In my final issue as editor for American Antiquity (AAQ), I reflect on my experience in this role over the past three years—a period of time during which the United States, as well as the entire world, has seen rapid and transformative changes. We have experienced the #MeToo movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, a global pandemic, turbulent elections, and impacts of climate change, to name a few. The pages of AAQ reflect these events, as do the recent submissions to and publications in the journal.
The opening Invited Forum article, entitled “‘The Future of Archaeology Is Anti-Racist’: Archaeology in the Time of Black Lives Matter,” is one example. After taking part in the “Archaeology in the Time of Black Lives Matter” panel with the Society of Black Archaeologists, I was so impressed with the participants’ message that I invited them to submit an article to AAQ. Ayana Omilade Flewellen, Justin P. Dunnavant, Alicia Odewale, Alexandra Jones, Tsione Wolde-Michael, Zoë Crossland, and Maria Franklin took up the challenge, resulting in the opening article—an “Invited Forum”—which considers the stunning events of 2020 and the history leading up to these experiences. In this significant article, they also provide suggestions on how to move forward, given that we face many challenges in that process.
This is followed by an article, which addresses discrimination and harassment in archaeology, including sexual assault. Barbara Voss argues that archaeology has been partly shaped by a history of harassment that dates back at least to the 1800s. Her publication, “Documenting Cultures of Harassment in Archaeology,” is the first of a two-part Forum, the second of which, “Disrupting Cultures of Harassment in Archaeology,” will be published in the July issue. The latter article provides policies and interventions that can reduce harassment and provide support for those who have experienced it. Voss, in her first article, includes a personal account and presents examples of harassment in field, lab, and office settings. She provides definitions, examples, and a review of the history of harassment in archaeology.
In another article that touches on similar issues, “A ‘Leaky’ Pipeline and Chilly Climate in Archaeology in Canada,” Lisa Overholtzer and Catherine L. Jalbert synthesize publicly available information on gender representation both in Canada and—to a lesser extent—in the United States, and they address the challenges that women face in the discipline and in academia. The authors propose reasons why we see more Canadian women than men in PhD programs but not in tenure-track positions, and they forewarn that the current COVID-19 pandemic may only increase these inequities.
All three of these articles directly address issues that are of deep significance to archaeologists, as well as to scholars in other disciplines who are raising similar concerns. It is noteworthy that the authors of these three articles not only dissect the problems but also offer constructive suggestions on how to overcome them.
We also have other impressive articles in the April issue of AAQ, including two that focus on the nondestructive detection of features at archaeological sites. The first of these, by Madeleine McLeester and Jesse Casana, is on the use of aerial photographs in the identification of agricultural landscapes. In the second, William Green, Adam Wiewel, and Steven De Vore illustrate how magnetic survey can help in the detection of previously unknown leveled mounds in the Midwest. There are also articles that examine household inequality and funerary rituals in the Southwest, as well as conflict, mobility, and social networks in northeastern North America. The authors of the final two reports in this issue focus on glass beads from two different regions, Alaska and California.
The subject of gender equity in publications, grant awards, and academic employment in archaeology—as in other disciplines—continues to be a topic of investigation and concern, as demonstrated by Forums and articles in AAQ over the past three years. When I became editor in 2018, one goal was to see greater parity between men and women in terms of publications and submissions to AAQ. In order to determine if the number of submissions was relatively equal between men and women, perceived gender was based on multiple factors, including pronouns used on web pages and e-mail signatures, as well as other sources of information. Although not all individuals identify with a binary gender, these two categories seemed appropriate for the sample. Over the three-year period from 2018 through 2020, the average submission rate by women as lead authors was 33%, with some slight changes by year. The sample included 269 submissions. In contrast, the acceptance rate of articles submitted by lead women authors was an impressive 62%. This is higher than the rate for men, which was 48%. The bottom line is that women are quite successful at getting published in AAQ, but they need to submit in order to do so.
It is not clear why AAQ has almost twice as many submissions by men as by women. In an attempt to tease out possible patterns, I looked at accepted articles from 2018 to 2020 by geographic area of study to determine if there were differences depending on the region of research (Table 1). The size of the sample is limited, so results are tentative. The only region for which women had more articles accepted than men was northwestern North America. In northeastern North America, the number of accepted articles by gender was the same. This table also shows that articles that cannot be classified by region were most common, followed by articles that focused on the Southeast, and then by those that focused on the Southwest and Midwest. I also attempted to identify accepted articles by topic, but most articles encompass several topics, such as the use of archaeometric methods to identify household features that provide evidence of sedentism and complex sociopolitical structures. Because of the subjectivity in identifying articles by topic, even with authors’ keywords, these data are not presented. That said, many articles submitted and published in an AAQ focus on archaeometric approaches and lithics. In summary, it is difficult to figure out why we do not have more women submitting to AAQ (but see Overholtzer and Jalbert's article in this issue for some ideas), so until there is more equality, it is appropriate to encourage women to submit to AAQ.
Number of Accepted Manuscripts by Gender and Regional Focus.
Other issues of relevance relate to my commitment to respond to authors in a timely matter. Over the three-year period, turnaround time for assignment of the first reviewer after an article had been submitted was reduced to 1.1 days—compared to 1.8 days in 2019 and 3.7 days in 2018. The American Antiquity Editorial Board should be credited for its quick response in helping identify potential reviewers. The average time for the editor to make a decision once the reviews are completed was also reduced. In 2020, it took 2.6 days, which is less than the 3 days it took in 2019 and the 7 days in 2018. Impact factor has also improved for AAQ. In 2018, it was 1.671, whereas in 2019, it was 1.961. This primarily reflects the period that Bob Kelly was editor, so kudos to Bob for this improvement.
In closing, many people have helped over the last three years. First, I want to acknowledge the unflagging efforts of Chris Rodning, the AAQ book review editor. Between 2018 and 2020, 134 book reviews were published in AAQ—an impressive number. I also greatly appreciate the assistance of graduate students during this period, including our current editorial assistant, Alicia Gorman, as well as previous assistants Erin Bornemann and Hugh Radde. In addition, I especially acknowledge the members of the AAQ Editorial Board, who have provided sound advice and suggested reviewers throughout my term. They also took on the challenge of the editorial board Forum article, “Finding Archaeological Relevance during a Pandemic and What Comes After”—which involved extensive research, synthesis, and critique—and they carried it to completion. Furthermore, I acknowledge the authors and reviewers who have contributed their expertise and valued time to support AAQ. Between 2018 and 2020, 954 individuals were asked to review the 269 manuscripts that were submitted. Many reviewers served repeatedly—some up to six times—and provided reviews that greatly improved the articles.
In addition, I appreciate all the help of Julia Musha at Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Maya Allen-Gallegos (SAA), who have ensured that final copies of articles published in AAQ are accurate and clean. Mark Zadrozny at CUP has been especially responsive on multiple issues, as have Wendy Moore, Nick Michal, and others who have helped with Editorial Manager. I also acknowledge Kristian Paul Turner at CUP, who has done a remarkable job with marketing for AAQ. Finally, I thank Lynne Goldstein and the Publications Committee for their advice and hard work. One of their more significant decisions in terms of AAQ was selecting the new editor for AAQ, Debra Martin. Deb and I have been communicating since the fall of 2020, and she is especially impressive, prepared, and talented. The journal will be in outstanding hands under her editorship, and it will no doubt continue to maintain rigorous scholarship as it moves forward with changes that are relevant to this transforming world.
It has been not only a pleasure but also a privilege to serve the SAA. I now look forward to moving on to completing both old and new projects.
