Benjamin et al:
Their points are not "well taken." The history of archaeology is
obviously different in different parts of the world (esp. an American vs.
a European traditon) and if anthropology in its holistic form does not
exist then it can not house archaeology.
(1) "We" are not uncomfortable in anthropology departments. I
AM an anthropologist who specializes in archaeology and then in historical
archaeology.
(2) Housing in "Archaeology Departments" is an alternate form
but a weak one. Nayton's claim that we share a special "archaeological
view of the world" is news to me and I have no idea what the intellectual
basis for such a claim would be. Yes, archaeology is hopefully more than
just a set of techniques but the something more always comes from a broader
field or the archaeologists are simply trying to reinvent history or
anthropology and attach it.
Until recently I have found, for example, nothing in common
with my Classical Archaeology colleagues and now only do so because they
are under the influence of a more holistic view of history or, in some
cases, directly under the influence of anthropology via anthropological
archaeology.
"Archaeology Departments" are dangerously weak not only
intellectually but also politically. Gojak mentioned Geography but in
North American that field is being destroyed; indeed, it is almost gone.
When American Civilization was abolished at Penn so was "Regional Science,"
our geography department. One problem (cf. Archaeology Departments), they saw
geography as only a set of techniques focused on spatial questions. Now I
happen to like Geography and considered it an impressive, if limited,
social science and I also always considered "Cultural Geographers" to
simply be "spaced out' anthropolgoists. However, when push came to shove
it did not survive.
This could happen to Archaeology Departments. They are no more
"scientific" than geographers and the only other defense is a good public
(romantic) image which our colleagues in georgraphy lacked. CRM is also
a solid support (ie. the laws under CRM) but that can change as our
colleagues in England understand with the former Conservative government.
Archaeology has certain internal strengths BUT ....
(3) If the "Archaeology Department" model assumes archaeologists
will support or respect each other (i.e. different specializations within
general archaeology) this is just nonsense. One would hope that such a unit
would want internal variation with, among other things, a commitment to
local archaeology which is frequently historical archaeology. Not so. The
Maya crowd will put the knife into the Paleolithic crowd in a second and
visa versa and they will all use the knife in regard to historical
archaeology because it is usually new, weak and depends all too frequently
on one person. Some of you in Australia may recall a recent example that
I will not go into. There are a few recent ones here in the good old USA.
(4) Nayton does make a very good point but then puts it at the
wrong level (internal to archaeology vs. others). Indeed, one of the great
strengths of general scholarship is that different sets of scholars from
different disciplines (and traditions) can look at the same subject and
come up with very different view of it. This variation is, in my opinion,
one of the poisitive driving forces behind scholarship. I do not usually
have any trouble telling that the author of a book I am reading is a
historian vs. a social scientist or, internally, an anthropologist vs.
a sociologist.
Archaeology can not stand alone and always ends up allied to
somthing else either explicitly or in a round about way. The two natural
housing to me are either anthropology or history, all others are either
too small or disappearing or they are simply subsets of the these two
major traditions. We in North America are in Anthropology Departments in
part because of the circumstances of history (e.g. a set of scholars all
studying Native Americans in the 19th century and thus brought together
or kept together). However, we are also in anthropology because it, no
matter what it is called, is a natural approach within social science to
human and cultural subjects - it has been and will be invented over and
over again. Archaeology within that holistic tradition is a significant
part of the anthropological tradition by definition.
Historical archaeology is anthropological because, again, in
part due to history (e.g. the first historical archaeologists in North
America were anthropologists) but also because it naturally fits into
a COMPLETE anthropology. In theory it could also fit under History but
rarely is found with that discipline because MOST historians do not care
about or understand material culture, or for that matter, anything beyond
archival sources. [This is not meant as a criticism - the document is at
the center of History and it should be.]
Historical Archaeology for both intellectual and political
reasons is best housed under Anthropology, is and rarely will be housed
under History, and if it is part of an Archaeology Department (Program)
is in a precarious position.
I have no more to say on this DECEASED EQUINE.
Signing off on this subject.
Bob Schuyler
P.S. Benjamin - have you joined the
SHA Student Subcommittee?
This question is here as a hint to
other historical archaeology
students.
P.P.S. I have just heard the good news that Judy Birmingham is still
alive, still doing archaeology, still coming into her office
at Sydney University but also still continuing her life long
traiditon of NOT answering letters! Can anyone get me an
early photo (later 1960s or early 1970s) of Judy doing
Australian historical archaeology for our "Images of the Past"
column in the SHA Newsletter? That terra cotta factory dig would
be great!
|
