Over 50 years ago Diamond Jenness stated “Canadian archaeology is a child of recent years that has not yet reached full stature” (Jenness 1932:71). Forty years later William C. Noble, in referring to the above quote observed, “. . . Canadian archaeology has progressed from a childhood state to young adulthood stature, and all present trends indicate a continuing and more sophisticated development in the future” (Noble 1972:34). In my opinion, the analogy is not completely appropriate, because the growth in question has been anything but normal. Indeed, to stay with the analogy would be to observe a child who exhibits little or no growth over many years and then suddenly explodes into a hulk possessing both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde characteristics.

For nearly six decades the small, or originally small, conference on the archaeology of a particular region has been of growing importance in the North American archaeological community's system of communication. By 1952, Erik K. Reed could state that,

The Society for American Archaeology, celebrating its 50th anniversary, is known in Scandinavia almost exclusively for its journal. Lack of funds and of common research interests have kept most European archaeologists from crossing the Atlantic for the hectic annual get-togethers. American Antiquity, however, is widely read in northern Europe although the number of actual subscribers is probably quite small. But the attention paid to the journal is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before the sixties only a tiny team of Scandinavian archaeologists, perhaps just a couple—Gutorm Gjessing, the late Norwegian expert on circumpolar cultures, and Carl-Axel Moberg, the Swedish archaeologist with a deep interest in the nature of archaeological inquiry—kept up with American literature and with American Antiquity.

My first reaction on receiving the Editor's invitation to write “something along the lines of ‘the SAA image abroad’ or ‘how others see us’” was, somewhat to my surprise, a feeling of guilt. For 16 years I have thought of myself as a subscriber to American Antiquity, but never consciously as a member of the SAA. I have never been to the SAA meeting (too big for my taste), usually forget to vote in elections for officers, habitually skip over the Business and Accounts section of the journal, and grudge every page and every dollar given over to such parochial matters as cultural resource management, how to placate the Indian lobby, or who owns the loot from shipwrecks off the U.S. coast.

The fiftieth anniversary of a journal, especially one as important and influential as American Antiquity, is a time for celebration. It is also a moment for reflection both on the achievements of the past and the potential for the future. Major journals are mirrors of the intellectual history of the disciplines that they represent. They are also both intentionally or unintentionally shapers and trendsetters of that discipline. Time past, time present, and time future become inextricably woven in a consideration of their printed pages.

The Middle East has had considerable experience ingesting western cultural influence. The Hellenism of Alexander (fourth century B.C.) slowly metamorphosed into the Byzantinism of Justinian (seventh century A.D.). Two conclusions are suggested. Western cultural seed on eastern soil matures slowly and best in selected locations, and eventually a distinctive new style emerges, accommodating the needs and incorporating the traditions of the Middle East.

The journal of the Philosophy of Science Association, Philosophy of Science, celebrates its fiftieth anniversary this year, and in honor of this has reprinted the Table of Contents from its first issue as well as the lead article, “On the Character of Philosophic Problems” by Rudolf Carnap (1984). Carnap's object in this article is to determine just what philosophical problems in science are. He took this to be a question about what distinguishes the “standpoint” of a philosopher from that of the empirical investigator (1984:6). He begins with the observation that “philosophers have ever declared that their problems lie at a different level from the problems of the empirical sciences . . . the question is, however, where one should seek this level” (1984:5).