sign in sign up
<<
Home , History of archaeology, Julian Steward

Is ?

Deborah L. Nichols, Dartmouth College Rosemary A. Joyce, University of California, Berkeley Susan D. Gillespie, University of Florida

Archeology is anthropology...save that the people archeology studies happen to be dead. —Braidwood (1959:79)

n a famous phrase, Philip Phillips (1955:246-247) of archaeology, some of them quite successful (notably Istated that "New World archaeology is anthropology at Boston University and Calgary University; Ferrie 2001; or it is nothing." A few years later, Robert Braidwood Wiseman 1980, 1983), recent events have brought this made a similar characterization for the Old World (see issue greater attention and garnered more broad-based epigraph). That these well-established archaeologists support for separation. They have also provoked equally were motivated to make such pronouncements indicates passionate arguments from the other side. a sense of uncertainty even then of the relationship be- Most visible among the recent proposals for an au- tween archaeology and anthropology. This uncertainty tonomous archaeology was the forum "Archaeology Is has not abated, and nearly 50 years later the relationship Archaeology" organized by T. Douglas Price at the 2001 has become more strained. Archaeology in the United for American Archaeology meeting (reported in States, as in many other countries, is viable outside of Wiseman 2001,2002). It motivated a Point-Counterpoint anthropology. Academically it is housed in nonanthro- exchange among James Wiseman (2002), Robert Kelly pology departments, institutes, and interdisciplinary pro- (2002), and Susan Lees (2002) in the SAA Archaeologi- grams at a number of universities. Most professional cal Record, with Kelly (SAA President) and Lees (co- archaeologists are employed outside the academy where editor of American ) arguing against their identity as (if it exists) is often separation from anthropology. The 2001 symposium muted (see Bender and Smith 2000; Zeder 1997:46). The was organized partly in response to one presented at notion that American departments of anthropology the 2000 SAA meeting entitled "Archaeology Is Anthro- should necessarily include archaeology as a major sub- pology" sponsored by the Archeology Division of the field of the discipline and that all anthropology students American Anthropological Association, the impetus for should be required to take classes in archaeology (e.g., this volume. Other recent sessions that have considered Strong 1952) is being questioned. Within anthropology the relationship between archaeology and anthropology departments, formal or informal divisions separating ar- include one organized by Heather VanWormer and spon- chaeology, , and sociocultural/ sored by the SAA Student Affairs Committee at the are becoming more common. 2001 SAA meeting entitled "Archaeology as Anthropol- Now, however, there are increasingly strident calls ogy: Perspectives at the Start of the New Millennium" for archaeology to be recognized as a discrete intellec- and an AAA-AD symposium at the 2001 AAA meeting tual discipline in autonomous academic departments, organized by Joseph Schuldenrein and Susan Gillespie leaving many archaeology professionals and students entitled "Teaching Archaeology at the Dawn of the Mil- pondering the future of their identity as anthropologists lennium: Is Anthropology Really Necessary?" At that and the enormous changes in the discipline that this move same AAA meeting William Longacre gave the AD Dis- would portend. While there have been previous attempts tinguished Lecture entitled "Archaeology as Anthropol- by a few archaeologists to organize separate departments ogy Revisited." Deborah L. Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

Perhaps millennial fever together with the 2002 social interpretations of archaeological remains. This centennial celebration of the AAA has contributed to a implication would not pose a problem if "anthropology" reassessment of the value of maintaining our nineteenth- was reserved as the term for the larger field to which century legacy of "four-field" anthropology departments. archaeology, , linguistics, biology, However, we now have to contend with Robert Borof- and the other subfields contribute, as originally envi- sky's (2002) assertion—in the flagship journal Ameri- sioned in the nineteenth century. R. B. Dixon (1913:558) can Anthropologist—that "four-field" integration was characterized archaeology as "prehistoric and always a "myth" and never a reality, a conclusion opposite ethnography," as if only time (and hence correspond- to that reached by Longacre in his Distinguished Lecture. ing methodological differences) separated the two Archaeology and anthropology have come a long subfields. Walter Taylor (1983 [1948]) vociferously way in the past half-century, and the 1950s thinking con- argued for archaeology as an equal contributor to a cerning the relationship between the two is increasingly larger theoretical enterprise known as anthropology. In- considered irrelevant. However, the placement of archae- terestingly, this position has recently been reiterated by ology within the discipline of anthropology has always British archaeologist Christopher Gosden (1999:2) and been uneasy—and was just as much a half-century and social anthropologist Tim Ingold (1992:694), outside of more ago as it is now. Is archaeology only now on the the Americanist anthropological tradition. brink of "divorce" after decades of pleas for mutual re- In practice, however, "anthropology" is too often spect and cooperation have finally proven inadequate used as a synonym for ethnography or sociocultural an- (Watson 1995)? Is separation the only alternative left to thropology, whereas "archaeology" is a marked term re- sustain and further archaeology and to finally shake off ferring more precisely to methods and techniques that a second-class status to sociocultural anthropology that may or may not reference anthropological theory or in- archaeologists have long contested (Willey and Sabloff terpretation, although many archaeologists study soci- 1993:152)? In what sense can we profess that archaeol- ety and . This common practice often results in ogy is still anthropology? the interpretation of Phillips's shorthand phrase as a state- This volume, based on the original 2000 SAA sym- ment that archaeology is a subordinate and lesser form posium and with additional contributions,1 evaluates the of intellectual engagement in relation to sociocultural reasons proffered for separation against those in favor anthropology—and it was precisely to counter this per- of maintaining the identity and practice of archaeologists ception that Phillips (1955:246) wrote his essay. Given as anthropologists. Arguments for the separation of ar- that archaeologists of his day still aspired to approxi- chaeology from the discipline of which it has been a part mate the same social and cultural units as ethnogra- for over a century take several different forms, weigh- phers—that is, to actually do prehistoric ethnography and ing various intellectual factors: historical, methodologi- ethnology, something they could never do so well as cal, and theoretical. Recent changes in the practice of ethnographers—it was inevitable that archaeology archaeology and in the organization of professional so- would be considered "highly marginal" within anthro- cieties must also be considered. We summarize each of pology (Watson 1995:686). The proclamation of cultural these factors in turn as a way of introducing the complex anthropologist E. Adamson Hoebel (1949:436) that ar- problems archaeologists face and that our contributors chaeology "is doomed always to be the lesser part of an- address in the chapters herein. thropology" hung heavy over American archaeology (Willey and Sabloff 1993:152), even though it was oc- Intellectual Factors casionally hotly contested (e.g., Binford 1962; Flannery 1983; Meggers 1955). Phillips's quotation, now often abbreviated to "ar- Archaeologists are still having to "borrow" from chaeology is anthropology," provokes different readers social science theory, as Phillips (1955:246) concluded to interpret it in distinct ways. For many, even short- was inevitable, but somehow with less legitimacy than ened, it still carries the implied second clause—"or it is that automatically granted to our fellow social scien- nothing"—and that clause in turn is treated as relegating tists, namely, ethnographers, who observe living archaeology to a position derivative of anthropology. peoples and who more typically call themselves "an- This is indeed part of the original sense Phillips intended thropologists." Thus it is argued that archaeology will (Phillips 1955:246; see also Willey and Phillips 1958:1; continue to be relegated to a second-class status as long Terrell, this volume)—archaeology should look to an- as it remains a "subfield" of another discipline/depart- thropology for the theoretical frameworks necessary for ment. Creating separate departments of archaeology Is Archaeology Anthropology?

is considered a pragmatic means for archaeology to Moreover, subfield methodological differences get the respect it deserves (e.g., Meltzer 1979; Wise- strained the relationship of archaeology to anthropology man 1980, 1998). from the beginning. Practitioners of both failed to en- gage in what should have been common goals, such as The Historical Argument: Our Unique Past Is understanding cultural change, and as Julian Steward Insufficient Justification for Present Circumstances complained in 1942, even among early ethnographers and archaeologists "techniques and procedures have loomed The separation of archaeology from anthropology is as ultimate goals. Ethnology tends to ignore the results often taken to be a quite logical step given that in many of archaeology, while archaeology, concentrating on its other countries archaeology is not housed in anthropol- techniques for excavation and its methods for descrip- ogy departments but instead is found in free-standing tion and classification of the physical properties of arti- departments of archaeology or or is allied with facts, comes to consider itself a 'natural,' a 'biological,' , art history, or classics. James Wiseman (e.g., or an 'earth-science' rather than a cultural science" (Stew- 2001), among others, has therefore urged anthropologi- ard 1942:339). Since that time, increasing specialization cal archaeologists to move away from a relationship within all of the subfields of anthropology has become a based on what is widely believed to be a singular and serious threat to its cohesiveness and even to the unity now obsolete historical foundation (see discussions in of archaeology itself (e.g., Borofsky 2002:471-472; Barfield, Earle, this volume; see also Pinsky 1992:163; Schiffer 2000:2; T. Douglas Price in Wiseman 2001:11). Taylor 1983 [1948]; Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff A major difficulty that leads to such divisiveness is 1993). Over 20 years ago, George Gumerman and David that in its ambitious attempt to investigate the entirety of Phillips (1978:187) plainly expressed what was already human experience, archaeology encompasses enormous likely a widespread opinion when they questioned diversity. There are vast differences in time scales at "whether given the historical development of the disci- which various archaeologists work. Research questions, pline since 1958 [Willey and Phillips's declaration of methods, and theoretical orientations of those who deal archaeology as anthropology], the automatic association with early human populations in the distant past (Clark, of archaeology with anthropology is currently philosophi- this volume) may seem to have little in common with cally justified, and not merely the institutionalization of those of archaeologists who study historically docu- historical accident" (emphasis added). mented peoples (see also Crumley 1994:2-3). Similarly, The special circumstances of North that examines large swaths of time on a in the early twentieth century in- global scale from an evolutionary perspective—for in- clude the holistic engagement with Native American stance, research dealing with questions of disease and , which were seen as "vanishing" and thus in need demographic patterns (Armelagos, this volume)—will of multiple forms of "salvage," a view rooted in assump- look very different from the contextual analyses confined tions of shallow time depth and relative stability from to narrow frames of time and space. Paleoanthropologists the past to the ethnographic present (e.g., Trigger 1989). researching the deep past and bioarchaeologists often The emphasis of Euro-American archaeologists on the have much in common with another sister discipline, bio- study of ancient Native America—"the Other"—unlike logical anthropology (Armelagos, Clark, this volume), the nationalist focus of European archaeologists, ce- while those who work in the more recent past tend to mented the tie of (prehistoric) archaeology to anthropol- deal with questions that ally them with ethnographers ogy rather than to history (see Earle, this volume). In and social historians (Majewski, this volume). contrast, the much later development of North Ameri- This diversity of topics and the new interdiscipli- can —the study of "Us"—has much nary alliances that are being formed and strengthened more tenuous ties with anthropology (see Majewski, this because of them may motivate the splitting of anthro- volume). These historical circumstances are cited not pology in novel ways to match the present realities. Some only as reasons to abandon the anthropological synthe- have found the disciplinary ties to anthropology "restric- sis, but as forms of corruption in its origin, especially tive," in that anthropology is "not broad enough" for the given the colonial contexts within which both archaeol- research undertaken by archaeologists, especially those ogy and anthropology arose and which generated an espe- examining environmental/ecological issues and long- cially troublesome attitude toward native peoples as term or evolutionary processes (Gumerman 2002). These if they were on the verge of extinction (e.g., Gosden new alliances need not correspond to the traditional sub- 1999; Trigger 1980). field boundaries that are a legacy of our discipline's his- Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

tory but could focus on specific topics and techniques, echoed many times since then, emphasized the theo- such as , bioanthropology, historical retical linkage: "American archaeology stands in a anthropology, and . Archaeol- particularly close, and, so far as theory is concerned, ogy could legitimately contribute to many of these new dependent relationship to general anthropology" disciplines (e.g., van der Leeuw and Redman 2002)—or (Phillips 1955:246, emphasis added). In terms of theo- it could strike out on its own. retical interests, archaeologists and their sociocultural colleagues have experienced an uneven history, with The Methodological Argument: What We Do Is periods of convergence and divergence (Gosden 1999). More Important Than Why We Do It Already by the 1930s there seemed to be a lack of com- mon intellectual objectives (Steward and Setzler 1938). This discussion brings us to a second line of argument This was also the period when "salvage" archaeology that has become increasingly heard in calls for separate demanded more attention from archaeologists, seeming departments and programs in archaeology: our specific to further detach them from the academic pursuits of eth- methods and techniques are what provide our unique nographers (see below). Such centrifugal forces dimin- identity as archaeologists, and they implicate a corpus ished in the middle decades of the twentieth century when of research interests that is at odds with those of other functionalism encouraged a closer relationship between anthropologists. Field and laboratory methods provide a archaeology and sociocultural anthropology. Phillips common foundation for archaeologists trained in diverse (1955) together with his colleague Gordon R. Willey traditions that span the sciences and humanities. Thus it (Willey and Phillips 1958) attempted to engage archae- seems easy to conceive archaeology as a unitary disci- ologists in the social implications of their typological pline grounded in a shared methodology. Conceiving units, an effort that could be said to have culminated in archaeology as "technique" not only would provide dis- Lewis R. Binford's (1962) path-breaking article "Archae- ciplinary independence but also "permits the archaeolo- ology as Anthropology." gist to test more freely the theories and models that have Furthermore, by the 1960s a renewed theoretical in- emanated from many disciplines [besides sociocultural terest in comparative and evolutionary studies of human anthropology] while not denying we can develop our own crosscut the anthropological subdisciplines and body of theory" (Gumerman and Phillips 1978:188). As contributed to an explosive growth of archaeological new technologies, such as materials analysis, geographic knowledge (Pinsky 1992:176; Trigger 1998b:696; Willey information systems, and bioarchaeological methods, and Sabloff 1993). However, the research of sociocul- become more accessible, archaeologists of all disciplin- tural anthropologists engaged with culture as symbols, ary backgrounds share greater interests in their applica- meanings, and "texts" diverged from the focus of the tion, reinforcing their methodological links. of the 1960s and 1970s with its Thus, some archaeologists have argued that archaeo- presumption that archaeologists could not be "paleo- logical methods are sufficiently different from those of psychologists" (Binford 1965:204), although not all ar- ethnology and other social sciences to warrant treating chaeologists eschewed these approaches. Symbolic and "archaeology as itself (see Trigger 1989:357ff; also structuralist theory was followed by Gramscian hege- Ferrie's [2001] interview with MacNeish; Wiseman mony, Foucauldian discourse, and other postmodern, 1980). This is especially possible in large departments postpositive, poststructural, and postcolonial approaches whose faculty teach courses only within their narrow (collectively referred to as "afterology" [Sahlins specializations and delegate most undergraduate instruc- 1999:404]) that strongly appealed to later twentieth- tion to graduate students and non-tenure line faculty. century sociocultural anthropology (Ortner 1984). How- Furthermore, given that method is integrated with theory, ever, they seemed to have far less to offer archaeology the increasing importance of methodological differences (J. Kelly 2002) and contributed to a further drop in cross- among and within the subfields of anthropology also subdisciplinary communication, although, again, some implicates inevitable theoretical differences. archaeologists have found value in these theories. At the same time, archaeologists had been question- The Theoretical Argument: Is There Still ing the need to follow research agendas established within a Tie That Binds? sociocultural anthropology, contesting the implication of Steward's (1942:341) earlier characterization of archae- Phillips's original argument for the alignment of New ology as relegated to "the position of the tail on an eth- World archaeology with anthropology, which has been nological kite." That is, they wanted to be "more than Is Archaeology Anthropology?

the bastard stepchildren of anthropology" (Lyman et al. scientific approaches more often employed by archae- 1997:213). By the 1970s there were a number of calls ologists (Trigger 1998a:245). Bernard Knapp (1996:144) for archaeology to develop its own theory, one that bet- has argued that the rejection of material , ter matched the analysis and interpretation of the ar- long-term change, and human agency in the past espoused chaeological record (e.g., Binford 1977:6-7; Meltzer by some extremist positions would render archaeology 1979:654), especially given the very different time virtually irrelevant if not impossible. On the other hand, frames of archaeological and ethnographic research (e.g., the social and interpretive approaches that derive from Bailey 1983:182; Binford 1981:197-198). Rather than "moderate" postmodernism (Knapp 1996:131) have ad- attempt to operationalize the empirical units of ethnog- vanced archaeological knowledge and provide an oppor- raphers—which we could never do as well—it was con- tunity for archaeology to "lead the way" in developing sidered better to develop our own (e.g., Deetz 1972:114; these theoretical perspectives (Knapp 1996:152). Renfrew 1978:94). Archaeologists should no longer de- Thus, this schism does not fall strictly along sub- pend on theories first filtered through anthropology; they disciplinary lines within anthropology. Furthermore, should have unlimited access to theories from the social criticisms of "critical" or "radical" postmodernism have and the other sciences (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978; been made by sociocultural anthropologists and other Trigger 1989:372-373). Indeed, the dependence on an- social scientists, most of whom take more moderate po- thropology and the concomitant absence of archaeologi- sitions (Knapp 1996:136). There is now a "post-mortem cal theory was said to have contributed to archaeology's on postmodernism" (J. Kelly 2002) and a resurgence of failure to become a full-fledged science (Dunnell 1982:1; concern for science among many sociocultural anthro- 2 Meltzer 1979:654). pologists (e.g., the recently formed Society for Anthro- This growing theoretical divergence is a major fac- pological Sciences; http://anthrosciences.org). However, tor motivating archaeologists and biological anthropolo- what is often construed as a split between science and gists, but also some sociocultural anthropologists, to antiscience associated with postmodernism is not con- break away from an increasingly meaningless four-field fined to the academy, given that postmodernism itself academic structure (see Barfield, this volume, for the has been characterized as a societal "condition" (Lyotard perspective of the latter group). The recent separation of 1984). Geoffrey Clark (this volume) argues that in the the Anthropology Department at Stanford University into United States the varied political agendas of anti-intel- a Department of Anthropological Sciences and a Depart- lectual, antiscience, and antievolutionism groups exac- ment of Cultural and has become erbate theoretical schisms in the academy. Thus, we need characterized as a split of positivist archaeologists and to consider the impact of extra-academic factors on the biological anthropologists from antipositivist sociocul- relationship of archaeology to anthropology. tural anthropologists. This development is used to sup- port the argument that archaeology, which is necessarily Practical Factors a materialist enterprise, is fundamentally opposed to an- timaterialist sociocultural studies.3 Our discipline is defined not only by its intellectual Postmodernism often emerges as a focal point in concerns, having to do with the substantive content, theo- the arguments for divorce—as a principal reason we no ries, and methods, but also by its specific institutional longer get along—although it may also serve as a straw- structure—the organization of university and college man or distraction to avoid dealing with more pressing departments, the training of students, professional asso- challenges to the practice of archaeology (Fox, this ciations and journals, and archaeological practice out- volume). For example, Robert Kelly (2002) sees the side the academy (Gosden 1999:33). These factors have rejection of scientific, evolutionary, and materialist also been raised in the arguments for or against autonomy. approaches by the more "critical" postmodernists (fol- Centrifugal forces of subdisciplinary specialization that lowing Knapp 1996:130) as the most important factor are as old as the discipline of anthropology are exempli- underlying the current calls for archaeologists to leave fied—and increasingly intensified—by the proliferation anthropology. Within the broad and inchoate umbrella of specialist professional societies and interest groups, of positions labeled "postmodern" there are the "criti- changes within academic institutions that have fostered cal" nihilist and hyper-relativist strains (Knapp 1996:135) factionalism, the explosive growth in nonacademic em- that leave little place for a holistic anthropology encom- ployment, and the increasing realization that all archae- passing an explication of the entirety and diversity of ologists must take "real-world" factors into account, both the human experience, especially the evolutionary and inside and outside of academia. Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

Professional Societies and Disciplinary Identities ogy and archaeology" and are more likely to belong to the SAA (but see below). Physical anthropologists and linguists each formed The SAA, which at this writing has almost 7,000 separate professional organizations and journals in the members, has created a distinctive identity as a profes- early decades of the twentieth century (Pinsky 1992: sional organization. It has been active in shaping public 164-165; Stocking 1976:23-30). The Society for and legal policies in the United States, in recognizing American Archaeology was not established until 1934, the growth of practicing or cultural resource manage- significantly, in response to the rapid growth of "ama- ment archaeology, in public outreach, and in promoting teur archaeology" projects carried out under govern- archaeological education. Many professional and student ment auspices and in recognition of the growing gap archaeologists, faced with the increasing costs of mem- therefore between anthropological objectives and most bership in either organization (SAA or AAA-AD), have archaeological practice (Pinsky 1992:166). The estab- chosen to join the one that is devoted solely to archaeol- lishment of the SAA has also been characterized "both ogy, further reinforcing their identities as "archaeolo- as a symptom of intensified subdisciplinary specializa- gists" more so than as "anthropologists." tion, and as an aggravating factor in that process" (Pin- The Archeology Division of the AAA, which at this sky 1992:167). writing has over 1,400 members, is a minority member Thomas Patterson (1999:162) observed that a 1946 of the much larger association, although it is one of the reorganization of the American Anthropological Asso- larger sections. The great majority of AAA members ciation (founded 1902) reasserted and also redefined the identify themselves as sociocultural anthropologists four-field structure of anthropology, which was only later (Borofsky 2002:471). Despite the recent reorganiza- mirrored in academic departments. A number of the larger tion of the AAA that sought to reduce subdisciplinary subdisciplinary organizations were affiliated with the factionalism, Borofsky (2002:471) suggests that, as the AAA, which managed certain business affairs for them largest percentage of members, sociocultural anthropolo- such as membership billing and publications. However, gists—who, he presumes, have more in common with a 1982 Internal Revenue Service ruling impacted the one another than with members in the other subfields— association's ability to provide such services. Several should dictate the future directions of the AAA. He organizations, including the SAA and the American As- blames the stultifying bureaucracy of the AAA and aca- sociation of Physical Anthropologists, opted to manage demic anthropology departments for not being able to their own association business rather than face dissolu- respond to what he sees as a mandate for change away tion under the proposed AAA reorganization plan (Green from the "myth" of the four fields. and Fowler 1983:1). The AAA established a new section to represent the interests of archaeologists within the Changing Educational Structures association—the Archeology Division (publisher of this volume)—and created the Biological Anthropology Institutional academic constraints have also been Division to represent the interests of biological an- faulted for subfield fragmentation. Post-war anthropol- thropologists. Nevertheless, that decision likely affected ogy was influenced by the expanded opportunities in the identity of many SAA members in terms of the intel- North American higher education for the working and lectual alliance of archaeology with anthropology.4 middle classes (mostly men) made possible by the GI The resulting co-presence of two professional asso- bill and the overall growth of colleges and universities ciations dedicated to archaeology is now believed by to accommodate the baby-boom generation. Free-stand- some to represent a major division within archaeology ing departments of anthropology became more common itself. Bruce Smith (2001:215) recently asserted that ar- in the 1960s (usually splitting off from joint sociology- chaeologists who participate in the AAA, publish in anthropology departments), and their faculties increas- American Anthropologist, and are proponents of four- ingly represented all four subfields (Patterson 1999:163). field anthropology are "intellectual theoreticians" en- Subdisciplinary specialization intensified in the early gaged with big-picture questions of . They 1970s as the expansion of universities and the growth of contrast in his opinion with "scientist" archaeologists who anthropology departments generally came to an end, and are "particularists concerned with discovering and docu- funding constraints furthered compartmentalization menting the scatter of hard facts." Smith considers that (Patterson 1995:106-113, 1999:161-162). Competition it is the latter group that recognizes the "reality of the for resources for faculty lines and graduate admissions decline in interaction between sociocultural anthropol- tended to exacerbate subdisciplinary factions. Is Archaeology Anthropology?

As for students, both undergraduate and graduate continued to fuel the divisiveness between archaeology education operate within a limited time framework es- and sociocultural anthropology. It has long been ques- tablished by academic conventions in North America and tioned whether CRM-bound students would be better further promulgated by resource constraints. The vari- served by training in separate departments of archaeol- ous impulses pulling students away from a general ogy, especially now given the huge demand for practic- grounding in anthropology are strong, including narrow ing archaeologists (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978; specializations coupled with the increasing intersections Wiseman 1980, 1983, 1998; see Anderson, Gillespie, this of archaeology with other disciplines ranging from art volume). Because the majority of archaeology graduates history to zoology, the need for special professional train- today will likely obtain nonacademic jobs, and the spe- ing, and an appearance of lack of common interests, if cial professional training needed for these jobs is not not outright tensions, among the subdisciplines. typically provided in research-oriented anthropology Graduate students were therefore encouraged to spe- departments (Fagan 1999; Zeder 1997), this dramatic cialize even more, and to compensate for this factor, other employment change has again been cited as reason anthropology requirements began to be curtailed or enough for creating separate departments of archaeol- dropped altogether in some departments. Over time, as ogy (e.g., Wiseman 1998). new faculty and graduate teaching assistants lacking a In sum, the arguments for rethinking the traditional comprehensive anthropology background joined depart- placement of archaeology within anthropology are com- ments in increasing numbers, the inability or unwilling- plex and multifaceted. They require serious consideration ness to communicate across the subdisciplines and to pass from a variety of perspectives responding to both the on a holistic view of anthropology—one that examines substantive and practical issues that have been raised. the entirety of human biological, cultural, and historical experience—to the next generation of students intensi- Organization and Scope of the Volume fied. Scalar stress in very large departments probably necessitates some form of organizational subdivision that In the chapters that follow, the contributors consider usually follows subdisciplinary lines (Cowgill 2002). these factors as they discuss from their own experience These changes have contributed to the feeling by many the interfacing of archaeology and anthropology in theory archaeologists, who are usually outnumbered by socio- and practice. The chapters are grouped to form two parts cultural anthropologists in U.S. academic departments, that address these different but overlapping issues in the that the sociocultural majority has little understanding relationship between archaeology and anthropology. Part of or concern for archaeology (Cowgill 2002). II considers intellectual and theoretical factors with pa- pers by Timothy Earle, George Armelagos, Thomas The Growth of Nonacademic Archaeology Barfield, Geoffrey Clark, John Terrell, and Teresita Majewski. Practical and institutional factors are explored Both the SAA's founding and its later split from in Part III in papers by Susan Gillespie, Rosemary Joyce, the AAA occurred in periods when salvage or CRM ar- David Anderson, William Doelle, and T. J. Ferguson. chaeology was growing rapidly. Indeed, in the 1930s it Commentaries are offered by Jane Hill and Richard Fox was "the mounting demands of and salvage in Part IV. In the concluding chapter we return to the work...which in fact relegated archaeology to a 'back- intersection of these various factors in the calls for both water' within the Boasian domain [Cole 1976:121], and separation and continued unity and examine future di- which preserved its subdisciplinary marginality for quite rections that archaeology might take. some time" (Pinsky 1992:177). By the 1970s CRM had The archaeology contributors represent the gamut become a significant force restructuring the practice of of the profession, from research to teaching to archaeology in the United States, prompting calls for curation and interpretation to CRM and public outreach. establishment of an autonomous discipline of archaeol- They include archaeologists who advocate for archaeol- ogy even at that time (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978). ogy as science and others who emphasize historical and The enormous shift in funding and employment for humanist approaches. We also sought the perspectives archaeology to the government and private sectors has of biological and sociocultural anthropologists. George produced tensions within archaeology itself—between Armelagos's research in skeletal biology from a bioso- archaeology as "science," archaeology as an academic cial and evolutionary framework bridges anthropology's discipline, and archaeology as "business" (see Ander- subdisciplines. Ethnographer Thomas Barfield chairs the son, Clark, Doelle, this volume)—even as it has also Anthropology Department at Boston University, one of 10 Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

the rare institutions at which the anthropological archae- chaeology to anthropology as our colleagues who advo- ologists are in a separate Department of Archaeology with cate for separation, but we differ in our perspectives as to other archaeologists. The volume's commentators, Jane what kind of change is needed and how to accomplish it. Hill, a linguist and former president of the American The editors asked for and received from the authors Anthropological Association, and Richard Fox, an eth- a frank discussion; no aspect of this issue was off-limits. nographer and current president of the Wenner-Gren The intensification of calls by archaeologists to separate Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., and past from anthropology after the original symposium has editor of Current Anthropology, bring a broader perspec- sharpened the focus of the contributors' comments and tive to bear on the current state of archaeology's rela- has added a sense of urgency to the debate. They present tions with the rest of anthropology. strongly, even passionately, held views, many based on No contributor list can fully represent the totality of personal experiences and varied research perspectives. American archaeology. There is certainly a great diver- The authors do not agree with one another as to how or sity of experience and perspective among archaeologists why anthropology and archaeology should be related, today, but attempts to characterize their differences are which is itself a reflection of the enormous diversity en- not as clearcut as is often portrayed. For example, there compassed by anthropological archaeology. Neither we is a strong perception that the aims of academic and CRM nor the other authors are satisfied with the status quo, archaeology are at odds with one another, but this view and a variety of recommendations for change are offered, is often contested (e.g., Clark, Anderson, Doelle, this vol- although they are not easy solutions. ume). Archaeologists might also seem to be divisible along The contributors generally take the position that ar- a "science-humanities" dichotomy, but many actually chaeology indeed still is, and should continue to be, an- span that presumed gap (e.g., Renfrew and Zubrow 1994), thropological, but they come to this conclusion from a and departments of archaeology such as that at Boston broad range of viewpoints based on their research per- University are an indication that such differences need spectives and experiences both within and outside the not preclude collegial collaboration and coordination. academy. This position is not meant to be a panacea for Bruce Smith's characterization (above) of a sepa- current intellectual, practical, and interpersonal difficul- ration between AAA-affiliated four-field-advocating ties that promote divisiveness, nor is it a dogmatic model "intellectual theoreticians" and SAA-affiliated au- for all academic departments to follow. The authors, tonomy-advocating "scientist archaeologists" also does however, do provide compelling counterarguments not withstand close scrutiny. Archaeologists arguing both against the calls for separation and for archaeology as for and against separation from anthropology include in- anthropology. dividuals along the full range of the science-history-hu- manist continuum. In fact, there is substantial overlap in A cknowledgments the leadership of the AAA-Archeology Division and the SAA. For example, Robert Kelly, the current SAA presi- We are grateful to Timothy Earle for his perspective dent, served on the AAA-AD Executive Committee, as on some of the issues. John D. Kelly and George L. have two other current SAA board members, Patricia Cowgill have allowed us to cite their papers from the McAnany and William Doelle. All the members of the AD-sponsored session at the 2002 SAA meeting. We also current AAA-AD Executive Committee have also served thank Jay Johnson, AD Publications Director, for his either on the SAA Executive Board or on SAA commit- valuable suggestions, along with the very helpful com- tees, and most members of the AAA-AD also belong to ments of the reviewers. David Grove and John Watanabe SAA. We agree with Smith that the historical decline in were sounding boards for ideas as we wrestled with the participation in the annual meeting of the AAA by ar- difficult issues raised in the volume. Lauren Hendricks chaeologists and the decline in archaeologists publish- and Marina Ma, Dartmouth students, provided able as- ing in American Anthropologist (even though there has sistance with citations and bibliographic entries. We are been some reversal of those trends [Nichols and Gillespie especially grateful to all the contributors' commitments 2000]) reflect a separation between archaeology and so- to the successful completion of this volume. ciocultural anthropology. The expense of belonging to both organizations and attending the annual meeting of Notes both is also a factor. Our point is that the archaeological contributors to this AAA-AD-sponsored volume express 1. All of the SAA 2000 participants are represented many of the same concerns about the relationship of ar- here. Papers by Anderson, Clark, Fox, Gillespie, and Is Archaeology Anthropology? 11

Joyce were solicited following the symposium. Rosemary B. J. Meggers, ed. Pp. 76-89. Washington, DC: Joyce also collaborated in planning the symposium. Anthropological Society of Washington. 2. Notably, however, this growing split was not uni- formly felt even in North America (Earle, this volume), Cole, John R. and south of the Rio Grande archaeology is a vital part 1976 Nineteenth Century Fieldwork, Archaeology, and of anthropology, which Bernal (1980) has called the na- Museum Studies: Their Role in the Four-Field tional discipline of Mexico. Definition of American Anthropology. In Ameri- 3. See the concluding chapter: this departmental di- can Anthropology: The Early Years. J. V. Murra, vision has been misrepresented, as there are archaeolo- ed. Pp. 111-125. St. Paul: West Publishing. gists and sociocultural anthropologists in both daughter departments. Cowgill, George L. 4. This is the opinion of Barbara Stark (personal 2002 Archaeology Loses If It Doesn't Pay Attention to communication) from her experience as the first (transi- Other Social Scientists and Historians. Paper pre- tional) chair of the Archeology Division. sented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. References Crumley, Carole L. Bailey, G. N. 1994 : A Multidimensional Ecologi- 1983 Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. An- cal Orientation. In Historical Ecology: Cultural nual Review of Anthropology 12:165-192. Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. C. L. Crumley, ed. Pp. 1-16. Santa Fe: School of Ameri- Bender, Susan J., and George S. Smith, eds. can Research Press. 2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Cen- tury. Washington, DC: Society for American Ar- Deetz, James F. chaeology. 1972 Archaeology as a Social Science. In Contempo- rary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Bernal, Ignacio Contributions. M. P. Leone, ed. Pp. 108-117. 1980 A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Civilizations of Middle America. New York: Thames and Hudson. Dixon, R. B. 1913 Some Aspects of North American Archaeology. Binford, Lewis R. American Anthropologist 15:549-577. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiq- uity 28:217-225. Dunnell, Robert C. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cul- 1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: ture Process. American Antiquity 31:203-210. The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archae- 1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in ology. Journal of Anthropological Research Archaeology. L. R. Binford, ed. Pp. 1-10. New 38:1-25. York: Academic. 1981 Behavioural Archaeology and the " Fagan, Brian Premise." Journal of Anthropological Research 1999 An Academic Time Warp: New Archaeologists 37:195-208. Don't Fit the Job Market. Discovering Archaeol- ogy l(July-Aug.):8-ll. Borofsky, Robert 2002 The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Myth- Ferrie, Helke makers. American Anthropologist 104:463- 2001 An Interview with Richard S. MacNeish. Current 480. Anthropology 42:715-735.

Braidwood, Robert J. Flannery, Kent V. 1959 Archeology and the Evolutionary Theory. In Evo- 1983 Archaeology and Ethnology in the Context of Di- lution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. vergent Evolution. In The Cloud People: Diver- 12 Deborah L. Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

gent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civili- edge. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, trans. zations. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, eds. Pp. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 361-362. New York: Academic. Meggers, Betty J. Gosden, Chris 1955 The Coming of Age of American Archaeology. In 1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Re- New Interpretations of Aboriginal American Cul- lationship. London: Routledge. ture History. B. J. Meggers and C. Evans, eds. Pp. 116-129. Washington, DC: Anthropological So- Green, Dee F., and Don F. Fowler ciety of Washington. 1983 Change in SAA Management Announced. SAA Bulletin 1(4): 1-2. Meltzer, David J. 1979 Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Gumerman, George J. Archaeology. American Antiquity 44:644-657. 2002 Letter to the Editor. The SAA 2(4):3. Nichols, Deborah L., and Susan D. Gillespie 2000 Willey Prize Clarification. Anthropology News Gumerman, George J., and David A. Phillips, Jr. 41(6):3. 1978 Archaeology Beyond Anthropology. American Antiquity 43:184—191. Ortner, Sherry B. 1984 Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Compara- Hoebel, E. Adamson tive Studies in Society and History 26:126-166. 1949 Man in the Primitive World. New York: McGraw-Hill. Patterson, Thomas C. 1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the Ingold, Tim United States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace 1992 Editorial. Man 27:693-696. College Publications. 1999 The Political Economy of Archaeology in the Kelly, John D. United States. Annual Review of Anthropology 2002 Hegemony in Anthropological Theory. Paper pre- 28:155-174. sented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Phillips, Philip 1955 American Archaeology and General Anthropologi- Kelly, Robert L. cal Theory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropol- 2002 Counterpoint: Archaeology Is Anthropology. The ogy 11:246-250. SAA Archaeological Record 2(3): 13-14. Pinsky, Valerie Knapp, A. Bernard 1992 Archaeology, Politics, and Boundary-Formation: 1996 Archaeology Without Gravity: Postmodernism and The Boas Censure (1991) and the Development of the Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and American Archaeology during the Inter-War Theory 3:127-158. Years. In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology. J. E. Reyman, Lees, Susan ed. Pp. 161-190. Aldershot: . 2002 Counterpoint: Separation versus a Larger Vision. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(3):11-12. Renfrew, Colin 1978 Space, Time and Polity. In The Evolution of So- Lyman, R. Lee, Michael J. O'Brien, and Robert C. Dunnell cial Systems. J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, eds. 1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: Pp. 89-112. London: Duckworth. Plenum Press. Renfrew, Colin, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, eds. Lyotard, Jean-Francois 1994 The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archae- 1984 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowl- ology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Is Archaeology Anthropology? 13

Sahlins, Marshall Trigger, Bruce G. 1999 Two or Three Things That I Know about Culture. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American In- Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, dian. American Antiquity 45:662-676. n.s., 5:399-421. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffer, Michael Brian 1998a : Calculation and Contin- 2000 Social Theory in Archaeology: Building gency. Oxford: Blackwell. Bridges. In Social Theory in Archaeology. M. B. 1998b "The Loss of Innocence" in Historical Perspective. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-13. Salt Lake City: Univer- Antiquity 72:694-698. sity of Utah Press. van der Leeuw, Sander E., and Charles L. Redman Smith, Bruce D. 2002 Placing Archaeology at the Center of Socio- 2001 The Transition to Food Production. In Archaeol- Natural Studies. American Antiquity 67:597- ogy at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. G. M. 605. Feinman and T. D. Price, eds. Pp. 199-230. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Watson, Patty Jo 1995 Archaeology, Anthropology, and the Culture Steward, Julian Concept. American Anthropologist 97:683-694. 1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337-343. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Steward, Julian, and F. M. Setzler Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1938 Function and Configuration in Archaeology. American Antiquity 4:4-10. Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1993 A History of American Archaeology. 3rd ed. New Stocking, George W., Jr. York: W. H. Freeman. 1976 Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology: Thoughts Toward a History of the Interwar Years. Wiseman, James In Selected Papers from the American Anthropolo- 1980 Archaeology as Archaeology. Journal of Field gist, 1921-1945. G. W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 1- Archaeology 7:149-151. 53. Washington, DC: American Anthropological 1983 Conflicts in Archaeology: Education and Practice. Association. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:1-9. 1998 Reforming Academia. Archaeology 51(5):27—30. Strong, William Duncan 2001 Declaration of Independence. Archaeology 1952 The Value of Archaeology in the Training of Pro- 54(4): 10-12. fessional Anthropologists. American Anthropolo- 2002 Point: Archaeology as an Academic Disci- gist 54:318-321. pline. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(3):8-10. Taylor, Walter W., Jr. 1983 [1948] A Study of Archeology [sic]. Center for Ar- Zeder, Melinda A. chaeological Investigations. Carbondale: Southern 1997 The American Archaeologist: A Profile. Walnut Illinois University. Creek, CA: AltaMira.