| ON THE SURFACE: THE DOCUMENTATION OF ARTIFACTS AND SITES |
John T. Crowley |
Throughout the five years that I have been your editor, I have begged, pleaded and cajoled members to write more. Many have responded, and our journal has reflected this with informative articles by many more members. We have added three states to our society during those years as well, thus providing the potential for more articles. In addition, we have featured articles from members in other states, which enriches our contribution to American archaeology. For the most part, these members are transplanted state society members whose passion for archaeology, documentation and history remains undiminished.
In our most recent journal, the Indiana Archaeological Society produced its 50th Anniversary Journal. Indiana members did an outstanding job of documenting artifacts and sites in their state. Many of the articles and captions gave the township, county of discovery, and the nearest watershed from which the artifacts came. This was a vast improvement over previous efforts at providing accurate proveniences for artifacts. This was a leap forward. Let me give you an example. The Greater St. Louis Archaeological Society (my home society) members often cite St. Louis County, Missouri, as the source for their artifacts. But this tells us little or nothing about where the artifacts were actually found. St. Louis County consists of 564 square miles and represents 335,360 square acres. Stating that an artifact was found in any given county and state is woefully inadequate! In defense of my GSLAS colleagues, they often state that their artifacts were in north county, south county, or west county. Locally, we know what that means and that helps, but it is still rather vague. We should be doing a better job at giving a proper provenience in every state!
Back in the April, 2001, journal, we printed a photograph on our cover that apparently we did not have permission to print. This caused a crisis within the CSAS. It was decided that before any other cover photo could be printed, we must have permission from the owner of the artifact and the photographer to reproduce an image. Some sort of formal release should be required. Years ago a form was devised for a noted photographer who is no longer active. The goal at that time was to have the collector fill out the form to create a caption. That form included provenience, artifact size, lithic material, artifact age and other pertinent information. That form has been revised and improved to help members further document their collections. The CSAJ is publishing this revised form. You can use it for your personal use. But the CSAJ respectfully requests that it be used for all photographs submitted to the journal. There are many points, for example, that I simply do not know, and you certainly know more about the artifacts in your area than I ever will. Let this form work for both of us.
Our reserve of cover photographs is gone with this issue. I have received only good will and promises. Well, that doesn't amount to much. I really need our state society officers to get busy. If you as a member have an artifact that you feel is worthy of a CSAJ cover, contact your state society officers, who are the ones to decide what represents your state on our cover. I have nothing to do with the cover selections aside from occasionally getting a photograph that might qualify. Cover photographs, of course, must be of the highest possible quality.
For those of you who have computers and e-mail capabilities: do you know you can E-mail an article? It is a blessing when I get an e-mailed article because most of the work is done. All I have to do is change the format, run it past my assistant editors for English correction and it's off to the printer. We have even printed e-mailed and electronic images saved on floppy discs and CD's. The only issue with electronic images is that they must be dense images with a high DPI (dots per inch). Feel free to contact me for further instructions. For those of you who don't have a computer, hand written and typed articles are always welcome. I will type them for you.
I have a special request for all of our state officers. If you have an E-mail address, I need it for the journal. E-mail is a wonderful tool. It allows you access which is far superior to snail mail. It provides a written record of issues discussed. Frankly, I wouldn't like to publish our journal without e-mail. Gone are the days when typed articles were mailed to the printer. Every thing is done electronically.
We have a number of interesting articles in this journal. Lincoln Smith from Alaska (he is a Wisconsin member, so Wisconsin gets the credit) wrote about the Old Copper Culture and supplemented the article with artifacts from his collection from the Osceola Site in Wisconsin. Conrad Kilian (an Arkansas member) living in Washington State wrote about the often misnamed Stanfield blade. His accompanying graphic is helpful in identifying true Stanfield blades. Dana Chandler of Alabama wrote a very interesting article about a newly discovered Mayan site in Mexico. Jim G. Smith Jr., of Missouri wrote about the Big Moniteau pictographs, most of which have been lost to time. He brought this site back from oblivion through archival research.
Our state societies' totals follow in order of state seniority: Illinios-2, Missouri-2, Indiana-3, Arkansas-1, Kentucky-1, Tennessee-3, Iowa-0, Wisconsin-1, Georgia-2, Alabama-1, Michigan-0, N&S Carolina-2, Texas-0, Kansas-1, Minnesota-1, Institutionals-3 and one article from Florida; for a grand total of 24. Not a bad start for 2002. You know what do. Write your page in history!
|
2 |
© 1990 C.S.A.S.I. Last modified:
December 8 2004