Book Review of Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage by Laurajane Smith

The passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1991 significantly changed the way archaeology would be done in the United States. This act was presaged by growing complaints and resentment directed at the scientific community by Native Americans over the treatment of their ancestral remains. Many of the underlying issues came to a head with the discovery and subsequent court battles over the 9,200-year-old individual commonly known as Kennewick Man. This had a galvanizing effect on the discipline, not only perpetuating the sometimes adversarial relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans, but also creating a rift between those archaeologists who understood Native American concerns and those who saw their ancestral skeletal remains representing the legacy of humankind and thus belonging to everyone. Similar scenarios have emerged in Australia.

Review of Soils in Archaeological Research by Vance T. Holliday

When I teach geoarchaeology, I tell students on the first day of class that "soils are the canvas for much of the archaeological record." Just as an artist's canvas holds and affects the paint, soils hold archaeological materials, and soil-forming processes strongly influence the preservation and spatial pattern of cultural deposits. Given this close relationship between soils and the material remains of humans, we have long needed a treatise that addresses all aspects of soils from an archaeological perspective. Vance Holliday's latest book, Soils in Archaeological Research, does this and more.

Development of an interview version of the Native American Cultural Involvement and Detachment Anxiety Questionnaire

The present study sought to develop and validate an interview version of the Native American Cultural Involvement and Detachment Anxiety Questionnaire (CIDAQ; McNeil, Porter, Zvolensky, Chaney, & Kee, 2000) in an effort to construct a more culturally appropriate means of obtaining anxiety-related information from a tribally homogenous sample of Native Americans. Five pilot subjects (60% women; M age = 35.8 years) and 50 Native American participants (46% women; M age = 40.32 years) residing on a Northern Plains reservation were administered the CIDAQ - Interview, designed specifically for this study, the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ; Tallis, Eysenck, & Mathews, 1992), a measure of non-pathological worry, the CIDAQ (McNeil et al., 2000), a self-report measure of culturally-related anxiety, and a demographics form. Using a mixed design method of analysis, interviews were audio taped and data was both qualitatively and quantitatively compared for convergence and discrepancies across measures. As hypothesized, CIDAQ-Interview subscales corresponded with subscales from the CIDAQ self-report and included worries and anxiety in three content areas: (1) social involvement with Native Americans and cultural knowledge, (2) economic issues, and (3) social involvement with the majority culture. Results further revealed similarities between CIDAQ-Interview items and those on the CIDAQ self-report, indicating reliability for the Interview. Findings also confirmed the Interview's validity (r 's range = .349-.754), as well as a high level of internal consistency for the CIDAQ self-report (Cronbach alpha = .931). Data suggest the CIDAQ-Interview is a more culturally appropriate method of assessment and may be capable of assessing anxiety at a higher level of specificity then the self-report version. Results of the study are discussed in relation to the assessment of anxiety for homogenous reservation Native Americans, study limitations and directions for future research with the CIDAQ-Interview are also discussed.