Iain has raised a point I have been struggling with myself. I think
it must be split into two separate questions: what should the shape
of historical archaeology training be, and where should programs of
historical archaeology be located.
I seriously doubt that any real program in historical archaeology in
an anthropology department would neglect history. On the other hand,
I don't know if there are any programs centered in history
departments, so it is hard to measure if they would neglect
anthropological training. In the US, during the terminal classic of
the postmodern era in Western Civilization, I highly doubt that either
would ignore the other. Gee, English departments teach ethnography
now-a-days. In short, historians dig anthropology and anthropologists
are into history. This is not to say that antagonisms and tensions do
not exist. Of course, this neglects entire stripes of historical
archaeologists, particularly those from programs with an industrial
focus like Michigan State. This entire argument would probably set
those of an industrial or underwater stripe hopping! I would assert,
however, that most of us with historical, anthropological, or another
background often abuse the other fields in our discipline, consider
how individuals with backgrounds in the fields above had misapplied
the physical sciences- chemistry and physics in particular (with the
best intentions!)
The authors in this set of essays are arguing that we need to prepare
students differently than we are. In particular, they are thinking
about the changes in the American job market that move archaeologists
away from academics toward careers in CRM, public programs,
publishing, etc. I agree that they are rather focused upon
anthropology. This isn't shocking, as the papers were produced by
committees and meetings in the Society for American Archaeology, with
support of other committees including the American Anthropological
Association. Please note what Marlesa Gray wrote in her introduction
to the papers- the papers are part of a dialogue! They were included
in the SHA newsletter to cause exactly this kind of debate. We, as
historical archaeologists, do need to nip at the heels of the SHA to
remind them that they are not the only archaeologists in the US. I
expect that many members of the AIA would have similar reactions to
many of the similar issues that Iain found limiting and short sighted.
Please notice that historical themes run throughout the articles,
despite the slant they have taken. Also, the SHA has not given the
SAA a "blank check" to make policy on our behalf. The moral here is
DIALOG. Here we are chatting with the converted. Email your thoughts
to Marcy Gray, or even better, Susan Bender and the committees
involved in the SAA, SIA, AIA, and AAA. And of course, the best
option is to attend the SHAs and go the APTC meeting and add your
voice to our collective efforts on this issue. (You internationals
are relegated to email, I'm afraid. I know Iain has been at 2 of the
last 5 SHA meetings, which is an exemplary record, since I have never
been to the ASHA meeting!)
Now, on to my opinions!
On the first issue, I think historical archaeology programs should be
flexible. Check Mechelle Kerns essay in the Newsletter (32(4):
21-22). Historical archaeology students face a very amorphous and
untraditional job market. Even if HA Ph.D. holders take academic
jobs, the Universities are creating an academic underclass of part
time adjuncts. There is some growth in the CRM sector, but only so
long as the government doesn't gut the resource protection laws, and
that entire field must reach a peak in its growth curve. CRM can not
be a long term growth industry, since it is linked to development, and
the entire point of CRM is to develop ways to do your job quicker and
easier. A survey team decked out with a battery of modern equipment
is much smaller than the crew would have been ten years ago, as we
adopt remote sensing, GIS predictive modeling, and digital data
collection and recording. The cold fact is that the entire field
could vanish 10 years from now in a radically different political
environment. Historical archaeology students must be able to innovate
their own futures, and the programmatic structure should established
to encourage this. How do you decide if HABS/HAER training should be
included in someone's study? You have to have an idea of the students
goals to decide if HABS/HAER is appropriate. The core of anthropology
and history are critical to both these, but so is geology, chemistry,
biology, geography, and philosophy. Not to mention a wide array of
technical skills!
Anthropology, geography, and history are the cores of the field, I
think, and training in each is important. But remember, while
anthropologists are obsessive about method, a course in historiography
is NOT the same thing. Historiography and Methodology are different
things. As one of my history professors once told me when I asked
about guides to historical resources, "Mr. Scarlett, in History, we
don't DO books on method." While that is not entirely true, BOTH
historiography and methodology are important to intellectual
development for a student.
The second question is slightly different. As most of you know, there
are lots of people in American Academics that want to remove
archaeology from anthropology (with which the classical and old world
archaeologists concur, due to their traditional links with history).
However, the call to remove the field into its own category is linked
to a strong force to make archaeology into an evolutionary- and
ecologically- based field and NOT into history. These advocates are
rather antagonistic to history and historical research, and are not at
all interested in including US in their vision of archaeology.
History, like all the humanistic fields, are a sinking ship, to this
group. We need to hitch the archaeological wagon to the ecological,
digital, and genetic sciences, which are the rising stars of
academics.
Ultimately, I am more comfortable letting each program locate itself
in the academic structure. I think that the academic departmental
affiliation of historical archaeology is irrelevant anyway. Lets be
honest, if a student is in a department of history where their advisor
or professors condescend toward anthropology, or an anthropology
department where their mentor ignores linguistics or cultural
anthropology, the undergraduate student will imprint the same attitude
like a baby mammal (and so will most graduate students!) Someone,
somewhere has probably done a study on this, but I expect that
students enter into historical archaeology because they had a mentor
or teacher that excited them to interdisciplinary and
cross-disciplinary fields. Do you know anyone who has continued into
this discipline when they were in a department hostile to the field of
historical archaeology? In my humble opinion, I strongly believe this
is why it is important for students to attend national meetings. It
gives them a chance to meet other students with very different
backgrounds and hear about dramatically different research
(particularly those from small programs with only one or two
professors).
Besides, being realistic, there isn't a perfect program in existence
that could really prepare students in a manner that would satisfy
everyone in HA. We are just to diverse and there isn't enough money
to fund the perfect program. Perhaps the older among us will remember
the world where a prof could get on the phone and say "Hello, Agnes?
Its Jim. I have a student here who needs to learn about amino acids
in human hair and the structure the cataloging system used in the
National Archives. I'm going to send her down to you at Someother
State University, O.K.? Put her to work for the term in your lab as
well? Great!" That kind of thing hasn't been administratively or
financially possible since the student days of Margaret Mead and J.C.
Harrington.
The essential conflict here is that the Archaeology societies are
trying to create standardized guidelines for education and training.
This is a good idea, particularly at the BA and MA level. Standards
are good when the jobs are with the government. Standardization often
comes into direct conflict, however, with paradigmatic diversity.
That's the rub. Do we limit the diversity of "the questions that
count" so that we can standardize our backgrounds? It all comes down
to the students advisor (or the person that the student most admires)
and the manner in which the student envisions their career...
That is currently my opinion, and it'll change by the end of the
month. Now back to my dissertating.
Cheers,
Tim
----------------------------------
Timothy Scarlett
University of Nevada, Reno
Department of Anthropology / 096
Reno, NV 89557-0096
355 West 500 North
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------
|
