I think that the discomfort of Hist. Arch. with Anthro. is due to our
frequent ability to go beyond the cultural level of analysis to
address individual variation. cult. anthro.s can do this do but
seldom did so before post-modernism. Now I think the two fields are
getting closer. Our frequent ability to identify sites with
individuals does put Hist. Arch. closer to history in our ability to
ask about the impact of individual differences in ideology, etc. on
sites. This is the source of my dissatisfaction with the cultural
level of questions that prehistoric archaeology is usually limited
to, and the tradition in cultural anthropology of only analyzing
cultures rather than subcultures and individual variation that we can
address.
Suzanne


Dr. Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, Associate
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Harvard University



>Gaye, Keith, points well taken.
>
>My question, however, is that if archaeology is not a set of techniques, but a
>discipline in and of itself, that raises different questions from those of
>historians, anthropologists, etc., then why are we not an independent
>academic/scientific field in the great majority of universities here in North
>America?  The truth is we ARE housed in the anthropology departments, and it
>seems to me that what we are discussing here is whether that is
>adequate enough
>for what we are trying to accomplish as historical archaeologists.
>
>I would completely agree that archaeologists raise different questions than
>their historian colleagues, yet I would submit that most of our questions (and
>therefore interpretations) are anthropological in nature.  If this
>is true, then
>why are we often so uncomfortable in the anthro. departments?  If anthropology
>is the study of the culture of man, as I have been taught, then archaeology in
>my mind certainly falls under its umbrella.  Personally, I have no problem
>calling myself an anthropologist in the making, nor receiving a degree in
>"anthropology: emphasis in archaeology."  After all, I believe it is past
>peoples and lifeways that we are interested in.  To me, that IS anthropology.
>The beautiful thing is that we can use the historical resources available to
>better piece together the picture.  That's what I love about historical
>archaeology.  It is an opportunity to use the best of two fields to come to a
>more complete and thorough understanding of our principal objectives.