David Babson wrote
>Binford said: "Archaeology is Anthropology, or it is nothing."
David, that was more than a generation ago. It was written in the context
of its times, when highly-respected archaeologists could declare that
archaeology is the "handmaiden" of other disciplines. Much archaeology in
those days was mere antiquarianism, without theoretical basis or scholarly
objective. These conditions no longer prevail, and they were fading even
when you began your career twenty years ago.
What is more important is what Binford didn't say.
Too many archaeologists have fallen into the trap of behaving as if Binford
had said "Archaeology is nothing but anthropology."
Historical archaeology, to take our branch as an example, encompasses,
among others, the following skills or academic focus areas:
1. History of technology
a. Interpretation of change in industrial process
b. Engineering history of structures and machinery
c. Transportation system development
2. Decorative arts history
a. Craft pottery
b. Sophisticated ceramics
c. Architecture
3. Business history
a. Influence of business theory on site layout
b. Relationships among producing centers and markets
c. Spread of new products and processes
4. Geography
a. Historical urban geography
b. Development of central places
c. Political geography
These are just a few legitimate academic subdisciplines and subject areas
that can benefit immensely from archaeology. Indeed, each of the twelve
sub-topics could be the principal focus of an excavation. You have a
choice, David, and it's not an easy one. I have seen all three of these
approaches, all of which are indefensible
1. You can stretch the definition of anthropology
to include history of technology,
decorative arts, business history,
and geography.
2. You can ignore these disciplines and
write your reports as if they didn't exist,
and the evidence that assists them
is of no consequence.
3. You can minimally and perfunctorally
report without interpretation the
evidence that supports other disciplines
or areas of study that don't interest you.
The hard cold fact is that archaeology is vastly more than just
anthropology, unless you stretch your definition of anthropology to the
point where it is meaningless.
While I agree that it's very nice to derive conclusions about class,
gender, and other higher-level theories, the fact remains that social
conclusions must rest upon a firm knowledge base. This knowledge includes:
1. Sufficient skill and background
to date and interpret artifacts.
2. A thorough understanding of the
technology of whatever happened
on your site.
3. Understanding and professional
competence in local history
and geography of the site's locale.
4. Knowledge of local political
and social history, and
historical personalities.
David asked:
>Should we "do" anthropology--try to find out about past behavior, social
>relationships, inequality, politics, etc., or not?
The answer is an emphatic "yes, but." Evidence of behaviors can be found
and interpreted only after a whole lot of grunt work, much of it in subject
areas that are not taught in anthropology classrooms. I submit that such
subjects should not be taught in anthropology classrooms. Instead,
archaeology must include resources far outside anthropology, or
anthropology runs the risk of being diluted to the point of becoming a
meaningless generality.
The time has passed when archaeologists are subordinate to architects, but
the time has also passed when we can simply parrot Binford's outdated and
inaccurate Prime Directive.
Jim Chase noted:
>>Perhaps there is some truth to the view held by some
>>that Historic Archaeologists are neither
>>Historians nor Archaeologists.
<snips happen>
>>Archaeology is not about artifacts,
>>or stratigraphy, or ceramics.
>>These are all tools we use to answer the basic
>>questions about human behavior posed
>>above.
Jim states the crux of the problem. Sometimes the tools take on a life of
their own, and frequently they need to. But, conversely, sometimes we get
so wrapped up in theory and conclusions that we forget our initial job,
which is to transform the physical bits of material culture into something
useful. To do this, we must have craft tools, not theory.
When you're up to your tukus in alligators, it's difficult to remember that
your assignment was to drain the swamp. So much for today's philosophy
lesson.
Archaeologists readily identify the
worst of the profession. We agree that _(____)_
the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/ |
1. They have fresh ideas; _===__/ Baby ||
2. They write coherent prose; | ___ ___ ||
3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
____________________________ _ _ \_/_______\_/_____
Ned Heite, Camden, DE http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html
|
