Histarchers:
I have refrained from commenting on this thread, seeing little with which to
really disagree, but finally feel compelled to jump in.
As far as I can tell, archaeology is a set of methods for observing and
interpreting material culture. "Archaeological theory" is theory about the
record and how we go about our study of it - about how it is formed,
transformed, observed, and interpreted. What it is that one studies using
these methods determines if one is a prehistorian, or a historical or classical
archaeologist (to name only a few possibilities).
Taking the broadest possible definition of "anthropology," as the study of human
cultures, would tend make all archaeology anthropological at its core as Diane
Dismukes suggests. But the same could then be said for almost any social
scientific undertaking. As a practical matter, we do not all apply
"anthropological" concepts, equally, explicitly, or even at all, in what we do!
I think that most of us draw to a greater or lesser degree from any number of
social and natural sciences in framing research issues and interpreting data.
For example, while I am influenced by and use social theory, I think that my
work contributes more to social history than it does to anthropology. That's
not to say that the potential is not there, just that there is so much to do in
interpreting the past that archaeologists are more likely to USE
anthropological, or other, theory, rather than contribute very substantively to
its development.
There is very little evidence that archaeology, of any stripe, has contributed
much to anthropological theory. If fact, I've heard senior prehistorians
complain about cultural anthropologists ignoring their work, in much the same
way that historical archaeologists complain about historians!
Regards,
John
************************************************
John P. McCarthy, RPA
Sr. Project Manager - Cultural Resources
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
9001 Edmonston Road
Greenbelt, MD 20770
301-220-1876 voc
301-220-2595 fax
410-446-5569 cell
|
