DECEASED EQUINES

I swore I would not be drawn into this old discussion but I must reply to
Alasdair. The organization and classification of academic fields is not
completely arbitrary although such systems are, in part, a product of
complex historic forces. Why not put American Colonial History under the
Biology or Astronomy Departments if Alasdair is correct. [Do not even
think about picking up the numerous jokes one could spin, Alasdair!].

Archaeology is normally classified under the following academic
housings:

                Anthropology
                History (esp. Ancient History)
                Classics
                [More specifically] Art or Architectural History
                Archaeology (standing alone or allied to the
                                geological sciences)

Fields such as American [or other Area] Studies, Folklore or Geography
are of great interest and may seem like natural housings but they have
not been in the past and in the future will, unfortunately, be lucky to
survive at all much less worry about archaeology.

        Historical Archaeology (i.e. as archaeology of the Modern World)
will fall under Anthropology or Archaeology Programs or it will not be
housed. In theory it could fall under History (e.g. American History or
even World History specializations) but do not hold your breath waiting
for any doors to open.

        Anthropology because of its long tradition of holism, comparative
studies, global persepctive, field-lab research orientation, ties to both the
sciences and humanities, interest in material culture and powerful ties to
general archaeology is not only the most available housing it is also an
excellent current and future base for the discipline.

        In regard to Archaeology Programs, such a foundation would seem
valid except that it seldom works. The only thing all archaeologists
share in common are some methodological concerns unless, of course, you
add world culture history (and world cultural evolution) to the picture
and those are already fundamentally anthropological concerns. At Penn we
have such a structure supplied by the University of Pennsylvania Museum
(e.g. prehistorians, Near Eastern archaeologists [Sumerian and Akkadian
dictionary projects], Indus Valley experts, Egyptologists, Maya experts,
European Medieval archaeolgoists, Classical archaeologists, historical
archaeologists etc.). It does not work. When I go to lectures on, say,
Assyriology or Maya classic sites, I turn out to be one of the few
curators to attend such lectures outside of their own general field.

        Alasdair claims that Archaeology as Archaeology is the structure
in England. This is certainly not intellectually correct unless you go
back twenty years. A central core to thinking in English archaeology now
comes from anthropology as is especially seen in the work of Ian Hodder
and his numerous students and former students. Indeed this movement is
so central that England, along with America, is one of the two anchors
for so-called Post-Processual Archaeology currently (and I would say
unfortunately) one of the cores for theory in general anthropological
archaeology.

        Finally (!), Ned Heite has a very valid point. Most history
departments themselves offer one course in research methods (and on the
graduate level this is frequently a discussion seminar) with all the
other courses being time/culture specific. Should historical archaeologists
take such courses - sure - should they take most history courses - it
depends on what the topics are. The cliamed natural base in History for
historical archaeology being assumed by several writers on this list
(this discussion) is, to large measure, a myth. All historical
archaeology students should search their entire campus for what courses
will held their interests and take them be they in history, sociology,
geography, geology, biology, folklore or what ever.

        It was once said that "Archaeology is Anthropology or it is
Nothing." That statement is, of course, wrong. However, Historical
Archaeology better strengthen its current ties to Anthropology or it,
as a late arriving, poorly academically based, poorly visible and
poorly understood endeavor, might well end up academically being
nothing.

                                Bob Schuyler