Throughout these investigations, Sisupal-garh was considered to be unique among the many walledurban centers of the Early Historic period because of the regu-larity of the rampart. The site also has significant historicalimportance, being associated with the third-century BC KalingaWar whose catastrophic effects are credited with inspiring theinvading Gangetic ruler Asoka to renounce violence and lendpolitical support to the nascent Buddhist tradition.

The historical record, along with the size and configuration ofSisupalgarh, clearly indicates the presence of a strong and effec-

tive administration. But there are no documents or other histor-ical records that indicate the scope and extent of the political ter-ritory of which Sisupalgarh was a part, nor of the relationshipssustained between Sisupalgarh and neighboring population cen-ters that comprised the Kalinga domain. Archaeological surveyin the region has been limited, with the majority of survey proj-ects initiated by students and faculty working with very limitedbudgets and the majority of Indian government-sponsored proj-ects concentrating on the region’s extensive Buddhist sites.

The potential for evaluating the region’s sociopolitical integrationin the Early Historic period has been made possible, however,through the use of Google Earth satellite imagery. In conjunctionwith a survey at the Neolithic site of Golbai Sasan located 40 kilo-meters southwest of Sisupalgarh, R. K. Mohanty’s team encoun-tered the site of Talapada on the opposite side of the river whosesurface artifacts were of the Early Historic period. In order toexamine the newly discovered site’s potential relationship to Gol-bai Sasan, team members utilized a laptop computer equippedwith a portable Internet connection to make a startling discovery:the site of Talapada has a rampart and gateway configurationidentical to that of Sisupalgarh, but at a one-quarter scale (Figure1b). Measuring 500 meters on a side, the site of Talapada has oneformal gateway on each side of the rampart, providing a dupli-cate of Sisupalgarh in both planning and execution.

The presence of identical material culture types and a replicadesign of the rampart leave no doubt that Sisupalgarh and Tala-

ARTICLE

Figure 1. A: Google Earth image of the walled Early Historic settlement of Sisupalgarh in eastern India with topographic overlay by G. Greene. B. Google Earth

image of the walled site of Talapada C. Google Earth image of the walled site of Lathi.


pada shared strong social and political connections. Given theexistence of one subsidiary site, the team then began to useGoogle Earth to systematically examine satellite images else-where in the region. Through this process, the team did identifyanother location at the village of Lathi on the outskirts of the cityof Berhampur, located 150 kilometers southwest of Sisupalgarh.Lathi’s outline indicates that the site was built on the same pat-tern as Talapada, and constitutes another example of a small-scale replica of Sisupalgarh’s urban plan (Figure 1c). Preliminaryinvestigations of this site confirm the presence of a rampart andgateways, with artifacts of the Early Historic period that indicatethe site’s contemporaneity with both Talapada and Sisupalgarh.

Satellite reconnaissance in conjunction with ground-truthing willcontinue in hopes of identifying other such sites. With the twoemplacements of walled settlements in the style of Sisupalgarhnow having been identified at Talapada and Lathi, however, thepotential for interpreting Sisupalgarh’s ancient territorial expanseis already well-established. The discovery of these sites providesan exciting new scope for research on urbanism, political econo-my, and territorial interactions in the Early Historic period.

Discussion

Google Earth has the potential to revolutionize survey data col-lection and analysis, with a few hours’ work on Google Earthenabling archaeologists to find sites at a scale that would takeyears using traditional ground survey alone (for comparabletransformative effects using LiDAR see Chase et al. J. Arch. Sci-

ence 2011). Google Earth provides imagery that can be easilyaccessed through desktop computers, laptops, and even cellularphones in a manner that enables both pre-field and in-the-fieldexamination of geographic anomalies. When used in its mobileform, Google Earth can be used as a background against whichto mark and label ground-truthed commentary on the locationand size of archaeological sites. Google Earth images, like othersatellite images, also can be utilized to identify geographic fea-tures associated with archaeological sites such as lake and oceancoastlines and riverine paleochannels.

Although Google Earth is not as sophisticated for data analysisas other forms of GIS and data collection, its low cost of acqui-sition (essentially free to anyone with access to a computer andthe Internet) and its coverage makes it particularly useful toarchaeologists working abroad. As Michael Goodchild has noted(2008:20–22), Google Earth’s precision surpasses many develop-ing countries’ official mapmaking services whose budgetaryconstraints as well as national-security concerns often limitresearchers’ access to data. More recent additions to the GoogleEarth repertoire, such as the “history” feature that allows usersto look at a decade’s worth of images from a single location, pro-vides data that can be used to understand ongoing site-forma-tion processes as well as documenting recent natural andhuman-caused changes to archaeological sites.

Google Earth’s capacity to illustrate road overlays also shouldnot be underestimated as a logistical aid to fieldwork (Figure 2).In rural India, road networks and signage are limited, and themost practical method of finding one’s way around the land-scape is to stop and ask residents for the best pathway to a pointof interest. Google Earth images facilitate those conversationsby providing a landscape perspective that is highly intuitive,along with suggested road links. The team was continuallyimpressed by the ease with which local villagers, even thosewith little or no formal education, could immediately identifytopographic features on satellite images.

Using Google Earth, the costs of field survey including vehiclerental and surveyor time can correspondingly be reduced. Formany archaeologists in developing countries, transportation tothe field is the single greatest expense of research; any increasedefficiencies in site location can make a significant difference inthe size, scale, and duration of regional survey projects. In addi-tion to identifying the location of potential sites that can be vis-ited, Google Earth also can provide some indication of wheresites might be hypothesized to exist but where ground-truthingis impractical or prohibited (for example, on military bases orother government installations). The location of these “missing”sites are critical for understanding ancient trade routes andother networks, in which even the identification of potential sitelocations adds robusticity to an overall regional model.

ARTICLE

Figure 2: T. Padhan utilizing Google Earth on mobile telephone during field

reconnaissance.


Google Earth and other forms of satellite imagery do have somelimitations that are worth noting here. As in all aerial prospec-tion, ground-truthing is necessary to ascertain the presence ofancient cultural remains. Modern effects, such as recent con-struction and dismantling of sites, also may post-date the mostrecent satellite activity. Although Google Earth does have somethree-dimensional capacity, slight elevations characteristic ofmany ancient sites may not be visible except at ground level.Vegetation such as trees planted on embankments may exag-gerate linear features, making them appear more prominent insatellite imagery than they are on the ground (Figure 3).

Anomalies in satellite imagery also can be difficult to interpret:linear anomalies may either represent lower topography (suchas ditches) or elevated topography (embankments), while darkand light areas can be the result of water accumulation, stoneoutcrops, areas of burned vegetation, or anthropogenic soils.Some types of sites will be more easily recognized than othersand our project’s focus on the distinctive perimeter ramparts ofEarly Historic settlements constitutes an optimal research ques-tion for Google Earth site discovery (for similar discoveries offortified settlements using satellite imagery, see Parcak 2009:50;Vega et al. J. Arch. Science 2011).

When topographic, historical, or colonial maps are availablethey can be used in conjunction with satellite imagery to addinformation about the likely source and chronology of modernlandscape modifications. Historical maps can sometimes con-tain anomalies that are not immediately visible on Google Earthand vice-versa; when the goal is to locate previously-unknownsites, a combination of all available data types is helpful. AtLathi, for example, topographic maps illustrated just one L-shaped embankment, while the Google Earth image clearlydepicted an entire rectilinear outline with a moat and rampart atthe location.

Although Google Earth is free to use, the acquisition of high-quality images for publications does entail costs that are at pres-

ent prohibitively expensive for many researchers in developingcountries (currently $399 per user per year, with a slight bulkdiscount available for multiple users within a single project).Google Earth does however offer some grants for educators tobe able to access the advanced features of the program includ-ing GIS data import and high-resolution printing.

Conclusion

As seen in our team’s discovery of previously-unknown fortifiedsettlements in eastern India, satellite imagery provides a quick,inexpensive, and effective method for identifying anomalies forfurther investigation. In the case of Talapada, Google Earthimagery enabled the research team to make sense of a patternof construction that was otherwise difficult to read from theground. In the case of Lathi, the identification of a potential sitewas initiated through a search of Google Earth images to matchpatterns of known type in the landscape.

The widespread availability of Google Earth in developingnations is providing a powerful source of landscape data forarchaeological research. In many cases, topographic maps canbe difficult to acquire for both logistical and political reasons,with government mapping agencies citing the sensitivity ofinternational boundaries and coastlines as a rationale for limit-ing the distribution of printed exemplars. By contrast, GoogleEarth is widely available, regularly updated, and can be accessedin a variety of ways including at any local Internet kiosk for avery modest hourly rate. This availability has the potential toprovide a new generation of students and scholars with power-ful tools for site discovery and interpretation.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the ArchaeologicalSurvey of India for the opportunity to conduct this research.Support for the investigations described in this paper has beenprovided by the Deccan College Post-Graduate and ResearchInstitute, Pune, and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.

ARTICLE

Figure 3: The western gateway at Talapada, showing a slight elevation that in Google Earth is further enhanced by the presence of vegetation at the top of the rise.


References Cited

Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, John F. Weishampel, Jason B. Drake,Ramesh L. Shrestha, K. Clint Slatton, Jaime J. Awe, andWilliam E. Carter

2011 Airborne LiDAR, Archaeology, and the Ancient Maya Land-scape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science38:387–398.

Evans, Damian, and Arianna Travaglia 2012 Uncovering Angkor: Integrated Remote Sensing Applications

in the Archaeology of Early Cambodia. In Satellite RemoteSensing: A New Tool for Archaeology, edited by Rosa Las-aponara and Nicola Masini, pp. 197–230. Springer, New York.

Fowler, Martin J. F.2004 Archaeology through the Keyhole: The Serendipity Effect of

Aerial Reconnaissance Revisited. Interdisciplinary ScienceReviews 29:118–134.

Goodchild, Michael F.2008 What Does Google Earth Mean for the Social Sciences? In

Geographic Visualization, edited by Martin Dodge, MaryMcDerby and Martin Turner, pp. 11–23. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester.

Kennedy, David, and M. C. Bishop2011 Google Earth and the Archaeology of Saudi Arabia: A Case

Study from the Jeddah Region. Journal of Archaeologial Science38:1284–1293.

Lal, B.B.1949 Sisupalgarh 1948. Ancient India 5:62–105.

Mohanty, Rabindra Kumar, and Monica L. Smith 2008 Excavations at Sisupalgarh, Orissa. Indian Archaeological Soci-

ety, New Delhi.Mohanty, Rabindra Kumar, Monica L. Smith and T. Matney2007 Investigations at Sisupalgarh 2006. Man and Environment

32(1):57–66Parcak, Sarah H.2009 Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Smith, Monica L.2008 Urban Empty Spaces: Contentious Places for Consensus-

Building. Archaeological Dialogues 15:216–231.Stone, Elizabeth C., and Paul Zimansky 2005 The Tapestry of Power in a Mesopotamian City. Scientific

American Sp. 15:50–67.Thomas, David C., et al.2008 The Archaeological Sites of Afghanistan in Google Earth.

AARGnews 37:22–30. Ur, Jason2003 CORONA Satellite Photography and Ancient Road Networks:

A Northern Mesopotamian Case Study. Antiquity 102–115.2006 Google Earth and Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record

6(3):35–38.Zukerman, Wendy 2011 Looking to be an Archaeologist? Try Google Earth. New Scien-

tist February 12, 2011.

ARTICLE

tion Strategies, Archaeological Applications of Airborne Laser-scanning to Improve Your Productivity by Using tDAR.

Meeting Abstracts

Just a reminder that the abstracts will be available electronicallyto all on the public side of SAAweb approximately one monthbefore the meeting. They will be posted in a pdf format.

As in the past few years, there will be an abstract viewing centeronsite at the convention center in Honolulu where you will beable to browse the abstracts.

2013–A Phenomenal Year!

Even though the year has hardly begun, it is shaping up as anextraordinary one for SAA. Three major initiatives will belaunching this year:

• The SAA Online Seminar Series will be launching. Watchfor topics and times.

• Current Research Online will be debuting on the web.• Advances in Archaeological Practice, the new journal, will pre-miere in August 2013.

Keep an eye on your email and SAA for details on these excitingnew initiatives!

Staff Notes

A 10-hour per week position has been added to the staff team asof January 2013. Elisabeth Herschbach will be joining the staffas Editorial Specialist. Her primary responsibilities will revolvearound the new journal, but she will have assignments touchingall of the SAA’s publications.

After a dozen years, John Neikirk, manager, Publications left theSociety on January 18 for an opportunity at another organiza-tion. I know that the membership will join the staff in wishingJohn the best and thanking him for the legacy he has left to thepublications program.

Eleanor Umali joined the staff as the new manager, Publicationson January 21. Eleanor is a seasoned publications professionalwith well-honed production skills. We expect that the publica-tions program will continue to thrive under her management.

The coordinator, Membership and Marketing position has beenreinvented into the coordinator, Membership and Meetingsposition. Alyssa Barnett, the staffer, will be taking on moreresponsibilities specifically tied to the annual meeting in addi-tion to the volunteer program.

IN BRIEF, from page 3 <

IN BRIEF


Archaeologists have long seen the value of aerial photogra-phy for the study of ancient sites. The recent electronicsymposia at the SAA meeting in Memphis (Kite Aerial

Photography 1912–2012: 90 years of stagnation and 10 years ofinnovation in aerial archaeology) highlighted the fact thatarchaeologists have been using low elevation photography todocument excavations for 100 years. Aerial imagery is useful ina wide variety of contexts, including excavation documentation,regional mapping, and site identification (Giordano and Haley2006). Radio control aircraft, however, have until recently onlysporadically been used as platforms for aerial photography. Avariety of recent advances in technology have made UAVs(Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) an excellent platform for low costaerial archaeology, and a viable and cost-effective alternative foracquiring spatial data (Verhoeven 2009). While UAVs areincreasingly being deployed for mapping landscapes, there isalso a growing movement to utilize these machines as part ofthe documentation of excavations (Rinaud et al 2012).

During the summer of 2012, at the Chalcolithic (4500–3600BCE) site of Marj Rabba, in the Lower Galilee of Israel, I utilizedseveral aerial photography platforms, including two differentUAV systems, to test the feasibility of extremely low cost toolsfor documenting excavations and generating spatial data. Use ofthese systems proved successful, improving the quality of exca-vation recording, while simultaneously allowing us to explorenew tools for spatial data collection. I outline some considera-tions about the use of UAVs in archaeology and some of theresults below.

Why UAVs?

UAVs have a number of benefits compared to other tools for aer-ial archaeology. Foremost is cost. It is possible to build a machinecapable of flying a camera aloft for as little as $200 USD. This ischeaper than an aerial photography balloon (which has a higher

initial cost plus ongoing costs for flying), comparable to kites,and lower than airplane rental for traditional aerial photography.Kite photography, which has had more frequent use in archaeo-logical applications, should be seen as complimentary to the useof UAVs. Radio controlled (r/c) models fly best when there is lit-tle to no wind, while kite aerial photography relies on constantand stronger winds. Thus, differing conditions may dictate thebetter choice. However, in my recent experiments with gyro andaccelerometer stabilized aerial platforms, it was possible to fly insome very gusty conditions, making UAVs more suitable to awider variety of conditions than kites.

UAVs can also be launched from a variety of field sites that maynot be convenient or even possible using alternative systems.UAVs can be flown in very tight spaces, requiring little openground to take off and land. They can be operated where itmight be impossible to fly a kite due to encroaching tree coveror power lines, and in places too remote to reach using tradi-tional aerial photography. They are small, can easily be storedand transported in field vehicles and they can be set up anddeployed rapidly.

There are, however, some major obstacles for archaeologistsusing UAVs. The biggest drawback is training. Flying any r/caircraft takes a degree of skill that can only be acquired throughpractice. This practice often involves repeatedly testing andoften crashing equipment, which can cause costs to balloon.However, training costs can be mitigated in several ways. First,a variety of flight simulators exist that are designed to helpwould-be pilots get a start in flying r/c models before ever risk-ing real-world smashups. These simulators help novices get thehang of one of the most perplexing problems with r/c flight: asthe model moves around the sky it becomes increasingly diffi-cult to keep track of the orientation of the model relative to thepilot. In the U.S., radio control modeling is an active anddynamic hobby with thousands of clubs operating around the

UAVS AT MARJ RABBA, ISRAELLOW-COST HIGH-TECH TOOLS FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

AND PHOTOGRAMMETRY

Austin “Chad” Hill

Austin Hill is a postdoctoral researcher at the Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes” at Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany.

He is the field director of the Galilee Prehistory Project. He may be reached at: [email protected] or [email protected]

ARTICLE


country, most of which are setup to provide formal and informaltraining. Anyone interested should check out the Academy ofModel Aeronautics (www.modelaircraft.org) for a list of nearbyclubs. As a rule, r/c hobbyists are a friendly group, often willingto provide extensive help to beginners. They are also generallyexcited about nontraditional uses of r/c technology in fields likearchaeology, which I recently discovered giving a lecture to aroomful of r/c enthusiasts, with the Vintage Radio Control Soci-ety, about the use of UAVs at Marj Rabba.

Finally, the need for specialized flight training as a basis for uti-lizing UAVs is rapidly diminishing. A variety of vendors cur-rently offer civilian-use fully autonomous systems that do notrequire a pilot in order to perform photography and mappingmissions. These companies provide turnkey systems that havethe capability of taking off, flying, photographing, and landingwithout any active input from a person. These systems, such asthe ones offered by Pteryx (www.trigger.pl) and Mavinci(http://www.mavinci.com), cost significantly more to purchaseand operate than the low cost DIY options discussed here. How-ever, even the price of autonomous solutions is rapidly decreas-ing, with the availability of options like the open source Ardupi-lotMega system, which provides low cost autonomous control ofUAVs and is supported by an active development community(see diydrones.com).

It is important to note that there is huge variation, globally, inthe legality of operating radio controlled systems, operatingthese devices for commercial purposes, and operating these sys-tems autonomously. In the U.S., for instance, there are a varietyof restrictions on the use of r/c aircraft and these restrictions areundergoing changes right now as the Federal Aviation Authori-ty decides on new policies in regards to the commercial use ofr/c technology. Those interested in aerial photography arestrongly encouraged to find out about local laws before becom-ing involved and invested.

Successful Tests at Marj Rabba

In 2012, as part of the ongoing excavations at Marj Rabba,Israel (part of the Galilee Prehistory Project), I began to testseveral platforms for aerial imagery. In previous seasons therewere severe problems getting useable overhead shots of thesite. Local commercial aerial photographers were outside of ourbudget, and attempts to utilize a short ladder on top of nearbyspoil heaps was always comical, sometimes dangerous, and oflimited utility. Since field conditions were hazardous for flyingand I was interested in trying a variety of new ways of obtain-ing low cost aerial imagery, I ultimately settled on 3 systemsthat would provide 3 different scales of images: Pole AerialPhotography (PAP), Quadcopter Photography, and r/c Planephotography.

Camera selection is important for UAV photography, especiallywhen considering low-budget options. Size and weight are ofparamount importance, too, since UAVs generally have low pay-load-carrying capacities. However, the availability of a free alter-native firmware for Canon point and shoot cameras, called theCanon Hackers Development Kit (CHDK), opens up a simpleavenue for UAV photography. The CHDK firmware is free, easyto run on a wide variety of cheap Canon cameras, supported bya large online community, and provides the ability to run “inter-velometer” scripts. An intervelometer automatically fires thecamera shutter at a constant interval. With a large memory card,a camera running CHDK can be turned on before launch, andthen shoot constantly for the entire duration of a flight (approx-imately 5–15 minutes). The huge number of aerial photographsthus created provides extensive coverage of archaeological sites,and does not require the pilot to worry about depressing a shut-ter button while flying. During the excavations at Marj Rabba, Iutilized a small Canon point and shoot running CHDK, as wellas a GoPro Hero camera, on all three of the aerial setups.

Pole aerial photography (Figure 1), while not the main topic ofthis article, should not be undervalued as an aerial photography

ARTICLE

Figure 1: The author doing Pole Aerial Photography in Area AA/BB at

Marj Rabba. Note the tall grass, piles of stones, and presence of trees and

olive groves that made launching and landing an r/c plane challenging.

Figure 2: Small quadcopter used for low-level photography at Marj Rabba.

Colored propellers provide visual references to help orient the pilot.


platform. As with all aerial photography systems, PAP setupscan vary significantly in price, but initial entry costs are low.This summer I utilized a 7m, carbon fiber, deep-sea fishing polepurchased in downtown Jerusalem, Israel. The Canon camera,running CHDK, was mounted to the end of the pole using asmall, flexible, “GorillaPod” tripod attached via duct tape. Totalcost, including the camera, was less than $170 USD. This setupworked great for getting quick overhead shots of small archaeo-logical features.

For photographs of entire archaeological units, I built a small“quadcopter” (Figure 2), This is a radio-controlled vehicle thatconsists of 4 small electric motors, powered by a small battery.The vehicle contains a sophisticated micro-processor that getscontrol inputs from the pilot as well as input from a suite ofonboard sensors consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, amagnetometer, and a barometer. This processor is then able tovary the speeds of the 4 motors dynamically, allowing it to sta-bilize itself, counteract the effect of wind, and respond appro-priately to inputs from the pilot. Including the purchase of spareparts, the completed and functional quadcopter cost less than$300 USD. This small machine was able to carry aloft either ofthe aerial cameras (Canon or the GoPro Hero).

The quadcopter proved to be an ideal platform for photographsfrom altitudes that were just out of range of the PAP setup toaltitudes of approximately 40 m. Any time an area supervisor ordirector wanted to record the current state of excavation, I couldsend the “quad” aloft to record some photos, with an absoluteminimum of interruption to the dig. The only limitation on theutility of the quad was that it is hard to keep track of the orien-tation of the machine if it gets too high. Rather than risk losingcontrol, it was only utilized at low altitudes. Additionally, 4 smallmotors, spinning at high and constantly variable speeds, createa lot of vibration, creating some blurry digital images. This is acommon problem for these types of machines. While theonboard cameras were generally set to record 1 picture per sec-ond, the majority of photos often had to be discarded because ofthe vibration, leaving only a few good results per flight.

Finally, for higher altitude photos, I utilized a small foam r/cplane (Figure 3). I modified a trainer type aircraft purchasedfrom a local Israeli hobby shop. This model has a 1500 mmwingspan, and sufficient power to carry a GoPro camera tohigher altitudes than could be achieved with the quadcopter.While still not flying very high (<100m), this setup was able totake photographs that provided more complete coverage of thetotal site area than was possible with the quad or the pole.Unfortunately, the large number of olive groves, densely cob-bled and uneven fields, nearby forest, and tall power linesmeant that it was not possible to cover the area as comprehen-sively as would have been preferred, and it proved a consistent

challenge to land the plane without damage. This limited thenumber of times I attempted to fly this platform, but it was stillused successfully for basic overviews of the site and the planedid survive the season intact.

ARTICLE

Figure 3: Yorke Rowan, director of the Galilee Prehistory Project, successful-

ly hand launching the r/c plane.

Figure 4: Marj Rabba area CC, photographed with the quadcopter.

Figure 5: Excavators at work in area DD at Marj Rabba, photograph taken

with the quadcopter.


Results

Over the course of the season at Marj Rabba I used all 3 aerialphotography setups to document ongoing changes in theexposed architecture at the site (Figures 4, 5, and 6). The quadand pole systems were utilized on a regular basis as new fea-tures emerged, and the plane was flown occasionally to providewider overviews. These systems were able to generate thou-sands of photographs of the site at all phases of excavation. Asdocumentation, these pictures will be critical for final publica-tion of the excavation. They provide the necessary perspective toilluminate the relationships between different areas and archi-

tectural units within the site. Additionally, in at least oneinstance, the photographs obtained with the quadcopter helpedexcavators evaluate the presence of features that were hard todiscern at ground level.

Several recent technological innovations now allow the photog-raphy recorded with low altitude, low cost systems to be used asthe basis for generating GIS-based spatial data as well as forgenerating beautiful 3d models (Figures 7 and 8) (Brutto et al.2012; Chiabrando et. al 2011). Even more amazingly, this canalso often be done for very low or no cost using open sourcesoftware. One of the goals for utilizing UAVs at Marj Rabba wasthe possibility of producing 3D spatial data over the course ofthe excavation. With the help of ground control points (GCPs)recorded with a total station, I created 3D models of all of theexcavation areas which are intended to be used in conjunctionwith public outreach about the site. I was also able to generatedigital elevation models of the surrounding area to be used aspart of the ongoing process of mapping and surveying the land-scape. For an excellent introductory tutorial on creating DigitalElevation Models from 2D aerial imagery, see Mark Willis’sBlog: http://palentier.blogspot.de/2010/12/how-to-create-digi-tal-elevation-model.html.

My experience with UAVs at Marj Rabba has demonstrated thatthese systems have the capacity to help archaeologists in a vari-ety of contexts, and at costs that are well within the budget ofeven modest excavations like the Galilee Prehistory Project.

Acknowledgments. Thanks to Morag Kersel and Yorke Rowan, co-direc-tors of the Galilee Prehistory Project for permission, support, andencouragement of this aerial photography project. The Galilee Prehisto-ry Project is supported by the Oriental Institute at the University ofChicago as well as several generous individual donors. Special thanksgo to the Vintage Radio Control Society for their generous funding forthe continuation of the aerial photographing and mapping project.

ARTICLE

Figure 6: Areas AA, BB, and CC photographed from the r/c plane.

Figure 7: Still from a video flythrough of a 3d model of areas AA and BB at

Marj Rabba, generated from quadcoptor imagery.

Figure 8: Digital Elevation Model of areas BB and CC rendered as a shad-

ed relief. Constructed from photographs shot with the r/c plane.


Finally, thanks to Omer Tamuz for help in planning, researching andbuilding the quadcoptor in its earliest stages.

References Cited

Brutto, M. L., A. Borruso, and A. D’Argenio2012 UAV Systems for Photogrammetric Data Acquisition of

Archaeological Sites. International Journal of Heritage in theDigital Era 1:7–14.

Chiabrando, Filiberto, F. Nex, D. Piatti, Fulvio Rinaudo2011 UAV and RPV Systems for Photogrammetric Surveys in

Archaeological Areas: Two Tests in the Piedmont Region(Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science 38:697–710.

Giardino Marco, and Bryan S. Haley2006 Airborne Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis. In Remote

Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspec-tive, edited by J. K. Johnson, pp 47–79. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Rinaudo, Fulvio, Filiberto Chiabrando, Andrea Maria Lingua, andAntonia Teresa Spanò

2012 Archaeological Site Monitoring: UAV Photogrammetry CanBe the Answer. International Archives of the Photogrammetry,Remote Sensing, and Spatial Information Sciences XXXIX-B5:583–588.

Verhoeven, Geert J. 2009 Providing an Archaeological Bird’s-Eye View – An Overall Pic-

ture of Ground-Based Means to Execute Low-Altitude AerialPhotography (LAAP) in Archaeology. Archaeological Prospec-tion 16:233–249.

ARTICLESend us your posters!

Don’t forget to submit your Archaeology Week/Month poster to SAA for the 2013 contest. This year’scontest will include posters dated April 2012 – March2013.

• Submit a cover sheet with contact name, title,mailing address, email, and phone number.Please include written permission to displayimages of winning posters on SAAWeb and in thenewsletter of the SAA Council of Affiliated Soci-eties (CoAS).

• Mail two copies—unfolded and unmounted—ofyour state poster to: Maureen Malloy, Society forAmerican Archaeology, 1111 14th St. NW, Suite800, Washington, DC 20005-5622 by March 1,2013.

• Email a digital copy of the poster [email protected]

All submissions received by the deadline will be dis-played in the exhibit hall in Honolulu, April 4-6, 2013.Meeting participants will vote for their favorite posterand the top three winners will be announced at theSAA business meeting on Friday, April 5, 2013.

Check out the archive of winning posters on SAAWebat http://www.saa.org/publicftp/PUBLIC/resources/ArchMonthforpublic.html

The poster archive contains winning images datingback to the first competition, held in 1996.

SAAWeb also has tips on how to create an Archaeol-ogy Month poster , examples of successful Archaeol-ogy Week/Month activities, and tips for successfulArchaeology week events !

FROM THE SAA PRESS

All the King’s Horses: Essays onthe Impact of Looting and theIllicit Antiquities Trade on OurKnowledge of the Past

Edited by Paula K. Lazrus andAlex Barker

ISBN 978-0-932839-44-2

Regular Price: $26.95, Member Discount Price: $21.95

Kindle® Edition Available!


NATIVE HAWAIIAN PERSPECTIVES ON ARCHAEOLOGY

The gathering of the SAA in Hawai‘i, for the annualmeeting, has prompted the participants of this forumto write about the current status and future directions

of Hawaiian archaeology. The seeds for this forum cameabout through efforts of the Committee on Native AmericanRelations, who sought to help organize a conference sessionon cultural resource issues in Hawai‘i for the 2012 Memphismeeting. Instead, our group directed our efforts to thisforum, and the opportunity to address a larger body of ourpeers.

The voices heard here include Native Hawaiian archaeolo-gists, land stewards, cultural practitioners, and activists; itrepresents our first endeavor to collectively write about thepractice of archaeology in Hawai‘i. As Kanaka ‘Oiwi (NativeHawaiians) involved in heritage management we represent afairly new voice in Hawaiian archaeology, but we are a grow-ing force, joined by new and established practitioners in thisfield. We stand upon the foundation set by early Kanaka‘Oiwi leaders, like Henry Kekahuna, who took on the respon-sibility to survey and map Hawaiian cultural sites and inter-view kupuna (elders) about valued cultural places in the mid-twentieth century. Inspired by such stewardship, Naki‘i KeAho, an organization formed to protect wahi pana (sacredsites), along with the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology,annually recognizes individuals and groups dedicated to cul-tural stewardship in Hawai‘i. These honorees, like the NaPali Coast ‘Ohana and Aunty Hannah Springer, representthe generation after Kekahuna, who continue the work ofcaring for cultural sites.

Native Hawaiians first began formal archaeological trainingin the 1970s, with individuals like Francis Ching and acohort of women including June Cleghorn, Muffet Jourdane,and Toni Han Palermo entering the field through the Uni-versity of Hawai‘i at Manoa and the Bernice Pauahi BishopMuseum. In 1987 Cleghorn became the first Native Hawai-ian to obtain a graduate degree in archaeology, and 13 yearslater Cachola-Abad, one of the forum contributors, became

the first Native Hawaiian to earn a doctorate in this field.After more than a century of archaeological practice in theHawaiian Islands, the discipline has produced just threeKanaka ‘Oiwi Ph.D.s in archaeology. This must change.

In the articles to follow we present ideas about why NativeHawaiians were perhaps reluctant to enter the field, and theproblems that persist in the discipline as a result of thisabsence. Ultimately we choose not to dwell in the negative,but seek to recognize and understand our past in order tomove forward on a path that benefits our Native Hawaiiancommunities, the broader public, and the discipline as well.The first article in this forum by Naleimaile and Brandtposes the question, is Hawaiian archaeology really Hawai-ian? The unanimous response from the contributors is no— until recently Hawaiian archaeology has not reflected astrong Hawaiian perspective. This two-part forum begins byproviding a background for our response, and continueswith examples of approaches to archaeology viewed asadvancing a more culturally grounded and community ori-ented Hawaiian archaeology.

The importance of ‘aina, land, to Hawaiian well being is dis-cussed by several contributors, and the health of the ‘aina isdirectly linked to the health of our people. A few contributorsspeak of sustainability and kuleana (responsibility) in termsof land stewardship practices, particularly associated with tra-ditional land divisions called ahupua‘a. Through thoughtfulland stewardship, and caring for the wahi kupuna (ancestralsites) on the land, we maintain connections with our ances-tors. Cultural sites are the tangible link between generationsof Kanaka ‘Oiwi. Archaeology, then, is important because itcan significantly contribute to either nurturing those connec-tions or irrevocably damaging them. So one message heardthroughout this forum is that maintaining strong culturalroots is in part contingent upon good archaeological practice.A true Hawaiian archaeology, one that incorporates Kanaka‘Oiwi worldviews, has the potential not only to preserve pastlife ways, but to perpetuate a living culture.


EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Kathleen Kawelu

Kathleen Kawelu is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo



Western perspectives have long dominated the stateand practice of archaeology and cultural resourcemanagement (CRM) in Hawai‘i. The current

social, political, and economic landscape in Hawai‘i hascalled for a change in the conditions of preservation, protec-tion, and perpetuation of natural and cultural resources aswell as our treasured wahi kupuna (ancestral places). A grass-roots movement and educational efforts has begun toemploy alternative forms of interacting with and relating toour cultural resources. Long before archaeological sites wereseen as such, they were Native Hawaiian cultural sites.Rather than associating these resources with the past, wemust connect these wahi kupuna to the present, with a living,breathing, and dynamic society.

This cultural landscape consists of the physical surround-ings, tangible and intangible elements, and technologiesemployed in the physical and spiritual world that allowedNative Hawaiians to perpetuate a way of life. This landscapeincluded land utilization, food production, resource gather-ing, and spiritual practices. Remnants of this tangible evi-dence is seen today in areas known for taro cultivation, fish-ponds, adze production, burials, and structural and non-structural heiau (place of worship or a shrine) and othersacred and utilitarian places. This landscape embodies aholistic relationship with all that is present and is not limit-ed to the physical world.

We revisit the model of the ahupua‘a (traditional land divi-sion) to witness this holistic model of this cultural landscape.Within the ahupua‘a we see and experience the traditionalareas known to be populated by akua (deities) and ‘aumakua(ancestral guardians) that continue to manifest themselvesthrough different elemental ho ‘ailona (signs or portents), aswell as other natural forms. The upland forests of theahupua‘a provided fauna and flora that was used for suste-nance, ritual, medicine, transportation, and ceremony. Thestreams provided water resources for taro cultivation, and fordomestic uses. Ocean resources were also an integral part inthis system. One of the more impressive aspects of the

ahupua‘a system is that it functioned to nurture all forms oflife, not only the kanaka (man). All of the elements that makeup the resources of an ahupua‘a system give us insight intothe many cultural practices and resources that were availableto Native Hawaiians. Cachola-Abad (1999:11) writes thatmany Native Hawaiians continue to view these “as culturalcomponents to be used to maintain a living heritage.”

These foundational elements of Hawaiian stewardship, aspassed on to us through the generations, can be applied tocurrent efforts in the management of our cultural resourcestoday. We can incorporate current practices of CRM in thelaws and legislations of historic preservation to effectivelyprotect these very important sites and practices of NativeHawaiians.

A Hawaiian Space in Archaeology and CRM

Indigenous peoples from around the world are seeking morecontrol in the decision-making processes concerning themanagement of traditional lands and their resources. By cre-ating a space and involving themselves in these processes,indigenous peoples are asserting their authority over tradi-tional lands (Natcher and Hickey 2002:350). Many indige-nous peoples are positioning themselves in institutionsresponsible for the management of cultural resources. Thisdemonstrates a need for a shift in contemporary resourcemanagement. More emphasis on the importance of a locallydefined approach at resource management taking prece-dence over a macro-level approach in making decisions(Natcher and Hickey 2002:350) is needed.

As Native Hawaiians, we are realizing the importance inestablishing a space for ourselves in these positions ofauthority. It’s important to consider that mere participation isnot enough, for it “can lead to undesirable ends, if exercisedthrough someone else’s system of management” (Porro2001:301). By utilizing existing Native Hawaiian culturalpractices and resource management systems into existingframeworks of CRM, we will reestablish successful strategies

IS HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGY REALLY HAWAIIAN?

A NATIVE HAWAIIAN PERSPECTIVE

Sean P. Naleimaile and Lokelani Brandt

Sean P. Naleimaile is a Ph.D. student at the he University of Hawai‘i at Manoa ([email protected]), and Lokelani Brandt is a BA student at the

University of Hawai‘i at Hilo ([email protected]).



to maintain our resources. More importantly, these founda-tions work to reestablish these cultural practices in the now.

Native Hawaiians are moving out of a state of “liminality”(Turner 1974:97). We have been almost structurally invisible,and caught in a metaphoric state of “betwixt and between”—caught between our cultural responsibilities and our West-ern assimilation. However, this state also encourages indi-viduals to search for greater meaning and to reflect on thecultural, spiritual, and political powers that sustain them asa people. It is a ritualistic transformation of the person fromone form to another, one that can function towards a re-aggregation of Native Hawaiian empowerment and influ-ence. Wallace (1956:265) relates this movement to a “revital-ization process.” He defines the process as “a deliberate,organized, conscious effort by members of a society to con-struct a more satisfying culture” (Wallace 1956:265). He con-tends that a revitalization process is different from theprocess of culture change in that a revitalization movementrests on the “deliberate intent of individuals” rather than aslow and gradual change.

The notion of reestablishing these cultural foundations for arenewed perspective on cultural resource managementintends not to merely re-create the field of CRM, but it meansto infuse this field of CRM with the long-standing, tradition-al practices of a people who thrived as a sustainable commu-nity for centuries. Some people believe that Native Hawaiianshave thrived on this ‘aina (land) since the beginning of time.The Kumulipo (a Hawaiian cosmology chant) provides us witha foundation for understanding the genealogy of the Hawai-ian worldview and can inform practices associated with CRMin Hawai‘i. Native people have always interacted with the pastto gain a better perspective on the present (Marshall2002:211). Native Hawaiian scholar Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa(1992) has said that Hawaiians can feel confident in their pastfor the works of our kupuna are in front of us: they are visible.That is, we stand looking at the past. We know what the pastis. We can see and explore the past through the ways of know-ing that have been passed down through generations. Thefuture is unknown; it is the future that we face our backswhile standing in the present. Therefore, in a Native Hawai-ian worldview, we have a long tradition of learning from thepast for the maintenance of our society. The study of theHawaiian archaeological past is an opportunity to study thepast with the application of legalese and other methodologiesto add to the management of our resources.

Looking to the Past for the Future

One very important element in the development of a NativeHawaiian space in the practice of archaeology and CRM isthe protection of iwi kupuna (ancestral remains). Much of thediscussion regarding this new approach has centered on thecurrent issues surrounding the protection of iwi kupuna

amid the large-scale developments on Hawaiian land. TheState Historic Preservation Department (SHPD) under for-mer Governor Linda Lingle’s administration has effectivelydismantled a burial program that was created to address theprotection of iwi kupuna statewide. There are continuing dis-cussions among Native Hawaiians on how to malama (carefor) the discovery of iwi kupuna. There hasn’t been any realeffort to truly incorporate protocols and culturally appropri-ate methods into the field of archaeology and CRM. ManyNative Hawaiians struggle with this lack of cultural sensitiv-ity. This new space is not the end-all approach to change thefield and practice immediately, but it does intend to imple-ment a new way to inform and process information in aneffort to broaden the perspective of the larger community.

Merely assimilating ourselves into these practices will notmake them Hawaiian. We need to set our own guidelinesand include our own perspectives in order for this practice tobe more culturally defined and appropriate to the Hawaiiancommunity. Native Hawaiians can participate, and in factneed to participate, as it is a part of our cultural kuleana(responsibility) to be involved. We must not continue tobemoan the fact that we are not a part of the discussions con-cerning our resources. We need to make all possibleattempts to be at the table for discussions. The push towardscreating a space for Native Hawaiian perspectives is ahealthy one. As we promote a newly realigned perspective,one that demands a greater foundation of cultural compe-tency, maybe then archaeology, heritage management, andCRM can evolve into something that reflects a stronger,more pervasive Native Hawaiian worldview and perspective.

References CitedCachola-Abad, Kehau , J. Mikilani Ho, and Kawika Makanani1999 What is a Heiau? In Pana O‘ahu: Sacred Stones, Sacred Land.

Edited by Jan Becket and Joseph Singer, pp. xix–xxx. Univer-sity of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Kame‘eleihiwa, Lilikala1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Pono Ai? How

Shall We Live in Harmony. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.Marshall, Yvonne2002 What Is Community Archaeology? World Archaeology

34:211–219.Natcher, David C., and Clifford G. Hickey2002 Putting the Community Back into Community-Based

Resource Management: A Criteria and Indicators Approachto Sustainability. Human Organization 61:350–363.

Porro, Noemi Miyasaka2001 Rights and Means to Manage Cooperatively and Equitably:

Forest management among Brazilian TransamazonColonists. In People Managing Forests, edited by Carol J.Peirce Colfer and Yvonne Byron, pp. 300–321. Resources forthe Future People, Washington, D.C.

Turner, Victor1974 Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Pas-

sage. The Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, pp.96–105.

Wallace, Anthony1956 Revitalization Movements. American Anthropologist

58:266–281.



For Kanaka ‘Oiwi (Native Hawaiians) our intimate affin-ity to our ‘aina (land) is founded on numerous connec-tions. Some of the most meaningful are the countless

expressions and actions of our kupuna (ancestors or elders)that remain a part of the landscape. Far more than windowsinto our past, the many aspects of this archaeological recordare reverberations of our kupuna in the living world today— precious opportunities to interact with them in our moderncontext. In this way, successful culture resource manage-ment (CRM) efforts are crucial for Native Hawaiians tomaintain our cultural roots and foundation, especially in theface of the massive development occurring in Hawai‘i, whichfrequently threatens wahi kupuna (ancestral sites).

Archaeology conducted for rigorous research purposes, aswell as CRM archaeology conducted for the exigencies ofdevelopment have, in numerous instances, produced infor-mation that the Hawaiian community values. However, theoverriding reality is that Kanaka ‘Oiwi have for decadesstruggled with salient problems in Hawai‘i CRM activitiesand contexts. What follows is a brief summary of such dilem-mas that have created tremendous negative impacts forNative Hawaiians.

Common Problems in Culture Resource Management in Hawai‘i

Site Boundaries

Archaeologists often delineate wahi kupuna using highly arbi-trary boundaries. Where Native Hawaiians might see a largearea containing numerous structures (i.e., features) as a sin-gle integrated wahi kupuna representing related aspects ofdaily life and various spiritual, social, political, and economicnetworks, CRM archaeologists often divide such large sitecomplexes into numerous smaller sites. This segmentationallows developers who employ CRM firms to “preserve” asmall number of sites while obliterating others. Even when

features within large complexes are preserved, they are oftensaved with only minimal buffer areas around them, furtheralienating those features from their original cultural andenvironmental contexts. The end result is that the overallintegrity of significant, large site complexes is rarely pre-served. From a Hawaiian perspective, such patchwork preser-vation destroys the cultural significance and full meaning ofthese sites.

Site Function

A related challenge is that CRM archaeologists most often donot rigorously or systematically evaluate the functions of sites.Rather, CRM archaeologists (often fieldworkers on the frontline and not senior, more experienced archaeologists) deter-mine the functions of sites for archaeological survey reportsby comparing sites to ones that they have seen in the past andapplying layers of assumptions and stereotypes to their deter-minations. Site function assessments are seldom informed byHawaiian cultural understandings. And indeed, in many casesit is impossible for archaeological investigations, even thor-ough ones, to reveal Hawaiian site functions without consult-ing ethnohistoric records. For instance, archaeology, no mat-ter how rigorous, would not be able to uncover evidence dif-ferentiating a large house site occupied by lower-ranking ali‘i(chief) and a smaller-sized heiau (religious site), since theirphysical forms and the range of artifacts created by the activi-ties at each would overlap significantly.

There are also many culturally significant sites that may notbe archaeological (i.e., they may not have been created byhuman hands) but are nonetheless important in a culturallandscape (i.e., traditional cultural properties, as defined inNational Register Bulletin 38), and hold the same signifi-cance as archaeological ones for native populations. Hawai-ian examples of these might be a grove of trees associatedwith an akua (god) or a naturally occurring boulder servingas a kia‘i (guardian entity). To identify these, an archaeologist

CULTURE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN HAWAI‘I

Kehaunani Cachola-Abad

Kehaunani Cachola-Abad is a member of the Affiliate Graduate Faculty, University of Hawai ‘i at Manoa.



must consult with knowledgeable people in the Hawaiiancommunity and integrate the resulting findings in theappropriate archaeological report.

Site Significance Assessments

Closely connected to site function assessments are site sig-nificance assessments. Both types of assessments are criticalin determining whether a site is preserved or destroyed in adevelopment project. Yet again, Hawaiian cultural practi-tioners or experts seldom inform such assessments. Thougharchaeologists are required to consult with relevant culturalcommunities regarding the cultural significance of sitesidentified, archaeologists rarely do so. Instead, they nearlyalways engage in such consultation only if a burial or heiau(religious site) is involved. If archaeologists do not deem asite to be a heiau or a burial, they often wrongly assume thatthe site lacks cultural significance and afford only scientificor archaeological value to the site.

Mitigation as “Preservation”

When sites are not deemed culturally significant and areidentified as significant only for purposes of data collection,the information is extracted through data recovery, a processthat inherently destroys sites. Dry-stacked stone masonry istaken apart, excavation units dug, artifacts removed, sedi-ment samples collected, etc. In that process, nearly all that issignificant about the site from a Hawaiian perspective isintruded upon. This type of “mitigation” archaeology is thenfollowed by construction activities that obliterate whatremains. What constitutes the “preservation” of the site is aseries of computer files and artifacts in bags held at facilitiesfar removed from the sites.

Consultation with Knowledgeable Cultural Experts Associated with a Project Area

When consultations do occur, the process by which they areconducted is frequently flawed. Interviewees are typically notshown all sites in a project area, or asked to comment onthem specifically. Instead, they are typically asked about themo‘olelo (histories, stories, or traditions) of the general proj-ect area, the uses of the area, and information about certainsites that archaeologists have determined to hold cultural sig-nificance (i.e., burials and heiau). Not surprisingly, much ofthe information from such interviews often is not integratedinto the archaeological report, but rather sits in a section ofthe CRM inventory survey completely separate from thearchaeological section.

A second shortcoming of the interview process involves thelimited nature of the interview process. For Kanaka ‘Oiwi,especially kupuna (elders), the breadth and depth of ‘ike(knowledge, insight, feeling, and perception) they share is

directly proportional to the depth, longevity, and quality ofthe relationship that has been developed between the kupunaand the person speaking with that kupuna. Hence, it is diffi-cult for interviewers in a CRM context to gain the level ofinformation that could otherwise be recorded by someonecloser to the kupuna.

Still another difficulty is that those conducting the interviewsoften treat each interviewee as having equal understandingof sites involved and the relevant cultural practices associat-ed with those sites. In reality, some of the interviewedkupuna are most qualified to speak to certain issues and/orgeographic areas, while others are more qualified to speak toother points. Yet interviewees are often nonetheless asked tocomment on the same matters, including some issuesbeyond their areas of expertise, which in some cases has cre-ated “conflicts” of opinions among those interviewed. These“conflicts” have been used to undermine credible Hawaiianstances regarding sites.

Conflicts of Interests

One of the reasons the above problems persist are the con-flicts of interest inherent in a system wherein CRM firms aremotivated to produce reports amenable to the entities thatare their current, and possible future, employers. As such,archaeologists have clear motives to segment sites, minimizetheir significance, and clear the way for the intended projectsof their employers.

CRM archaeologists are further in a doubly conflicted situa-tion because their recommendations about site treatmentafford them an added economic benefit. By assessing a siteas being only archaeologically significant (and not culturallysignificant) and worthy of being preserved through recorda-tion, CRM archaeologists set up further lucrative data recov-ery work for their firms.

Impact and Solutions

The above practices have collectively resulted in tremendousloss for Native Hawaiian communities, as cultural land-scapes have been irreversibly impacted by archaeologicaldeterminations and development projects. To address suchoutcomes, a new generation of Kanaka ‘Oiwi scholars, alliedwith key supportive archaeologists and landowners, have ini-tiated changes on multiple fronts (as described in other arti-cles in this forum). Efforts have involved stronger advocacyin legal venues, taking on leadership roles in local profes-sional arenas, engaging in innovative archaeologicalresearch that shapes the archaeological discipline from with-in, building archaeology training programs for Kanaka ‘Oiwito enter into CRM work, and establishing groups for Kanaka‘Oiwi to work collaboratively to better document, preserve,and bring back to cultural use treasured wahi kupuna.



In 2011, Dana Naone Hall received theHawai‘i Cultural Stewardship Award cospon-sored by Naki‘ikeaho, an organization of

Native Hawaiian archaeologists and anthropolo-gists, and the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology(SHA). The award has been given annually since2010, honoring outstanding individuals andorganizations who have exemplified the spirit ofstewardship. While her primary work has beenon Maui, Dana has been a key figure in the pro-tection and restoration of cultural sites acrossthe islands, as well as in the creation and imple-mentation of the state’s burial laws. In 1999, TheMaui News named her among the “People WhoMade a Difference,” in 2002 the ‘Oiwi : A NativeHawaiian Journal listed her among “NotableHawaiians of the 20th Century,” and in 2011 the NativeHawaiian Legal Corporation honored her as the “Communi-ty Advocate of the Year.” Here, I briefly outline some of hermore significant contributions, though many others couldbe noted.

A nationally recognized poet who began teaching poetry inthe schools on Maui in 1977, Dana became active in NativeHawaiian and environmental issues in 1984 when she, herhusband Isaac (an attorney), and families from Makenaformed the Hui Alanui o Makena to prevent the closing ofthe Old Makena Road (and the ancient Alaloa also known asthe “King’s Highway” or “Pi‘ilani Trail”) by Seibu Hawaii,which was building the Maui Prince Hotel. Such a closurewould not only cut off Native Hawaiians from the importantresources of the ocean, but also from an essential source oftheir ancestral identity. A protracted three-year battle led to asettlement in which Seibu agreed to create a 20-foot-widepedestrian access way and a park at the south end of thebeach, to help to find kuleana owners of parcels in its prop-erty, and to establish a 3-acre living cultural center to be man-aged by a nonprofit organization. In summer 2011, Hawai-ian-language faculty and students from the UH Maui and

UH Manoa carried out malama ‘aina steward-ship learning at Mo‘oloa as a part of theirHawaiian language immersion course. (Danahas also been a huge supporter of the Hawai-ian language programs on Maui, and herdaughter was in the first graduating class ofHawaiian immersion students.) Another lega-cy of the settlement was that Seibu also agreedto not support any further closures of thecoastal road at Palauea, which later helped theHui Alanui o Makena and others secure over20 acres of land for a cultural preserve wherearchaeological field schools have been held.

In 1987, Dana and others became embroiled inthe struggle to protect the burial site at Hono-

kahua, where nearly 1,000 iwi kupuna were disinterred priorto the construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Hawaiiansfrom across the islands came to Maui and eventually thestate capitol on O‘ahu to unify in opposition to the desecra-tion, which finally led (with the help of the state) to thepreservation of the burial site and the relocation of the hotel.More importantly, this was the birth of the Native Hawaiianburial movement, which had a cultural component in theformation of the group Hui Malama I Na Kupuna o Hawai‘iNei, and a legal component in the amendment of the state’shistoric preservation laws to include new protections forNative Hawaiian burial sites, including the establishment ofthe Island Burial Councils (IBCs). Dana would eventuallyserve as chair and vice-chair of the Maui/Lana‘i Islands Bur-ial Council, which has arguably been one of the most effec-tive IBCs in the state.

In the early 1990s, Dana joined other organizations and fam-ilies to fight the construction of an 18-hole golf course inWaihe‘e by Sokan Hawaii. This would have destroyed one ofthe earliest habitation sites on Maui and impacted numerousburials in the sand dunes. After another drawn-out engage-ment, they succeeded in helping to create the 277-acre

FOLLOWING THE PATH: 2011 HAWAI‘I CULTURAL STEWARDSHIP AWARDEE

DANA NAONE HALLTy P. Kawika Tengan

Ty P. Kawika Tengan is an Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies and Anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.

Figure 1: Dana Naone Hall and

Ty Kawika Tengan at 2011 SHA

Conference on Maui.



Waihe‘e Coastal Dunes & Wetland Refuge, presently undermanagement by the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust. Steward-ship activities revolve around wildlife habitat restoration andarchaeological protection and interpretation.

Many other examples can be listed that attest to the work thatDana Naone Hall has done, including past efforts to stop theextension of the Kahului Airport Runway and her currentstruggle at Kula Ridge. Equally important has been herimpact in the fields of education and in the arts. She has con-tributed to numerous collections of poetry and scholarshipand edited the landmark collection Malama, Hawaiian Landand Water (Bamboo Ridge Press, 1985). She also helped pro-duce a video on kalo farming entitled Back to the Roots (1994)and is featured in the State Historic Preservation’s video NaIwi Kupuna (2003). University of Colorado Religion profes-sor Gregory Johnson in his letter of support for the Hawai‘iCultural Stewardship Award rightly notes that “Naone Hallis a steward of living tradition” who has found a nationalaudience for her local work. Hokulani Holt-Padilla, therespected kumu hula and Cultural Programs Director of theMaui Arts & Cultural Center, notes, “Dana’s many personaland professional advocacies have always been to benefit our‘aina and its people” (6/30/11 email). Writing on behalf ofNaki‘ikeaho, I can think of no better model for Native Hawai-ian cultural stewardship than Dana Naone Hall. We all striveto follow the path that she poetically mapped out in her 1985poem that I end with here.

Ka Mo‘olelo o Ke AlanuiThe story of the roadDana Naone Hall

More than four hundred years ago,as it comes down to us, the road was built by Kiha‘api‘ilani, who spread his cape over Maui.When the ‘ohi‘a blossoms were tossed by the wind he travelled to the island of Hawai‘i to ask for ‘Umi’s help, and returned with a fleet of canoes and warriors to conquer Hana. From Hana the rest of the island fell to him like ripe fruit.In the years that followed, the farmers and fishermen, native tenants of the land, placed on the brow of the coast, as it circled the island, a road to catch the falling sound of the runner’s feet.Kukini carried messages past petals of cliffs opening in mist.

Near the shore, the akule, silver black and still quivering, was divided among the paddlers and those who helped bring in the nets.The white tapa hung from the pole announced the arrival of Lono Makua during the Makahiki.Feathers and the food of the land were brought to the ahu along the road where the god in his pig form was waiting.Closer to our time, cattle crossed the road and were herded to the anchored boat. Poi, wrapped in ti leaves, came by way of another boat from Kıhei.Horses, oxen and wagons stirred up the dust of the road, pausing at one store, where hands exchanged things over counters, then continued on into this century.Now there is car surf on the road and the waves keep breaking.Dust mixing with salt air.After all these years, we are being told that the road will be closed. Those who propose it don’t know the road is alive.Give up the road they tell us and it will be replaced with a sign that says we can get to the beach this way, only don’t get off the path or cut across the grass, and hang on to your children not to mention don’t loose your cooler until you hit the sand.For all your troubles there’ll be a comfort station in the parking lot (a comfort to whom?) and even a concrete trail to mark where the old road once passed between the hotel and the beach, open so many hours a day and closed when the sun goes down.The lizard woman is talking but who is listening? At night, when the island is deep

in the crater of sleep, across the channel the mo‘o raises its head

one eye reflecting the moon.



Ka Mo’olelo o ke Alanui” expresses an ongoing connec-tion to the old coastal road in the Makena area, whichevolved from the ancient trail that circled the island of

Maui. Our work, as Hui Alanui o Makena, in preserving thisimportant traditional access to the shoreline led us to Hon-okahua. Culturally and spiritually, we walked on the trail toreach Honokahua where a three-year long battle to protectthe Honokahua Burial Site began.

The trail next led us to Waihe’e where another three-yearstruggle occurred over preservation of this wahi pana (leg-endary place). The magnificent sand dune at Waihe’e, nearly300 feet above mean sea level, appears as a crescent-shapedfeature embracing and defining the two shoreline ‘ili ofKapoho and Kapokea where at least three heiau were built,and one, Kealaka’ihonua, is still visible today. The Waihe’eDune was used over a longer period of time even than thedunes at Honokahua, and houses yet more iwi kupuna(ancestral burials).

After many years of working on burial issues, it is my beliefthat if iwi kupuna are protected and left undisturbed in theirhomeland where they were laid to rest, we too have a home.Burial sites are an integral part of our sovereignty as Hawai-ian people. These ancestral burial places constitute sovereignground.

The work I have engaged in for nearly 30 years, protectingand preserving historic and cultural sites and lands, hasrubbed against the political grain. In fact, anyone who knowsMaui issues might be tempted to say that I have a problemwith authority. But even powerful economic and politicalforces can be deflected on occasion to save some irreplace-able part of our collective heritage. The desecration of theHonokahua Burial Site was a foregone conclusion before ourinvolvement. Powerless to prevent the excavations, all wecould do was insist on agreements made as to the manner inwhich the digging would occur. In this endeavor, we wereassisted by Theresa Donham, the project field supervisor,who adhered meticulously to the agreements and was always

forthcoming, truthful, and informative about the excava-tions. She also made it clear that she thought the excavationwas wrong. I learned a great deal about archaeology, prac-ticed at a high level at Honokahua (albeit in service to anunjust end), which caused me to examine the ethical andmoral dimensions of the profession.

Many Hawaiian oli (chants) and mo’olelo (stories) speak ofcompanions on the way. In this respect, I would like toacknowledge my husband, Isaac Hall, my companion dissi-dent. And, since I spoke briefly about Waihe’e, I would alsolike to acknowledge Burt Sakata, who was one of the Waihe’ecommunity members instrumental in saving those preciouscoastal lands from golf course development. In the heat ofthe controversy, very few contemplated a different fate forWaihe’e.

I am astonished by the elements of our past that still exist— many of which are uncovered through archaeological activi-ties. I deliberately refrain from referring to what is found asfragments because doing so suggests that we are fragment-ed ourselves. To me, gratitude is an appropriate response toencountering and being in touch (literally) with still-existentsites.

For example, on the island of O’ahu, intact, traditional buri-als were found beneath urban fill in the original matrix of abackshore dune system ma uka (inland) of Ala Moana Boule-vard. I now see that area with different eyes. In anotherinstance, if one stood on the second-floor balcony of ‘IolaniPalace a hundred years ago and looked west, beyond theancient burials continuing their moe loa (long sleep) at Kawa-iaha’o, the shoreline of Honuakaha would be visible just makai (seaward) of Queen Street.

The ancient pathways to ancestral sites continue to be trav-eled by our imaginative and spiritual selves. A spark of kin-ship can bridge centuries of time in the flash of a moment asoccurred to me one day at Waihe’e when I unexpectedly sawthe top half of a lei opu’u (a bud-shaped neck ornament) and

THE ROAD TO CULTURAL JUSTICEDana Naone Hall

Dana Naone Hall is the Recipient of the Hawaii Cultural Stewardship Award from Na Ki’i Ke Aho and the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology



realized I was the first Hawaiian to see this ornament sinceit had been separated from the person to whom it belonged.

Because of an abiding interest in continuity and the possi-bilities of re-connection, I do not relish being the last person,or among the last, to glimpse a site before it is destroyed,especially before we have an understanding of what that sitemay be— its age, function, significance, and part, if any, in alarger pattern. There is often an essential conflict with devel-oper-driven archaeology, which attempts to navigate the reg-ulatory process as quickly and inexpensively as possible. Thedesired outcome is that historic preservation review will haveas little effect as possible on land development plans.

Unfortunately, far too many historic sites given State Inven-tory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers end up beingdestroyed because they are considered significant for Criteri-on D (information content) only, and are neatly and irrevo-cably written off by the declaration that sufficient informa-tion has been obtained from the site. I have come to think ofCriterion D as the default criterion. An ironic tragedy is thatmany of the sites consigned to destruction by the liberal useof this criterion are pre-contact or early historic in age andthus of particular value to Hawaiians. Yet, the purportedinformation obtained from sites-so-designated rarely reachesbeyond a handful of individuals.

Hawaii’s historic preservation laws place an affirmative dutyon the state and its political subdivisions, the counties, toprotect and conserve historic and cultural sites for futuregenerations. The historic preservation review process inHawai’i relies on archaeological inventory surveys, and thereports generated by those surveys.

Since most surveys are conducted in a land developmentcontext, these situations are ripe for conflict. The necessityfor an adequate survey is illustrated by an example fromMaui of an extensive historic and cultural complex that is indanger of being destroyed before we know what is presentand can make wise decisions about what should be pre-served.

The area of concern is an open midland above the town ofKula with the distinctive octagonal-sided Holy Ghost Churchin the lower right-hand corner (Figure 1). The 272-acre par-cel, slated for subdivision development, is bisected by a sin-uous line of green, which marks Keahuaiwi Gulch. Literallytranslated, Keahuaiwi is the bone shrine or the bone altar.Despite its evocative name, the majority of the gulch locatedwithin the project area has not undergone an archaeologicalinventory survey (AIS).

The curve of a graded access road can be seen on the southside (to the right) of the gulch as well as numerous terraces,walls, and rock mounds. A multitude of surface features arealso present on the north side. In all, 1,349 archaeologicalfeatures were identified. The great majority of those features(1,218), located on both the south and north sides of thegulch, were incorporated into one SIHP site number, Site 50-50-11-6338. Lumping together an unprecedented number offeatures from different temporal periods, into one vast non-contiguous site spread over several hundred acres, raisesserious concerns. The following bullet points further ques-tion the accuracy and adequacy of the inventory surveyreport.

• The AIS report does not include a large format map that

Figure 1: An aerial view of a relatively intact historic complex above the

town of Kula on the island of Maui. Photo by Masako Cordray.

Figure 2: One of two single feature enclosure sites slated for interim

preservation. The orange tape marks a 5-meter buffer around the site.

Photo by Masako Cordray.



clearly shows the locations and feature numbers of the1,349 features recorded. The tiny 51⁄2 x 8 inch map that isprovided depicts features as miniscule squiggles, dotsand lines, none of which are numbered.

• Only 3 out of 743 terraces were subjected to subsurfacetesting. None of the terraces associated with Site 6338were tested.

• The second-most numerous category of features was rockmounds. None of the 309 rock mounds were tested withthe result that their functions and ages are listed asunknown. Rock mounds marking or sheltering burialshave been found elsewhere in Kula and are present inother moku (districts) on Maui as well. It is well knownthat burials are an integral component of the settlementlandscape. Not testing features where burials are likely tobe found frustrates the purpose of an AIS.

• Twenty-five features out of 1,349 (less than 2 percent)were tested. Many of these test units were only .5 x .5meters in size. Test units were terminated due to “timeconstraints” even when subsurface architecture wasfound. Provisional language appears throughout the AISreport. Examples include the interpretation of a terrace as“a possible pre-contact habitation feature,” the presenceof “possible uprights,” and “possible” pieces of unidenti-fied bone noted at other features.

• Out of 1,349 features, only 68 features are designated forpermanent preservation.

Thirty-nine sites were newly identified, according to the AIS.The only sites slated for preservation on the south side ofKeahuaiwi Gulch were two small enclosures, one of which isshown in Figure 2. Both enclosures are single feature sitesassessed as significant for Criterion D only and, therefore, arebeing preserved on an interim basis as “data banks.” No test-

ing was conducted on either enclosure during the AIS andtheir ages are listed as undetermined. Long terrace walls, aswell as numerous rock mounds surround the enclosures.

On the northern side of Keahuaiwi Gulch, there are excellentexamples of historic ranching features. None are earmarkedfor preservation (Figures 3 and 4). The AIS acknowledges thatthe parcel contains one of the few remaining upper elevation(2,972 to 3,107 feet) agricultural field systems, including theremains of an extensive ‘auwai (water channel) system.

Given the great number of agricultural and habitation fea-tures indicating long periods of successful farming activitiesand settlement, it is inconceivable that heiau and other struc-tures devoted to ceremonial purposes were not identifiedduring the AIS. Religion was at the heart of pre-contact soci-ety in Hawaii, and places where offerings were made to thegods and ceremonies conducted to ensure fertility and pro-ductivity would have been an inextricable part of the culturallandscape.

As the name Keahuaiwi indicates, this land is a quintessen-tial kulaiwi (native homeland). A supplemental AIS, whichaddresses the numerous, serious inadequacies of the currentreport is not only warranted— it is a matter of cultural justice.

Figure 3: Historic ranching features on the north side of the gulch. Photo

by Masako Cordray.

Figure 4: A closer view of some of the ranching features. Photo by

Masako Cordray.


commitment in them— that marked hergreatest academic achievement. She some-times expressed regret that her publicationrecord was not larger, but it was her generos-ity in sharing time and research opportuni-ties with her students that cut into time andenergy that might otherwise have been spentpursuing publication. The number of CSUgraduates with successful careers in anthro-pology, each making contributions toresearch, teaching, or resource management,is a legacy that far outweighs the value of afew more publications.

Liz retired in 1988. She moved to Tucson and then back toColorado, where she continued to travel, maintain a lifelongcorrespondence with friends and colleagues at home andabroad, volunteer, serve as research associate at several insti-tutions, do fieldwork, and write. Collaboration with KelleyHays-Gilpin and Ann Deegan produced the 1998 monographPrehistoric Sandals from Northeastern Arizona: The Earl H.Morris and Ann Axtell Morris Research. Most recently, her 2010article in Current Research in the Pleistocene described the Pale-oindian component of the Carey Lake Site (5LR230), a prod-uct of 25 years of CSU research in the Rawah Mountains.

Liz served in numerous regional and national professionalsocieties over her career, ranging from editor of both Kiva andPlains Anthropologist; to Colorado Historical Society Board ofDirectors member; to the Membership Coordinator, Plainsand Mountain States Region of the Society for HistoricalArchaeology; to the Publications Committee Chair of the Soci-ety for American Archaeology. As a result of such dedicatedwork, she received a number of honors including the 1991Byron S. Cummings Award for outstanding contributions inArizona archaeology and the 1999 C.T. Hurst Award for out-standing service to Colorado archaeology. In April of this year,Liz turned 80 and received her final honor: a symposium heldin recognition of her lifelong contributions to archaeology atthe annual meeting of the Colorado Council of ProfessionalArchaeologists.

—Kelly J. Pool and Michael D. Metcalf

Elizabeth Ann “Liz” Morris, age 80,passed away peacefully at home in Bay-field, Colorado, on June 28, 2012. She

was born in Omaha, Nebraska, on April 19,1932, and raised in Boulder, Colorado, thedaughter of archaeologists Earl and AnnAxtell Morris.

Initially planning a career in chemistry, Liz’sinterests changed to archaeology following asummer on the 1951 Chicago Natural Histo-ry Museum’s Southwestern ArchaeologicalExpedition at Pine Lawn, New Mexico. Hergraduate coursework was conducted under Emil Haury atUniversity of Arizona (U of A), with summers (1955–1958)spent digging at Point of Pines. Her 1959 dissertation was ananalysis of her father’s Carnegie Institution excavations inArizona, left incomplete at his death. The next year, Lizbecame the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in Anthropology at Uof A. Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock District, Northeast-ern Arizona was published in 1980, part of the university’sAnthropological Papers series.

Liz worked abroad for several years following graduation, firston Robert Braidwood’s Iranian Prehistoric Project and then atHallam Movius’s French Upper Paleolithic site Abri Pataud,where she met and married archaeologist Jonathan Gell. Inthe early 1960s, Liz largely devoted herself to raising sonsEthan and Benjamin, but by 1966, she had begun her teach-ing career at Philadelphia’s Temple University.

In 1970 following a divorce, Liz accepted a position in Col-orado State University’s (CSU) Sociology and AnthropologyDepartment. Her commitment to research, teaching, andengaging students created a legacy for the Department ofAnthropology at CSU as well as for Mountain and HighPlains archaeology over the next two decades. Usually accom-panied by her sons and dog, she founded and maintained along-running field school and conducted original research ata number of Mountain and High Plains sites. She helped nur-ture a small but high quality MA program within an inde-pendent Department of Anthropology and also inspired andhelped launch the careers of a succession of young anthro-pologists. It was Liz’s investment in students— her ability notonly to teach them effectively, but also to instill a sense of

IN MEMORIAM

ELIZABETH ANN “LIZ” MORRIS1932–2012

Advisory Board for the Oklahoma Archaeo-logical Survey from 1986 until his death. Heserved on the Society of ProfessionalArchaeologist’s Committee for Certificationin Teaching, as chairman of the Society forAmerican Archaeology’s Excellence in Lith-ic Studies and Excellence in ArchaeologicalAnalysis Committees, as president of theTulsa Archaeological Society, and as Treas-urer for the Society for American Archaeol-ogy. He was equally active within the uni-versity community, serving on many com-mittees, as Anthropology undergraduateadvisor, graduate advisor, and as chairman

of the department. Inside and outside of the university,George was known and trusted by all as the person to go towhen something needed to be done and done well.

In the classroom, George was an engaging and popularteacher who communicated the excitement of learning to hisstudents. He taught everything from freshman introductoryclasses to graduate seminars with the same witty and good-humored air, and he freely offered individual tutorials in hisspecialty of lithic use wear. Those who wanted to learn invari-ably found George to be an unstinting source of knowledge.He was twice nominated for the university’s DistinguishedTeaching Award that is given annually among the top 1 per-cent of the faculty.

George H. Odell was well liked by a very large number of peo-ple, and his loss was devastating to all who knew him. He wasalways cheerful, optimistic, and hard-working, and he was adeeply moral man who always tried to do the right thing. Heis sorely missed by his friends, students, colleagues, and asso-ciates. He is survived by his wife, Frieda Odell.

—Michael E. Whalen

George Hamley Odell, 69, suddenlypassed away at home on 14 October2011. He received his Bachelor of Arts

degree from Yale University in 1964, a Masterof Arts in Teaching from Yale in 1965, and aPh.D. in Anthropology, with specialization inarchaeology, from Harvard University in 1977.He had a long career in education, teachingAmerican History, English, and World Historyin the U.S. and in Europe. After returning tograduate school for his Ph.D., he served asVisiting Assistant Professor of Anthropologyat the University of British Columbia(1977–78) and at Brown University (1978–79).From 1979 to 1984 he was director of the Lithic Analysis Lab-oratory at the Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville,Illinois. He joined the Anthropology faculty at the Universityof Tulsa in 1984 as an Assistant Professor, rising through theranks to Full Professor. His untimely death came in his lastyear of teaching before retirement.

George was a prolific scholar who published three books, twoedited volumes, 31 articles in refereed journals, 21 essays inbooks and proceedings publications, five published com-ments and letters, and 42 book reviews, and a long list of pro-fessional presentations at local, state, national, and interna-tional gatherings. He was particularly well known for his pio-neering work in lithic use-wear analysis, and the frequencywith which he was sought as a reviewer, consultant, and out-side committee member for theses and dissertations testifiesto his reputation in the profession. He resurrected the JournalLithic Technology and served as its editor for more than adecade. He received several local and state citations of meritfor his work in Oklahoma archaeology as well as the Excel-lence in Archaeological Analysis Award from the Society forAmerican Archaeology.

As dedicated as he was to research, George found time formany service activities. He was a member of the Citizen’s

IN MEMORIAM

GEORGE H. ODELL1942–2011



NEWS & NOTES

The National Park Service’s 2013workshop on archaeologicalprospection techniques entitled

Current Archaeological ProspectionAdvances for Non-Destructive Investigationsin the 21st Century will be held May 13–17,2013, at the Cedar Point Biological Sta-tion near Ogallala, Nebraska. Lodgingwill be at the Cedar Point Biological Sta-tion. The field exercises will take place atthe site of Alkali Station near Paxton,Nebraska. Alkali Station was a major trailfacility used by travelers on the Oregonand California trails, the Pony Express,the transcontinental telegraph, and thefrontier army. Co-sponsors for the work-shop include the National Park Service’sMidwest Archeological Center, the LuteFamily, and the University of Nebraska’sCedar Point Biological Station. This willbe the twenty-second year of the work-shop dedicated to the use of geophysical,aerial photography, and other remotesensing methods as they apply to theidentification, evaluation, conservation,and protection of archaeologicalresources across this Nation. The work-shop will present lectures on the theoryof operation, methodology, processing,and interpretation with on-hands use ofthe equipment in the field. There is a reg-istration charge of $475.00. Applicationforms are available on the MidwestArcheological Center’s web page athttp://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/. For fur-ther information, please contact Steven L.DeVore, Archeologist, National ParkService, Midwest Archeological Center,Federal Building, Room 474, 100 Centen-nial Mall North, Lincoln, Nebraska68508-3873: tel: (402) 437-5392, ext. 141;fax: (402) 437-5098; email:[email protected].

The MA in Heritage Management(Kent-AUEB) is delighted toannounce three scholarship pro-

grammes: The “Stavros Niarchos Foun-dation Scholarship for students from the

developing world” programme, the Ful-bright scholarship for an American stu-dent, and the Kent scholarships for anystudent. The MA in Heritage Manage-ment is a unique collaboration betweenthe worlds of Archaeology (University ofKent, Canterbury with leading heritagemanagement projects) and Business(Athens University of Economics andBusiness with one of the top 30 MBAsinternationally). Courses include Educa-tion and Archaeology, Archaeological SiteManagement and Planning, HumanResources Management for Culturalorganisations and Strategic Planning,Public Archaeology, Tourism Marketing,Project Management and others. Allcourses are taught in English, at or nextto the archaeological site of Eleusis(home of the most famous mystic cults ofantiquity) 25 km away from Athens,Greece. At the end of their studies stu-dents receive two titles: one from Kentand one from AUEB. Fees are the samefor both EU and non EU students at7.500 Euros.The scholarships are decidedon the basis of academic merit and back-ground. There is a variety of half fees, fullfees, and comprehensive scholarships(covering both fees and living expenses).For more information please contact [email protected] and consult www.her-itage.aueb.gr

SRI Foundation (www.srifounda-tion.org) and the Department ofAnthropology, University of Mary-

land (UMD) once again will offer theSummer Institute in Cultural ResourceManagement. After one week of inten-sive classroom instruction at the UMD’sCollege Park campus, students can par-ticipate in supervised internships for sixweeks. Internships will be with federal,state, local, or tribal agencies; private-sec-tor firms; or historic preservation organi-zations across in the country. Enrolleesmay earn up to 9 units of undergraduateor graduate credit. The classroominstruction at UMD will be held June17–22, 2013. The six-week internshipmay start as early as June 24 and be com-pleted no later than August 30, 2013.

Information on registration for the Sum-mer Institute can be found athttp://www.bsos.umd.edu/anth/Pro-grams/SummerInstitute/index.html. Dr.Carla Van West (505-892-5587; [email protected]) can addressquestions concerning class content andinternships. Mr. Erik Hanson (301-405-1436; [email protected]) canaddress questions concerning UMDtuition, fees, schedule, and arrange-ments.

The California Series in PublicAnthropology is continuing itsInternational Competition in 2013.

It seeks proposals for short books orient-ed toward undergraduates that focus onhow social scientists are facilitating socialchange. We are looking for accessible,grounded accounts that present com-pelling stories, stories that inspire others.The proposals should describe a bookthat will be relatively short— around 100 pages— with a personal touch that cap-tures the lives of people. The core of thebook should involve stories of one ormore social scientists as change agents,as making a difference in the world. TheUniversity of California Press in associa-tion with the Center for a Public Anthro-pology will award publishing contractsfor up to three such book proposals inde-pendent of whether the manuscriptsthemselves have been completed. Theproposals can describe work the authorwishes to undertake in the near future.Interested individuals should submit a3–4,000 word overview of their proposed manuscript— detailing (a) the problemaddressed as well as (b) a summary ofwhat each chapter covers. The proposalshould be written in a manner that non-academic readers find interesting andthought-provoking. Deadline for submis-sions is March 1, 2013. Submissionsshould be emailed to: [email protected] with the relevantmaterial enclosed as attachments.


POSITIONS OPEN

position: assistant professorlocation: berkeley, californiaThe Department of Anthropology at theUniversity of California, Berkeley seeksto fill a tenure-track, junior position(Assistant Professor) in the area of theanthropology of media to begin July 1,2013. Suitable applicants should beengaged in analytically rich and ethno-graphically driven research on topicsconcerning the production, circulation,and uptake of media artifacts, aestheticforms, and practices. Areas of special-ization we are interested in span both“old” media (print, radio, TV, film) and“new” media (Internet, smart phones).Active participation in both undergradu-ate and PhD programs, teaching bothintroductory and upper division courses,as well as graduate seminars is expected.Applicants should have the Ph.D. orequivalent at time of appointment andshould send a CV, a succinct cover letterdescribing your research and teachingexperience, and the names and full con-tact information of three people whowould be able to provide letters of rec-ommendation. All letters will be treatedas confidential per University of Califor-nia policy and California state law.Please refer potential referees, includingwhen letters are provided via a thirdparty (i.e. dossier service or career cen-ter), to the UC Berkeley statement ofconfidentiality: http://apo.chance.berke-ley.edu/evalltr.html. Applications mustbe received by February 15, 2013 and allsupplemental materials must bereceived no later than March 1, 2013.Review of applications

position: assistant professor(tenure-track)location: mankato, minnesotaThe Anthropology Department at Min-nesota State Mankato invites applica-tions for a tenure-track position inAnthropology at the Assistant Professor

level, to begin August 19, 2013. We seekan archaeologist specializing in LatinAmerica with an ongoing research pro-gram having the potential to involve stu-dents. Applicants should be prepared toteach undergraduate and graduatecourses in archaeology and anthropolo-gy; mentor students; and otherwise con-tribute to a four-field undergraduate andmaster’s program. A Ph.D. in Anthro-pology by time of appointment andexperience in teaching undergraduate orgraduate level Anthropology or relatedcourses required. Priority considerationwill be given to applications received byJanuary 14, 2013. To apply for this posi-tion and reference a complete jobdescription, please visit our website at:http://agency/governmentjobs.com/mankato/. AA/EOE and a member of theMinnesota State Colleges and Universi-ties System.

position: post-doctoral scholarlocation: buffalo, new yorkPost-doctoral Scholar Position 2013-2014, SUNY Buffalo. SUNY Buffaloseeks a Post-doctoral Scholar (PS) for itsinterdisciplinary Institute for Europeanand Mediterranean Archaeology(IEMA). During a 10-month tenure, thePS teaches one graduate seminar(preferably on the topic of the sympo-sium), organizes a symposium, andedits a subsequent volume reflectingIEMA’s focus on post-Pleistocene Euro-pean and Mediterranean anthropologi-cal and classical archaeology. Applica-tion letter, vitae, list of references, and 3-page description of proposed sympo-sium topic, including intended invitees,must be received by March 1, 2013 foran August 2013 start, pending finalbudgetary approval. Email application orinquiries to IEMA Director:[email protected]. The University atBuffalo is an affirmative action/equalopportunity employer.

CALENDAR

APRIL 3–778th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology. Honolulu,Hawaii. www.saa.org.

MAY 15–19Canadian Archaeological AssociationAnnual Meeting. Whistler, BritishColumbia. Contact: Eldon [email protected].

MAY 26–31International Rock Art Congress will beheld at the Marriott Pyramid NorthHotel, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.Hosted by American Rock Art ResearchAssociation (ARARA). Registration and moreinformation: http://www.ifrao2013.org. Contacts: Conference Co-Chair: DonnaGillette [email protected], 805-343- 2575; Conference Co-Chair: PeggyWhitehead [email protected], 303-426-7672. ARARA website www.arara.org.

NOVEMBER 20–24The 112th AAA Annual Meeting will beheld at the Chicago Hilton in Chicago,IL. The 2013 meeting theme is FuturePublics, Current Engagements (http://aaanet.org/meetings).

2014

AUGUST 8–102a Conferencia Intercontinental, Lima,Perú.


¡Ya viene laSegunda

ConferenciaIntercontinental!

Lima, PerúAgosto, 2014

Espere más información pronto

To explore new insights intoHuman Evolution, Behavior,

Society, or Culture

Call for ProposalsAdvanced Seminars

Schoo l for Advanced Research

SAR

Deadline is April 1, 2013 for a seminar to be conducted within 18–24 months.

Send letters or inquiries to:Advanced Seminar Program

School for Advanced ResearchPO Box 2188, Santa Fe, NM 87504-2188

NNeeww ccoouurrsseess ooffffeerreedd bbyy tthhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff CCoolloorraaddoo

CCeenntteerr ffoorr CCooggnniittiivvee AArrcchhaaeeoollooggyy

• History of Cognitive Archaeology Since 1969with Prof. Thomas Wynn, University of Colorado

• Cognitive Evolution with Profs. Thomas Wynn and Frederick L. Coolidge, University of Colorado

• Neandertal Cognition with Profs Thomas Wynn • Neandertal Cognition Profs. Thomas Wynn and Frederick L. Coolidge, University of Colorado

• Paleoneurology with Prof. Emiliano Bruner, Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain

• Rock Art and Modern Cognition with Prof. Iain Davidson, Emeritus Professor, University of New England, New South Wales, AustraliaEngland, New South Wales, Australia

• Symbolic Evolution with Prof. April Nowell, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

• Language Typology and Universals in Relation to Language Origins, Cognition, and Social Discourse with Prof. Linda Watts, University of Colorado

These 3 credit courses are a ailable online at both theThese 3-credit courses are available online at both theundergraduate and graduate levels. Sign up through theCollege of Letters, Arts and Sciences Extended Studies.Enroll now or ask questions:

Contact: [email protected] or [email protected]: www.uccs.edu/~lases or www.uccs.edu/~cca/

See You in Honolulu, HI!April 3–7, 2013 • www.saa.org/annualmeetingJoin the Conversation! Mention #SAA2013 on Twitter, Facebook, and now Instagram for all Annual Meeting Related Posts

Photo: Leahi (Diamond Head). H

awaii Tourism Authority (HTA) / Tor Johnson

FORTHCOMING IN 2013!

Hawaii’s Past in a World of Pacific Islands

By James M. Bayman and Thomas S. Dye

A NEW VOLUME IN THE SAA CONTEMPORARYPERSPECTIVES SERIES

Non-Profit OrgUS POSTAGE PAID

HANOVER, PA 17331PERM

IT NO 4SOCIETY

FORAMERICA

NARCH

AEO

LOGY

1111 14th Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, D

C 20005

Change Service R

equested

Coming Soon in 2013! Two Exciting Initiatives from SAA!

Current Research Online

SAA Online Seminar Series

Stay tuned!

Date post:	02-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongphuc
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

ANUARY 2013 • V OLUME 13 • N UMBER 1 - Archaeology · JANUARY 2013 • V OLUME 13 • N UMBER 1...

Documents