New AA Editorial Style

Paul Jarrod Blonsky (pjblonsk@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU)
Fri, 7 Oct 1994 18:42:43 -0500

This is just an observation that may take some of the blame for the new
format of AA off the backs of the Tedlocks. I think just looking at the
structure of the AAA, much more attention is devoted to fields of
cultural anthropology. For instance, there is one archaeology section
and one biological anthropology section, although these are theoretically
the two equals of cultural, whereas there are many more
culturally-related sections (visual anthropology, culture and
agriculture, feminist anthropology). Although many of these at least in
theory are supposed to encompass archaeology and biological anthropology,
in practice, these areas are usually more geared towards cultural ends.
Perhaps archaeologists and biological anthropologists need to make thier
presence felt by establishing new sections (I really have no idea how new
sections are added--forgive me), I would welcome something like a section
of Ethnoarchaeology or Critical Archaeology. Whatever, the point is, I
think the new format reflects the growing demands of new groups within
AAA for articles addressing thier interests, not just the Tedlock's
editorial ideals.

Paul Blonsky
Washington University-St. Louis

Any resemblance between my statements and the truth is purely coincidental.