Re: Dell Upton's response to Iain Stuart and that age-old history
versus historical archaeology problem. One more opinion can't hurt (I
hope).
 
Stuart's observation - one made often by historical archaeologists -
that we have our own goals, methods, etc., and needn't feel like the
proverbial "handmaidens" is one I've written myself on many
occasions, and often repeat to students. I can say exactly the same
about Dell Upton's observation - that archaeologists often seem
poorly grounded in the broader dimensions of discourse and
scholarship of their subject, be it African-American history and
culture, or other wise. These are not opposing views. Archaeology is
not history. It is not -or need not be - anthropology. The problems
stated here are not unique to archaeology, let alone to historical
arch.
 
I have found myself playing more and more in the fields of
interdisciplinary critical discourse. In journals such as Critical
Inquiry, just to name one, it is typical to find some topic of
conversation (e.g., narrative and culture, cultural identity, etc.)
being analyzed from the perspectives of anthropologists, historians,
lit-crits, lawyers, art historians, music critics, psychologists and
epistemologists. What much of the "postmodern" (and here I use the
term in its very broadest sense) discourse relies on is a common body
of philosophy/theory which serves as a touchstone for communication.
This common body is by no means a unified or unitary body. It
includes such strange bedfellows as Lacan, Barthes, Altshusser, etc.
You get the poit. But it is a realm of shared ground knowledge and
language which facilitates communication across disciplines.
 
Because so many people from so many fields participate in these
discussions, the bibliographic knowledge one can obtain about
subjects - culture, ethnicity, feminism, you-name-it - is immense.
But there is a common expectation to talk across - in fact to ignore
or dismantle - disciplinar boundaries and the silly self-serving
worlds they create.
 
Dell is right. Too many historical archaeologists think "context"
means stratigraphy or floatation samples, rather than a deep
scholarship cocnerning the broad range of knowledge around ones
subject of study. Iain is also right. Archaeologists have their own
"take" on culture and history. My analysis is: archaeologists should
read more, lose discipline boundary-maintaining jargon and limiting
concepts, and talk freely among others about the past and about
culture. Listen, too. And, Dell, PLEASE don't get your whole notion
about historical archaeologists today from the pages of Historical
Archaeology journal. It is not very representative.