Anthropology News April 2003
Arc haeoloaical Anthromoloav U I
rchaeologists are increas-
ingly questioningthe foun-
dations and future of an-
, thropological archaeology.
This is a significant departure from
the traditional recourse to Philip
Phillips’ 50-year-old mantra, “New
World archaeology is anthropology
or it is nothing.” Strident calls are
C O M M E N T A R Y
now being made for archaeologists
to depart anthropology and estab-
lish autonomous academic depart-
ments. The enormous changes to
the discipline this move would
portend should be of concern to all
anthropologists.
In response to arguments for
“archaeology is archaeology,” the
AAA Archeology Division organ-
ized a symposium entitled “Archae-
ology Is Anthropology” at the 2000
Society for American Archaeology
meeting, which will appear later
this year in the Archeological Papers
of the AAA. Contributors represent-
ing the gamut of archaeological
practice and other sub-fields of
anthropology weighed the merits
of intellectual and practical motives
for and against an autonomous
archaeology. The authors conclud-
ed that both archaeology and
anthropology were better off to-
gether than apart, but only if more
serious efforts are made to realize
the potential of a holistic anthro-
pology.
What Drives Us Apart?
American anthropology’s holism
characterized by its disparate sub-
fields-once hailed as its strength-
is now considered a fundamental
Commentary Policy
AN commentaries are designed to explore diverse views of the discipline from an
anthropological perspective Commentaries reflect the views of the authors. their pub-
lication does not signify endorsement by AN or the AAA Authors are expected to ver-
ify all factual information included in the text Manuxnpts should be less than 1,OOO
words in length and must be submitted both electronically and in double-spaced hard
rnnu
--rJ.
4
-I
Native Americans have called for a reciprocal archaeology that includes more
information in the study of their past and has more outcomes that address
their needs. Reciprocal archaeology offers both a challenge and an opportunity
to make anthropological archaeology more relevant to descendant communi-
ties. (From T J Ferguson, “Anthropological Archaeology Conducted by Tribes:
Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Affiliation” in Anthropology Is
Archaeology. AP3A #13 2003).
problem and a rationale for disper- phers and archaeologists studying
sal. It is widely believed that New indigenous inhabitants. Archaeol-
World archaeology is part of an- ogy by definition refers to a set of
thropology only as a historical acci- ‘methods and techniques directed
dent-the confluence of ethnogra- to the archaeological record, some-
thing that does not concern an-
thropologists studying contempo-
rary peoples. A logical development
would be to abandon this obsolete
arrangement and create depart-
ments uniting archaeologists from
An alternative is to join colleagues
in earth sciences, biology, environ-
DIALOGUE
mental studies or history, disci-
plines whose research pursuits seem
better coordinated with archaeol-
ogy than does contemporary socio-
cultural anthropology. Postmodern
theories are seen as incongruous
with evolutionary and scientific ap-
proaches often employed by archae-
ologists. Furthermore, archaeologists
are no longer willing to be as de-
pendent on theories filtered through
sociocultural anthropology as was
the case in Phillips’ day.
Significant practical factors also
foment intradisciplinary divisions:
the proliferation of specializations,
changes within academic institu-
tions, and the explosive growth in
non-academic archaeology. Most
professional archaeologists are em-
ployed outside the academy where
their identity as anthropologists is
muted and the necessity for train-
ing in four-field anthropology is
debatable. Within academia com-
petition for faculty lines and gradu-
ate admissions often exacerbates
subdisciplinary factions, and archae-
ologists are usually outnumbered by
sociocultural anthropologists.
What Keeps Us Together?
Instead of treating holism and the
methodological specialization it-
entails as a problem, others see
holism as the key to anthropology’s
identity and future. Anthropology
is best equipped to deal with the big
questions-Where do we come
from? Where are we going?--and
to more specifically address com-
pelling global issues of racism, war-
fare, genocide, environmental de-
gradation, climate change, popula-
tion growth, poverty, nutrition and
health, technological change and
landscape modification. These are
major problems of the present, but
they also existed in the past. Our
methodological and interpersonal
differences are of small import
when we realize the potential for
grappling with critical issues requir-
ing multi-faceted approaches that
only anthropology can provide.
Theoretical differences are not
new; they have characterized pro-
fessional anthropology since its
inception both within as well as
sut,fields. Many contern-
porary research topics do crosscut
the discipline, including materiali-
ty, the body, landscape, ethnicity,
ecology, colonialism, demography,
DIALOGUE
health and gender. Archaeologists
engaged in questions concerning
long-term processes, crosscultural
comparisons, and the intersection of
social and material domains con-
tribute to anthropological theory
whether or not they share theoretical
perspectives with sociocultural an-
thropologists, and nothing prevents
archaeologists from using approach-
es drawn from other fields to frame
anthropological research questions.
Far from creating divisions, teach-
ing in a multi-field anthropology de-
partment provides another arena
where the subfields have more in
common with one another than is
often presumed. Sociocultural an-
thropology has experienced a signif-
icant expansion in its applied di-
mension, just like archaeology. And
the tremendous value of anthro-
pology to non-academic archaeol-
ogy is more often than not extolled
by its practitioners. Both academic
and applied archaeologists work
within diverse communities and
must respond to the concerns of
multiple stakeholders of the past.
&
silh
-n
ig
The increased practice of archaeolo-
gy by inQenous peoples worldwide
may contribute to a greater integra-
tion of archaeology and anthropolo-
gy. As for conflictual departmental
power politics, these should not
drive the development of the field
and are insufficient justification to
warrant re-organization of an entire
discipline.
Archaeology as Anthropology/
Anthropology as Archaeology
”Archaeology is anthropology” has
long seemed to relegate archaeolo-
gy to a position derivative of socio-
cultural anthropology. However, it
can also mean that anthropology is
as completely exemplified by
archaeology as by any other sub-
field. Archaeological anthropology
is concerned with history and the
material world, the realization of
identities at multiple scales and the
possibilities for integrating academ-
ic study and applications to policy
and practice. It is a model for other
branches of anthropology-a site
where specific disciplinary con-
cerns become visible to the public
is Proud to Announce
and where anthropologists can
speak to the public about how to
think about culture and society,
and their continuities and disjunc-
tions. Archaeology is also central to
the discipline of anthropology. It is
not only essential to the compara-
tive and historical perspectives that
help define anthropology’s distinc-
tiveness, it is the only avenue for
understanding the great diversity of
human cultural expressions, long-
term processes on a global scale and
projections for our collective future.
Those who argue for autonomy
advocate institutional change. Most
do not favor steering archaeology
away from traditional research foci
grounded within anthropology; in-
deed, some reason that autonomy
is necessary because anthropology
has moved away from its founding
principles. It is unlikely they intend
to abandon the anthropological
aspects of research and practice, but
if they succeed, future generations
of archaeologists may not be so for-
tunate. Resolving the discord that
stems from the inherent vastness of
April 2003 Anthropology News
anthropology with a nar-
rowed focus-separating
into groups that inde-
pendently pursue one
kind of expianation, one kind of
methodology, or one kind of re-
. search question-is a solution that
advances neither archaeology nor
the rest of anthropology.
Susan D Gilkspie is asscx-iateprofimx of
anthropology at the U of Florida. She re-
ceived the Gordon R Willry Award for
“RethinkingAncient Maya Sorial Organi-
zation” (AA 2000)’ and withRosemary
Ioyce edited Beyond Kinship: Social and
Material Reproduction in House So-
cieties (2000). Deborah L Nichols is the
William ]Bryant Professor of anthropology
at Lkrtmouth C. Her recent article with
EIizabetli Bmtiel, Hector N@ Thomas H
Charlton,Michael D Glascock and Mary
Hodge, “Neutronr, Markets, Cities, and
Empires” appears in the Joumal of An-
thropological Archaeology (2002).
Rosemary A Joyce,Profissor of anthropol-
ogy at the U of California, Berkeley, ic the
author of The Languages of Archaeology:
Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing (2002)
and Gender and Power in Prehispanic
Mesoamerica (2001).