--- Gary Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Wasn't the quote "Archaeology is Anthropology or
> it is nothing" from Willey and Philips? I thought I
> remembered quoting them twenty years ago as having
> said this - and Binford borrowed from them?
> Gary Norman

Absolutely right, Gary.

In "Archaeology as Anthropology" (American Antiquity
28 :217-225) Binford (1962) took the quote from Willey
and Phillips (1958 :2) "Methods and Theory in American
Archaeology."

To dig further, Wiley and Phillips paraphrased
"Maitland's famous dictum:" which they rendered
"American archaeology is anthropology or it is
nothing."  Who is Maitland?  Willey and Phillips
didn't offer a citation and a shuffle through the
bibs. in the home library didn't turn up anything.

But I digress, David Babson posed the following:

>Is historical archaeology anthropology by any means
>necessary/to hand; artifacts (including fragments,
>objects, assemblages, features, sites, etc.)
documents
>and oral history? If we privilege one source above
>others, do we come to define our discipline by its
>methods, and lose sight of its goals? Should we "do"
>anthropology--try to find out about past behavior,
>social relationships, inequality, politics, etc., or
>not?

Willey and Phillips used "Maitland's famous dictum" to
bring forth the idea that if an archaeologists has any
theory at all, they will be "obliged to take a stand
on some of the basic questions of general
anthropological theory." Binford took it a step
further and used Maitland's pronouncement to introduce
a discussion of how archaeology could be used to
achieve the aims of anthropology. Having been given a
direction, and a method, a generation later we are
faced with the question of "should we?"

IMHO, the answer to David question is yes.

We must use, as David said, the "artifacts (including
fragments, objects, assemblages, features, sites,
etc.) documents and oral history" and what ever else
at hand to push through to the people behind the
stuff.  The technological achievement of a particular
machine or ceramic vase may be appealing on a certain
level, but its from (to use David's words again) an
understanding of the "past behavior, social
relationships, inequality, politics, etc." that those
objects take meaning and speak to the present human
condition.
There are at times when we need technical manuals, but
biographies can become best sellers. We should follow
the path that Maitland, Willey, Phillips and Binford
have mapped.  As a final note, you don't have to be an
anthropologist to do it.

Michael Scholl


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com