In regard to ROBERT SCHUYLER’S response, I view the issue with our cultural and physical anthropology colleagues as serious. I am a graduate student working towards becoming an archaeologist, but as such, I am not privy to the political inner-workings of the anthropology department at my institution or others (as oppose to the perspective a professor would have). My experience and knowledge is limited, but even so, it is clear that the fracturing of anthropology departments would be a major problem for everyone associated with any of the four subfields. We cannot be quarreling amongst ourselves or productivity will decrease, funding will dry up or be more challenging to access and in short, we will all suffer regardless of concentration.
It has been my impression that a current trend within academia and the larger world is the combining of seemingly disparate fields/disciplines working together to solve problems. Archaeology leaving anthropology seems drastic, from a North American perspective, but the English have, and it seems to have been successful for them. It was attempted here in the states at University of Pennsylvania but in a different way: creating an American Studies department, which housed individuals from many fields, including archaeology. The founders of American anthropology (e.g. Franz Boas) felt the field should be split, but still work together. Similar to music—with instruments being classified into groups working in harmony with each other to create a song—anthropology had to be split into its four subfields in order to be more manageable. But the fields, in my opinion, need to work together to achieve a holistic, more balanced perspective. And, I would take it a step further and add that the four subfields should also work closely with other disciplines such as history, sociology, psychology, and the humanities to name a few.
This brings us to the question ROBERT SCHUYLER posed: if we cannot create our own archaeology departments (I agree the economy will not allow for it at this time) then how should we deal with anthropologists from other subfields? I am unsure of the answer but it seems discussion would assist in potentially solving this problem. Perhaps a session at the next SHA meeting to begin defining the issues and then take that discussion to a session or full conference devoted to the issue through the AAA. This would allow individuals from the four subfields to discuss the issues together in a formal environment geared towards further defining the issue(s) and creating solutions.
If there is dissention between the subfields within anthropology departments in North America, this would prove to be a serious problem. The subfields have been moving further and further away from each other when they should be embracing and collaborating with each other. Much of this is likely political coupled with the added stress of reduced funding brought on by the economy. But, perhaps through constructive dialog involving members from the four subfields we may strengthen all of our positions. Whatever the outcome, it would seem the future of historical archaeology and archaeology, as well as the field of anthropology might be up for grabs or less desirable, might be heading down a path we may all dislike regardless of subfield concentration.
|