Hi All

The relationship between disciplines is always difficult and political. 
In Europe archaeologists are much more closely linked with subjects like 
history, art history and geography though some departments in UK do 
combine anthropology and archaeology. I trained in both history and 
archaeology but there is no seemless integration. For one thing 
historians , perhaps even more than anthropologists, come in  many 
shapes and sizes. I also think funding is knocking some of the variety 
out of the sub-fields of academia as everyone uses the same buzz words 
of the moment to get research grants. However, it is important to keep a 
broad approach if only at a personal level. This is illustrated by a 
story a friend (an emeritus prof of History told me) about economic 
historians who were baffled by the fall in trade between England and the 
Netherlands in the 17th century because they failed to realize the two 
countries were at war. I don't think there will be any adequate 
institutional solutions. My professor friend was against sub -division 
of history. He got his wish as there are virtually no economic history 
departments now in the UK- a victim of fashion and funding.

paul


On 28/09/2012 01:12, Andrew Farquer wrote:
> 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 ad
>   d 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.
>