News

If there’s one thing that the controversies surrounding the Diggers and American Digger reality shows have taught us, it’s that the general American public still does not know how to tell the difference between historical archaeologists, and the treasure hunters who are currently on their TV screens. Furthermore, this lack of public knowledge helps to make our protests sound like the “ivory tower elite” complaining because we are the only people who should be allowed to use the very resource of which we also claim to be guardians.  We talk a lot in archaeology, anthropology—and even academia in general—about being more “public” or becoming “public intellectuals;” the reality, however, is that we are still not doing enough.

Back in September, The Chronicle of Higher Education‘s ProfHacker blog posted an open question to its readers: “How do you make your work visible?”  The post was about the fact that we need to be able to engage people outside the academic world.  We should, at least, be able to explain 1) what we do and 2) why it is important.  According to the post, academia has a “self-induced opacity that makes it difficult for anyone outside colleges and universities to understand—or even care—what it is scholars and teachers do.”  I think this is further underscored for anthropology, a discipline of which very few Americans have general knowledge. In fact, about the same time last fall, the American Anthropologist reprinted Jeremy Sabloff’s excellent 2010 AAA distinguished lecture “Where have you gone, Margret Mead? Anthropology and Public Intellectual” in which Dr. Sabloff states:

Anthropologists have important, practical knowledge, but the mainstream, public and policy maker alike, generally does not understand or appreciate our insights. But we all are in a position to change this situation. I will try to tell you why and how in the pages that follow. The title of my article—with apologies to Paul Simon—is “Where Have You Gone, Margaret Mead?,” but perhaps in a more direct manner it could have been “We Urgently Need Anthropological Public Intellectuals” (Sabloff 2011).

However, Sabloff seems to making a call for some sort of “anthropological superstar” to appear; someone who will be a pundit on all the chat shows and spar with Anderson Cooper about public policy.  It feels to me like waiting for such a charismatic superstar anthropologist (or historical archaeologist for that matter) to take the stage and capture America’s hearts and minds allows us to shirk our duty to become public intellectuals.  This doge is especially convenient for young scholars as the academy still does not value public outreach.  As Matt Thompson has pointed out in his “We Don’t Need Another Hero” blog post for Savage Minds: “You can’t make a career publishing in journals of history, American studies, or education. If you want to be an anthropologist you are expected to publish in anthropology journals. Interdisciplinarity [and public outreach] be damned.” As Thompson goes on to say:

“What I’m trying to say is don’t sit around waiting for the next Margaret Mead…Find something where you are, some way to play a role however small and do it. It doesn’t have to be hard. You don’t have to write a grant. Just share what you know and what you do with the people around you.”

I am lucky in this regard.  My job as Research Station Archeologist with the Arkansas Archeological Survey has a sort of “built-in” public outreach component—one that dovetails nicely with my own personality and desire to interact with (and educate) the outside world (yeah, I’m an egoist that way…In fact, “public intellectual” may be a fancy buzz word for someone who, for whatever deep psychological reason, feels he/she must perform in public).

In addition to teaching, research and volunteer excavations, I have given over 100 public talks over the last 5 years (averaging a bit more than one a month).  Over the past two years, I have been a part of two documentaries produced by AETN (Arkansas Educational Television)—one about cemetery preservation in the state  (Silent Storytellers, released March 11, 2010) and one about why we should commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in Arkansas (Arkansas CW150, released April 29, 2011).  Interestingly, although these are important outreach efforts (and efforts that are considered a part of my job), I personally feel that my use of digital and social media (listservs, blogs, Facebook and Twitter) have been a more important outreach tool for me.  I get as much feedback from my on-line presence as I do the documentary TV shows, and this underscores Thompson’s point above—“Just share what you know and what you do with the people around you.”

I understand that I am blessed with a job that values public outreach, but there are many, many, many great examples of individuals in the academy, government agencies and the private sector that mange to make public outreach their business despite the heavy demands from research, teaching, setting public policy or trying to make a profit.  I am grateful to these folks—from Judy Bense (President of the University of West Florida ) who hosts a very popular one-minute daily radio program “Unearthing Pensacola” on the local National Public Radio affiliate (WUWF 88.1 FM), to my friend Greg Vogel who (although an Assistant Professor at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville with a heavy teaching load) regularly writes newspaper columns and does a monthly interview on a morning news/talk show on WJBM 1480 AM, Jerseyville, Illinois, to our current SHA president Paul Mullins giving talks at places like Brownsburg High School in Brownsburg, Indiana.  This last event I only know about because Mullins posted it on Facebook last week.  If I may underscore my point above about social media, through the very simple and quick act of posting a phone picture, Mullins told almost 400 people who follow him on Facebook and Twitter about “what he does.” (Find other SHA members who use Twitter here).

On the larger scale, we need to change how we view public outreach in our discipline. In 2009 when PBS aired Time Team America, some of my colleagues (and you know who you are) expressed condescending opinions about the show and what they thought of as “prostituting” science for public consumption. I would urge them to rethink these views.  Time Team may not be Sabloff’s “anthropological superstar,” but wouldn’t you rather have a show that taught the general public what we do, how we do it and why it is important in place of the current crop of reality shows?

We should all participate on some level in the public arena…and we need to change the structural disciplinary biases against public outreach.  If we do not, others will fill that vacuum in American popular culture—others like Diggers and American Digger.

If we are unhappy with these shows (including Time Team America?), we need to ask ourselves “What should the public image of historical archaeology look like?” and “How do we get there?”  I believe the answer is not in a single pop culture icon (i.e., Mead) or show (i.e., Time Team), but in all of us doing small, daily acts of outreach. So we all need to ask ourselves on a regular basis, “What have I done lately to tell people what I do, and why it is important?”…What are you doing to make historical archaeology visible?

References Cited

• Sabloff, Jeremy A.
  • 2011 Where Have You Gone, Margaret Mead? Anthropology and Public Intellectuals. American Anthropologist 113(3):408–416.

The Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre, on Leicester's 'Golden Mile'

The next SHA conference in Leicester in January 2013 takes the theme of globalization, immigration, and transformation, themes that are central to practice and research in historical and post-medieval archaeology. The conference theme is particularly pertinent for the host city Leicester, a multicultural city that, like many others in the United Kingdom, has been transformed since the middle of the 20th century through its interaction with global networks, particularly immigration from South Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean—a pattern of immigration that reflects the once-global nature of the former British Empire.

These issues of globalization, immigration, and the transformations brought about by those processes, whether that entailed the global spread of European capitalism alongside the expansion of European colonialism, the willing or forced migration of millions of individuals to new homelands, or local, regional, and national transformations across the world, will be explored throughout the conference, and in particular during the Plenary Session.

In keeping with the conference theme, the 2013 plenary session will involve an international panel of speakers, who will present short case studies from their own work, followed by a panel discussion relating these case studies to the conference theme. At the time of writing, the confirmed plenary session participants include Daniel Schávelzon (Patrimonio e Instituto Histórico de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires & University of Buenos Aires), Innocent Pikirayi (University of Pretoria), Jon Prangnell (University of Queensland), Natascha Mehler (University of Vienna), Lt. Cmdr. Somasiri Devendra (Sri Lankan Navy, retired), and Giovanna Vitelli (St. Mary’s College of Maryland); the session will be cochaired by Alasdair Brooks (University of Leicester) and Eleanor Casella (University of Manchester).

Conference Committee
The 2013 Conference Committee will be working hard this year to bring you an enjoyable and stimulating conference in Leicester; you can find out more about the committee members by following the links below. If you have any questions or suggestions, please get in touch with the relevant committee member.

Conference Chairs: Audrey Horning (Queens University Belfast); Sarah Tarlow, (University of Leicester)
Program Chair: Alasdair Brooks (University of Leicester)
Terrestrial Chairs: Audrey Horning (Queens University Belfast); Craig Cipolla (University of Leicester)
Underwater Chair: Colin Breen (University of Ulster)
Underwater Program Committee: Joe Flatman (Institute of Archaeology, UCL)
Local Arrangements Chair: Ruth Young (University of Leicester)
Trips, Tours, and Visits Chairs: Marilyn Palmer (University of Leicester); Chris King (University of Nottingham)
Public Event Chairs: Debbie Miles-Williams; Richard Thomas (both University of Leicester)
Social Media: Emma Dwyer (University of Leicester)
Volunteer Coordinator: Sarah Newstead (University of Leicester)
Publicity: Ralph Mills
Roundtables: Deirdre O’Sullivan (University of Leicester)
Workshops: Carl Carlson-Drexler

[CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] via Flickr

Are you a specialist in conservation, mapping, or some other archaeological technique or topic? Would you like to show your colleagues what your specialty could bring to archaeological research? If so, perhaps you should consider hosting a workshop at an upcoming SHA conference.

Workshops are a great way to get a small number of people in a room for a day-long (or half-day-long, if you prefer) educational session. You get great one-on-one time with your participants, without the more substantial commitment of teaching a full class.

Each year, on the Wednesday before the conference kicks off, the SHA hosts a slate of workshops aimed at professional development. These have ranged in recent years from archaeological illustration to documentary filmmaking and from preserving underwater heritage to disaster planning for archaeological collections. We will, of course, be hosting workshops again in Leicester. While some workshops take place year-to-year, we always are interested in seeing new ones develop.

Consider this a solicitation for workshop ideas. If you have something you have been mulling, or would like to sound out an idea, please contact me at cdrexler@uark.edu to get the ball rolling. Also, feel free to use the comment section below, or other social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook to generate interest!

Carl Drexler, Continuing Education Coordinator
Academic and Professional Training Committee of the SHA

SHA 2013: 46th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology
University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
January 9–12, 2013

The preliminary Call for Papers for the SHA 2013 conference in Leicester is now available to download on the conference webpage, and will also appear in the Spring 2012 issue of the SHA newsletter. Call for papers officially opens on May 1, and closes on July 10, 2012.

Globalization, immigration, and transformation

Leicester is a multicultural city that has been transformed since the middle of the 20th century through its interaction with global networks, particularly immigration from South Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean – a pattern of immigration that reflects the once-global nature of the former British Empire.

These issues of globalization, immigration, and the transformations brought about by those processes are central to historical and post-medieval archaeology, whether they entail the global spread of European capitalism alongside the expansion of European colonialism, the willing or forced migration of millions of individuals from their original continents to new homelands, and the local, regional, and national transformations (both within Europe and across the world) brought about by all of these processes. The 2013 Conference Committee particularly welcomes submissions that relate to these themes.

"Muro Occidentale o del Pianto" (Western Wall or Wailing Wall) by Fabio Mauri (1993)

General Information

The SHA 2013 Conference Committee hopes to encourage flexibility in the types of sessions offered.Contributions can take the form of:

* Individual papers. Papers are presentations including theoretical, methodological, or data information that synthesise broad regional or topical subjects based on completed research; focus on research currently in progress; or discuss the findings of completed small-scale studies.

* Posters and Media Displays. Free-standing, mounted exhibits with text and graphics, audio and film, etc. illustrating ongoing or completed research.

* Formal symposia. These consist of four or more papers organised around a central theme, region or project.

* Electronic symposia. These have the same basic structure as a traditional formal symposium; however completed papers are posted on the SHA website well before the conference, and individuals who plan to attend the symposium can then read the papers in advance. At the symposium participants give very brief summaries of their paper, the bulk of the symposium consisting of a discussion among the presenters and audience. Anyone interested in making use of the electronic symposium format must contact the Program Chair, Alasdair Brooks, <amb72@le.ac.uk>, by 1st July 2012, for further details and suggestions.

* Panel discussions. These are less structured gatherings, typically between one-and-a-half and three hours in length, organised around a discussion topic to be addressed by an invited panel and seeking to engage the audience.

* Three-minute forums. These are informal – but still academic – discussion groups consisting of a number of rapid three-minute presentations followed by a discussion, and were successfully used at the previous SHA conferences in Austin and Baltimore. Typically these sessions last for at least an hour and consist of blocks of four or five very short presentations, followed by 10 – 15 minutes of Q and A discussion on the papers that have just been presented.

Each session organiser may organise the time within each session as they wish. Sessions may contain any combination of papers, discussants, and/or group discussion.

If you have an idea for a session, and would like to attract paper contributions by advertising it on this blog, email Emma Dwyer: <ed108@le.ac.uk>.

You will be able to submit your session and paper proposals online via the SHA website from 1st May, and submission will close on 10th July. So do start thinking about organising a session, presenting a paper, bringing along a poster or other media display, holding a round table lunch discussion, participating in a debate…

CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 via Flickr

Students classify artifacts found on a site-on-a-tarp activity. (Courtesy of Florida Public Archaeology Network)

students discover a new lens through which to view the world and the past.  However, I also recognize that with that great joy comes a serious responsibility: I must strive to spark imagination and interest, but also convey a need to cherish and protect archaeological resources.  My end goal in working with students, or anyone newly interested in our field, is not simply to fascinate them with amazing trinkets that can be pulled from the past into the present at the blade of a shovel.  I strive to help them become invested in archaeological resources on the whole as a means of understanding people and cultures of the past.

I have limited time in any given classroom, typically an hour or less to imbue students with knowledge and concern for cultural resources.  In that time I endeavor to introduce principles of archaeology, promote some understanding of methods and resources, and foster a value for past and the way archaeologists study it.  This is no small task, and I certainly have adapted my strategies and script in response to feedback from students.  Over time, I have found one activity to be ideally suited to this purpose, particularly when I only get to see a class once.  Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

"Shovel testing" on a pb and j site. (Courtesy of the Florida Public Archaeology Network)

This may not be anything brand new to you.  I know the lesson has been around for a while, and I certainly don’t claim it as my own invention.  PB&J works for my purposes because it lets me focus on those priorities listed above.  Artifact show-and-tells may be the rock star of public archaeology from an outsider’s perspective.  But to me leading with artifacts, from a preservation and protection standpoint, is leading with the chin.  Peanut butter and jelly lets me lead with the dirt.

A fully excavated pb&j revealing layers of occupation, features, stratigraphy, & artifacts. Photo courtesy of the Florida Public Archaeology Network.

For those who have no idea what PB&J can do aside from providing quick nutrition in the field, it’s also a lesson in which participants make, then systematically excavate, a sandwich.  The lesson can be complex, but may be simplified if necessary; the original version suggests three layers of bread, raisins arranged in the middle as fire pits, and small candies for artifacts. When the sandwich is complete, students become archaeologists and apply field methods, if methods writ small.  They conduct a visual “walking” survey, shovel testing (with straws), and finally open up a “unit,” selecting a quadrant of the sandwich based on shovel tests and removing the top layer of bread—our top soil.  The lesson ends with a brilliant analogy, likening unmitigated construction and looting with putting the sandwich in a blender.

I don’t mean simply to sing the praises of PB&J, but to encourage deliberation on how we strive to expose the public,school-age or older, to archaeology and preservation.  Certainly, activities that engage hands as well as minds have proven effective for creating thorough engagement with the material and memorable understanding.  We have even used this lesson in teacher workshops to provide a baseline of understanding, and find that adults are as enthralled with the process as children, regardless of how sticky it may get.

Let's not kid ourselves--grownups LOVE to learn by playing, just like kids. (Courtesy of the Florida Public Archaeology Network)

Fun and sugar highs aside, it is critical to consider what we give the public to hold onto about the discipline of archaeology.  If we lead with our chin, sites and resources will continue to take a beating.  However, if we find ways to share the wonder of the soil itself, we provide a more accurate understanding of cultural resources and have a better chance of fostering concern for sites as a whole.  We may tell ourselves that it’s tough to understand, that the lay public will be disinterested, but I don’t find that entirely fair.  If we can enjoy the secrets in the soil, why couldn’t others?

Get the original PB&J lesson here, or find FPAN’s Florida-friendly version here.

What types of lessons do you use for teaching students about archaeological methods? How do you encourage the public to become good stewards of the past? Have you used the PB&J lesson?

The Engineering Building, Attenborough Tower, and Charles Wilson Building at the University of Leicester

In contrast to many of SHA’s previous conferences, much of the 2013 conference program, including the opening reception, public archaeology events, plenary and academic sessions, will take place outside the confines of a hotel, on the campus of the University of Leicester.

The Royal Charter that created the University of Leicester was granted in 1957, but the university inhabits a much older site. The university’s principal building was constructed in 1837 as the Leicestershire and Rutland Lunatic Asylum (which will be the subject of a separate blog post later in the year). The asylum was closed in 1907 and the building remained vacant until the outbreak of the First World War, when the building as put to use as the 5th Northern General Military Hospital, for the treatment of soldiers injured at the Western Front.

The Fielding Johnson Building, formerly the Leicestershire and Rutland Lunatic Asylum

After the war the building and grounds were purchased by Thomas Fielding Johnson (1828-1921), a local businessman and philanthropist, and presented to Leicester Council for the establishment of a University College, which would act as a living memorial  to those who lost their lives in the First World War. This is still reflected in the University’s motto Ut Vitam Habeant – ‘so that they may have life’.

In 1957 the University College became a University in its own right, and was able to award its own degrees, rather than the external degrees of the University of London. The establishment of the University can be seen in the context of the expansion of the provision of education in Britain after the Second World War; secondary (post-11) education was reformed, and government funding for colleges and universities was increased. Like most other British towns and cities, Leicester saw an increased demand for university education. The need for more teaching and research space on the campus saw something of a building spree, and some of the most prominent architects of the time were commissioned to design new facilities. Adrian Jones and Chris Matthews, blogging as ‘Jones the Planner‘, have written an assessment of the architecture of Leicester University here.

Charles Wilson Building

Sir Denys Lasdun was a leading figure among the ‘brutalist’ school of architects; his most famous work is the National Theatre in London. In 1961 he was commissioned to design an iconic building for the University of Leicester, initially conceived as a six-storey structure. Additional funding during construction led to the addition of a further four storeys before completion in 1966, resulting in the building’s unique shape.

Attenborough Tower and Seminar Block

Eighteen stories tall and perched on top of one of the few significant hills in the City of Leicester, the Attenborough Tower can be seen from miles away and the views from its top floor (currently used as offices for the School of Archaeology and Ancient History’s research students) are spectacular, extending far into the county. Originally planned as the first of three towers, the Attenborough was designed by Arup Associates and opened in 1970. It is named after Frederick Attenborough (1887-1973), Principal of the University College from 1931 to 1951, who lived on campus with his family, including his famous sons David and Richard. The Attenborough Tower contains one of the last working paternoster lifts in Britain (although delegates should note that the paternoster is not a toy!).

The Engineering Building

Designed in 1959 and constructed in 1963, the Department of Engineering is probably the most distinctive and famous building on campus and is Grade II* listed. It was designed by James Stirling (after whom the Stirling Prize for Architecture is named) and James Gowan as part of the ‘New Brutalist’ school of architecture. Since then, scores of articles and at least one book have been written about the Engineering Building and in 2008 the Daily Telegraph included it in a list of ‘the 50 most inspiring buildings in Britain’, calling Stirling and Gowan’s unique design “a declaration of war against the predominant culture of dour functionalism.”

Yesterday SHA sent a letter to Spike TV about their upcoming series American Diggers, and today we sent a letter to the National Geographic Television show Diggers, which also recovers archaeological artifacts to be sold.  Diggers is especially demoralizing since it airs on National Geographic Television and carries with it much of the scholarly respect that the National Geographic Society has earned over more than 120 years.  National Geographic has profoundly shaped how many of us view archaeology and cultural diversity, and some of the most astounding archaeology sites in the world have been excavated with National Geographic support.  Diggers follows the exploits of an American treasure-hunting firm that markets “awesome and bizarre metal detecting videos” and devotes most of its time to historic resources recovered in metal detector surveys.  The show promises that “Unless you’re in a coma, it’s almost impossible to find treasure hunting … anything less than exhilarating. Many of you know first-hand the rush of unearthing a silver coin, badge, ring, or other relic dating back to the gun-slinging glory days of the Wild West.”  Of course archaeologists do know the excitement of discovery, but we also appreciate that it is a complex process that carries on long after an object is recovered, includes a lot of objects that might not initially seem very interesting at all, and requires a broad range of skills to tell a powerful story.

These shows are disappointing, but we can continue to approach them as teaching moments and acknowledge that even thoughtful viewers may not immediately grasp the ethical shortcomings of such methods or understand what they risk losing in the hands of a haphazard metal detector survey.  We do not need to surrender our preservation ethics or scholarly rigor, and while we may not transform everybody we can reach many thoughtful people who respect precise fieldwork, community scholarship, and responsible preservation.  Lets hope that we can enlist the National Geographic Society in that cause as they receive letters from SHA, the Society for American Archaeology, the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), the National Association of State Archaeologists (NASA), the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology (CNEHA), and a flood of grassroots resistance including online petitions and blogs that reach far beyond narrowly defined professional circles alone.

The Montana State Archaeologist and State Historic Preservation Officer responded on March 6th to the February 28th episode that was filmed at Montana’s National Register-listed Old Territorial Prison.  They concluded the episode violated state law because the show did not secure a State Antiquities Permit.

Virtually all historical archaeologists are fascinated by seemingly prosaic things like ceramics, bones, and buttons because we know that such objects provide historical stories that might otherwise pass completely unnoticed. Consequently, it is gratifying and not surprising that lots of people who are not professional archaeologists become committed and reflective avocational archaeologists or are simply fascinated by heritage and respect the complicated process of piecing together archaeological narratives.  Nearly all of us with relatively active projects have dedicated local volunteers, supportive communities, and streams of visitors who share our own fascination with archaeology and heritage, because archaeological excavations and interpretation are an exciting process of thoughtfully weaving together remarkable stories based on the most modest items.

It is not at all surprising that archaeology and material heritage would find its way into popular culture, and some television shows, magazines, and web pages have done exceptionally thoughtful presentations of archaeology.  Nevertheless, with that popularity there inevitably will be some popular interpretations of archaeology, preservation, heritage and value that archaeologists will resist because they break with our most fundamental ethics.  The most recent challenge comes from Spike TV’s American Diggers, hosted by former professional wrestler Ric Savage.  Like many professional and avocational archaeologists alike, Savage indicates that “I’ve been a history buff my whole life,” but in the hands of Spike TV that interest in history demonstrates no real respect for archaeological methods, community heritage, or preservation law, since the show’s central goal is to recover items that amateur “diggers” can sell.  In Spike’s own words, “In the US, there are millions of historical relics buried in backyards just waiting to be discovered and turned into profit.  `American Digger’ hopes to claim a piece of that pie as the series travels to a different city each week, including Detroit, MI, Brooklyn, NY, Chicago, IL and Jamestown, VA searching for high-value artifacts and relics, some of which have been untouched for centuries.”  The show proudly proclaims that “After pinpointing historical locations such as Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefields, Savage’s first task is to convince reluctant homeowners to let his team dig up their property using state-of-the-art metal detectors and heavy-duty excavation equipment.  The team will then sell any artifacts found for a substantial profit by consulting experts and scouring the antique and collectible markets, but not before negotiating a deal to divide the revenue with the property owners.”

The show has been greeted by a host of archaeological voices who recognize such work as indiscriminate looting of our collective heritage, a heritage that archaeologists professionally document so those materials and stories are preserved for all of us.  We may not transform Spike TV’s shallow interest in simply presenting profitable “larger than life character” shows, but many thoughtful people may not initially recognize the dilemmas of Savage’s ambition to excavate the “hidden treasure found in the back yards of every day Americans.”  It is those audiences who share our interest in documenting and preserving history for generations to come that we need to reach.  We need to recognize that this is a potential “teaching moment” in which we can inform more people about historical archaeology and encourage a more responsible preservation ethic among the many people who are excited by heritage and materiality.

Savage transparently caricatures historical archaeologists and paints himself as a sort of working-class self-taught scholar with whom his audience of homeowners and history buffs should identify, revealing that he does not know any archaeologists or know much about what we do.  He told the St Augustine Record that “’Diggers are looked on as the trailer trash of the archaeology community and the archaeologists are thought of as the brains, but that’s not necessarily the truth,’ Savage said. `The higher the education people get, the higher the snobbishness that goes along with it.’”  Of course many historical archaeologists have exceptional community-based excavation teams staffed by volunteers committed to their local history, and many volunteers routinely become solid scholars with a genuine understanding of and appreciation for archaeological method and interpretation.

Savage clumsily suggests that he is protecting a past that will disintegrate if we do not recover it now.  When Savage descended on St. Augustine in February he said that “diggers are able to recover relics `that are rotting in the ground and (would) never be found’ as archaeologists wait for grants or for construction to trigger an excavation.”  Of course virtually no artifacts are “rotting” in the ground, least of all the metal artifacts on which Savage focuses his excavations.  If anything, removing those artifacts from a stable soil matrix accelerates their decomposition.

Archaeologists have always rejected commercial exploitation of archaeological resources, and professionals do not seek to “convince reluctant homeowners” to excavate saleable things from their otherwise preserved property, much less encourage people to excavate on and around historic sites like Jamestown or Civil War battlefields that are legally protected.  Professional and avocational archaeologists alike have always strongly resisted commercial exploitation of archaeological sites, and selling the products of his digs are Savage’s fundamental goal.  It is unclear what other artifacts with no real commercial value—scatters of clothing snaps, broken plates, splintered marbles—were found in Savage’s digs or what happened to them, but of course those things that cannot be sold are what fill most historic archaeological collections.

St. Augustine has been the scene of exceptional archaeological scholarship on some of the very earliest European immigrants to the New World, so it is especially distressing that some of this rare material might be lost to somebody digging haphazardly in search of the purported “gold nugget” Savage suggests he recovered in St. Augustine in February.  Kathleen Deagan provided a thoughtful response to the St. Augustine Record based on over 40 years of her own archaeological research in the city, and local avocational and professional archaeologists have responded rapidly and thoughtfully.  The city’s archaeology project has done an outstanding job documenting the city’s earliest European occupation and even earlier prehistoric settlement because St. Augustine has committed itself to preservation.

American Diggers professes to share our concern for documenting national and international heritage, but it actually appears to promote the destruction of that heritage.  It simply finds and plunders the past and fundamentally misrepresents and misunderstands archaeological research, preservation law, and the community heritage that we all aspire to protect.

I have attached SHA’s letter to Spike, which also went to its production company and the Executive and Senior Vice-Presidents in charge of original series at Spike. You may view it here.

It is common for us to feel invigorated by the annual conference, after hearing great papers, discussing innovative ideas, renewing relationships, and embracing a new resolve to do the work of making SHA a better organization that we all be proud of. Although our poster wasn’t officially sponsored by the Gender and Minority Affairs Committee (GMAC) (they helped to inspire it), Cheryl LaRoche and I presented on “Race and the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA): Steps Toward Claiming an Anti-Racist Institutional Identity.” It generated considerable interest, raised important issues, and will serve to support the board’s decision to embark on anti-racism training, for which they should be commended. The board’s commitment to doing this work is a bold step in an important direction that can truly transform our organization and make it more inclusive.

What follows is the text of our poster, a considerably condensed version of an essay we contributed to the Winter 2012 issue of the Newsletter.

Archaeology and Racial Hierarchy

Archaeologists know that racial hierarchy structures the material world, yet we have seldom considered how white privilege influences our practice.

The Whiteness of the SHA

White men created the SHA and structured it to meet their needs as members of white society. This is reflected in its personnel, programs, constituency, and mission, and the ways historical archaeologists are trained in the academy.

Racial Socialization

We all have been socialized in a racist society and consequently carry and perpetuate attitudes of either internalized racial oppression or internalized racial superiority. This socialization process serves to maintain racial hierarchy.

Transforming the Discipline

We can effectively address the racial disparities in our profession and begin to claim and put into practice an anti-racist organizational identity by examining the way we recruit students, foster their development, and inculcate academic values. In order to transform the SHA into a truly diverse and welcoming organization we must address the barriers to access that continue to maintain our organization’s white, male, heterosexual, and middle class membership and principles.

Our Collective Responsibility

The mission of seeking diversity involves all historical archaeologists and should be our collective goal as we work to transform our field and our organization in an effort to claim an anti-racist institutional identity.