In 2014, the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) conducted a sexual harassment survey of its membership. The survey's goal was to investigate whether sexual harassment had occurred among its members, and if so, to document the rate and demographics of harassment. Our findings include a high (66%) level of harassment, primarily among women, with an additional 13% of respondents reporting sexual assault. This article provides an overview of the survey and responses. Additionally, we analyze survey data aimed at capturing change over time in harassment and assault, correlation between field and non-field tasks and harassment and assault, and correlation between gender of supervisor and harassment and assault. We also discuss the effects of harassment and assault on careers. We conclude with suggestions for decreasing the rate of harassment and assault and urge professional archaeological organizations to document sexual harassment and assault to mitigate the effects on their members and on the discipline as a whole.

Abstract:Geophysical data have the potential to significantly contribute to archaeological research projects when effectively integrated with more traditional methods. Although pre-existing archaeological questions about a site may be answered using geophysical methods, beginning an investigation with an extensive geophysical survey can assist in understanding the function and archaeological potential of a site, and may even transform preconceptions about the type and spatial organisation of features that are present. In this way, these prospection tools not only accurately locate and map features to allow recovery of cultural material for identification and dating, we argue that they can go much further, allowing us to prospect for new and appropriate archaeological and anthropological research questions. Such an approach is best realised when geophysical and traditional archaeologists work together to define new objectives and strategies to address them, and by maintaining this collaboration to allow continual feedback between geophysical and archaeological data. A flexible research design is therefore essential in order to allow the methodologies to adapt to the site, the results, and the questions being posed. This methodology is demonstrated through two case studies from mound sites in the Southeast United States: the transitional Mississippian Washausen site in Illinois; and the Middle Woodland Garden Creek site in North Carolina. In both cases, integrating geophysical methods throughout the archaeological investigations has resulted in multiple phases of generating and addressing new research objectives. While clearly beneficial at these two mound sites in the Southeast U.S., this interdisciplinary approach has obvious implications well beyond these temporal and geographic areas.Geophysical methods have become a common part of the archaeologist's toolkit in southeastern North America, where they are increasingly utilised to explore large sites and landscapes (e.g. Kvamme, 2003; Peterson, 2007;Horsley and Wall, 2009;Thompson and Pluckhahn, 2010;Burks and Cook, 2011). Often, however, these non-invasive methods have been used more narrowly, to locate specific buried features for targeting in subsequent excavations. This is especially true in commercial applications that require the production of maps of anomalies worth more invasive testing.Although very effective in these situations, we illustrate that geophysics can be deployed to better advantage in research contexts. (This paper focuses on research-driven projects, our * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 610 526 5025; fax: +1 610 526 5655; e-mail: cbarrier@brynmawr.edu. approach-and geophysical surveys in general-is also amenable to commercial contexts: e.g. Johnson and Haley, 2006;Lockhart and Green, 2006). In the mid-1990s, Boucher (1996 argued that geophysical methods were not used to their full potential. Citing examples from the U.K., he determined this resulted from poor communication between geophysicists and archaeologists. Nearly two decades on, th...

Abstract

The Middle Woodland period in eastern North America witnessed a florescence of monumental architecture and material exchange linked to widespread networks of ritual interaction. Although these networks encompassed large geographic areas and persisted for several centuries, extant archaeological models have tended to characterize Middle Woodland interaction as an historically unitary process. Using new data from the Garden Creek site in North Carolina, I argue that these frameworks obscure important historical shifts in Middle Woodland interaction. Recent collections-based research, geophysical survey, targeted excavation, and14C dating (including Bayesian modeling) of this site reveal two coeval diachronic changes: a shift from geometric earthwork construction to platform mound construction; and a shift from the production of special artifacts {mica, crystal quartz) to the consumption of exotic artifacts in association with platform mound ceremonialism. These data hint at important changes in interregional relationships between the Appalachian Summit, the Hopewellian Midwest, and the greater Southeast during the Middle Woodland period, and provide a springboard for considering how processes of culture contact contributed to precolumbian cultural change.

During the Middle Woodland period, from 200 BC to AD 600, south-eastern societies erected monuments, interacted widely, and produced some of the most striking material culture of the pre-Columbian era, but these developments are often overshadowed by the contemporaneous florescence of Hopewell culture in Ohio. I argue that the demonstrable material links between the Middle Woodland Southeast and Midwest demand that we cease to analyze these regional archaeological records in isolation and adopt multiscalar perspectives on the social fields that emerged from and impacted local Middle Woodland societies. In synthesizing recent research on Middle Woodland settlement, monumentality, interaction, and social organization, I make explicit comparisons between the Middle Woodland Southeast and Ohio Hopewell, revealing both commonalities and contrasts. New methodological approaches in the Southeast, including geophysical survey techniques, Bayesian chronological modeling, and high-resolution provenance analyses, promise to further elucidate site-specific histories and intersite connectivity. By implementing theoretical frameworks that simultaneously consider these local and global dimensions of Middle Woodland sociality, we may establish the southeastern Middle Woodland period as an archaeological context capable of elucidating the deep history of the Eastern Woodlands as well as long-standing issues surrounding middle-range societies.