All,

Further to the comments from Dan and John, and writing as both one of the people who helped draft the new SHA mission statement, and the person who placed it in the last SHA Newsletter (which I edit).


The original SHA mission statement is not the brief summation paragraph quoted by Dan ("the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) is the largest scholarly group concerned with the archaeology of the modern world [A.D.
1400-present]. The main focus of the society is the era since the beginning of European exploration") but rather the far longer - as listed in the SHA constitution (and on page 4 of the Fall/Autumn 2009 Newsletter):

"The Society for Historical Archaeology shall be an educational not-for-profit organisation to promote scholarly research and the dissemination of knowledge concerning historical archaeology; to exchange information in this field; to hold periodic conferences to discuss problems of mutual interest relating to the study of historical archaeology; and to obtain the cooperation of the concerned disciplines for projects of research.  The focus shall be on the era since the beginning of explorations of the non-European parts of the world by Europeans, with prime concern in the Western Hemisphere.  The society may additionally concern itself with European, Oceanic, African, and Asian archaeology having definite bearing upon scholarly problems in the Western Hemisphere."


The new proposed mission statement, as cited by John (and which is also on page 4 of the last Newsletter) is:

"The Society for Historical Archaeology [an educational not-for-profit organization] advocates for a global perspective in the study and protection of historical and underwater cultural resources by educating the public and policy makers and providing a valued resource for knowledge exchange, professional development, and the maintenance of high ethical standards."


The reason for the change is, in the words of SHA President Lu Ann De Cunzo (from page 1 of the latest Newsletter):

"the [recent] Needs Assessment [survey] offered overwhelming evidence that our members envision the SHA's purposes more expansively than represented in our Mission Statement ... In particular, members emphasised SHA's role in promoting archaeological resource protection through education and public engagement, and the contemporary international, post-US-centric nature of historical archaeology."


To my mind (and here I stress I write as an individual rather than offering an official policy statement from an SHA board member), the crucial difference between mission statements has little to do with material culture, but is rather the new focus on internationalisation and the 'post-US-centric nature' of the discipline.  We should perhaps remember here that a focus on material culture is inherent in common North American anthropological conceptions of our field, where archaeology is traditionally the subfield of anthropology that studies material culture.  In the simplest American definition if anthropology is the study of human culture, then archaeology is the study of human material culture; in that sense it's unlikely that a US-based archaeology society would see any need to explicitly mention 'material culture' in its mission statement.  

John's advertising post - which, as he stresses, is a personal turn of phrase in a self-drafted (though consultative) document -  is perhaps slightly interesting in that an American archaeologist is making explicit mention of material culture, but no, as he stresses, it doesn't signal a policy shift.


More detail about the discussion process involved in formulating the proposed new SHA mission statement can be found on pages 8-9 of the Winter 2008 Newsletter (volume 41:4), which lists the brainstorming discussion points and proposals raised during the June 2008 SHA Board meeting.  Those of you who do feel inclined to hunt these down are urged to read through to the end of each numbered section, as the final paragraphs of sections 3 and 5 list the final position decided on by the board, which is often quite different from some of the other brainstorming positions listed.  There is a world of difference, for example, in the use of the definite and indefinite articles in the phrases "to be _the_ society for the global practice of historical and underwater archaeology" (a rejected turn of phrase) and "to be recognised globally as _an_ indispensable resource for historical archaeology" (an accepted turn of phrase). 


I hope that clarifies things somewhat.


Alasdair Brooks




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Alasdair Brooks


Teaching Fellow in Historical Archaeology


Newsletter Editor, Society for Historical Archaeology 


School of Archaeology and Ancient History
University of Leicester
University Road
Leicester
LE1 7RH


Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)116 252 2616
Fax: +44 (0)116 223 1267
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--------------------------
contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
-------
For email subscription options see:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
-------
Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
--------------------------