Is Archaeology Anthropology?

Deborah L. Nichols, Dartmouth CollegeRosemary A. Joyce, University of California, Berkeley

Susan D. Gillespie, University of Florida

Archeology is anthropology...save that the people archeology studies happen to be dead.—Braidwood (1959:79)

In a famous phrase, Philip Phillips (1955:246-247)stated that "New World archaeology is anthropology

or it is nothing." A few years later, Robert Braidwoodmade a similar characterization for the Old World (seeepigraph). That these well-established archaeologistswere motivated to make such pronouncements indicatesa sense of uncertainty even then of the relationship be-tween archaeology and anthropology. This uncertaintyhas not abated, and nearly 50 years later the relationshiphas become more strained. Archaeology in the UnitedStates, as in many other countries, is viable outside ofanthropology. Academically it is housed in nonanthro-pology departments, institutes, and interdisciplinary pro-grams at a number of universities. Most professionalarchaeologists are employed outside the academy wheretheir identity as anthropologists (if it exists) is oftenmuted (see Bender and Smith 2000; Zeder 1997:46). Thenotion that American departments of anthropologyshould necessarily include archaeology as a major sub-field of the discipline and that all anthropology studentsshould be required to take classes in archaeology (e.g.,Strong 1952) is being questioned. Within anthropologydepartments, formal or informal divisions separating ar-chaeology, biological anthropology, and sociocultural/linguistic anthropology are becoming more common.

Now, however, there are increasingly strident callsfor archaeology to be recognized as a discrete intellec-tual discipline in autonomous academic departments,leaving many archaeology professionals and studentspondering the future of their identity as anthropologistsand the enormous changes in the discipline that this movewould portend. While there have been previous attemptsby a few archaeologists to organize separate departments

of archaeology, some of them quite successful (notablyat Boston University and Calgary University; Ferrie 2001;Wiseman 1980, 1983), recent events have brought thisissue greater attention and garnered more broad-basedsupport for separation. They have also provoked equallypassionate arguments from the other side.

Most visible among the recent proposals for an au-tonomous archaeology was the forum "Archaeology IsArchaeology" organized by T. Douglas Price at the 2001Society for American Archaeology meeting (reported inWiseman 2001,2002). It motivated a Point-Counterpointexchange among James Wiseman (2002), Robert Kelly(2002), and Susan Lees (2002) in the SAA Archaeologi-cal Record, with Kelly (SAA President) and Lees (co-editor of American Anthropologist) arguing againstseparation from anthropology. The 2001 symposiumwas organized partly in response to one presented atthe 2000 SAA meeting entitled "Archaeology Is Anthro-pology" sponsored by the Archeology Division of theAmerican Anthropological Association, the impetus forthis volume. Other recent sessions that have consideredthe relationship between archaeology and anthropologyinclude one organized by Heather VanWormer and spon-sored by the SAA Student Affairs Committee at the2001 SAA meeting entitled "Archaeology as Anthropol-ogy: Perspectives at the Start of the New Millennium"and an AAA-AD symposium at the 2001 AAA meetingorganized by Joseph Schuldenrein and Susan Gillespieentitled "Teaching Archaeology at the Dawn of the Mil-lennium: Is Anthropology Really Necessary?" At thatsame AAA meeting William Longacre gave the AD Dis-tinguished Lecture entitled "Archaeology as Anthropol-ogy Revisited."

Deborah L. Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

Perhaps millennial fever together with the 2002centennial celebration of the AAA has contributed to areassessment of the value of maintaining our nineteenth-century legacy of "four-field" anthropology departments.However, we now have to contend with Robert Borof-sky's (2002) assertion—in the flagship journal Ameri-can Anthropologist—that "four-field" integration wasalways a "myth" and never a reality, a conclusion oppositeto that reached by Longacre in his Distinguished Lecture.

Archaeology and anthropology have come a longway in the past half-century, and the 1950s thinking con-cerning the relationship between the two is increasinglyconsidered irrelevant. However, the placement of archae-ology within the discipline of anthropology has alwaysbeen uneasy—and was just as much a half-century andmore ago as it is now. Is archaeology only now on thebrink of "divorce" after decades of pleas for mutual re-spect and cooperation have finally proven inadequate(Watson 1995)? Is separation the only alternative left tosustain and further archaeology and to finally shake offa second-class status to sociocultural anthropology thatarchaeologists have long contested (Willey and Sabloff1993:152)? In what sense can we profess that archaeol-ogy is still anthropology?

This volume, based on the original 2000 SAA sym-posium and with additional contributions,1 evaluates thereasons proffered for separation against those in favorof maintaining the identity and practice of archaeologistsas anthropologists. Arguments for the separation of ar-chaeology from the discipline of which it has been a partfor over a century take several different forms, weigh-ing various intellectual factors: historical, methodologi-cal, and theoretical. Recent changes in the practice ofarchaeology and in the organization of professional so-cieties must also be considered. We summarize each ofthese factors in turn as a way of introducing the complexproblems archaeologists face and that our contributorsaddress in the chapters herein.

Intellectual Factors

Phillips's quotation, now often abbreviated to "ar-chaeology is anthropology," provokes different readersto interpret it in distinct ways. For many, even short-ened, it still carries the implied second clause—"or it isnothing"—and that clause in turn is treated as relegatingarchaeology to a position derivative of anthropology.This is indeed part of the original sense Phillips intended(Phillips 1955:246; see also Willey and Phillips 1958:1;Terrell, this volume)—archaeology should look to an-thropology for the theoretical frameworks necessary for

social interpretations of archaeological remains. Thisimplication would not pose a problem if "anthropology"was reserved as the term for the larger field to whicharchaeology, ethnography, linguistics, human biology,and the other subfields contribute, as originally envi-sioned in the nineteenth century. R. B. Dixon (1913:558)characterized archaeology as "prehistoric ethnology andethnography," as if only time (and hence correspond-ing methodological differences) separated the twosubfields. Walter Taylor (1983 [1948]) vociferouslyargued for archaeology as an equal contributor to alarger theoretical enterprise known as anthropology. In-terestingly, this position has recently been reiterated byBritish archaeologist Christopher Gosden (1999:2) andsocial anthropologist Tim Ingold (1992:694), outside ofthe Americanist anthropological tradition.

In practice, however, "anthropology" is too oftenused as a synonym for ethnography or sociocultural an-thropology, whereas "archaeology" is a marked term re-ferring more precisely to methods and techniques thatmay or may not reference anthropological theory or in-terpretation, although many archaeologists study soci-ety and culture. This common practice often results inthe interpretation of Phillips's shorthand phrase as a state-ment that archaeology is a subordinate and lesser formof intellectual engagement in relation to socioculturalanthropology—and it was precisely to counter this per-ception that Phillips (1955:246) wrote his essay. Giventhat archaeologists of his day still aspired to approxi-mate the same social and cultural units as ethnogra-phers—that is, to actually do prehistoric ethnography andethnology, something they could never do so well asethnographers—it was inevitable that archaeologywould be considered "highly marginal" within anthro-pology (Watson 1995:686). The proclamation of culturalanthropologist E. Adamson Hoebel (1949:436) that ar-chaeology "is doomed always to be the lesser part of an-thropology" hung heavy over American archaeology(Willey and Sabloff 1993:152), even though it was oc-casionally hotly contested (e.g., Binford 1962; Flannery1983; Meggers 1955).

Archaeologists are still having to "borrow" fromsocial science theory, as Phillips (1955:246) concludedwas inevitable, but somehow with less legitimacy thanthat automatically granted to our fellow social scien-tists, namely, ethnographers, who observe livingpeoples and who more typically call themselves "an-thropologists." Thus it is argued that archaeology willcontinue to be relegated to a second-class status as longas it remains a "subfield" of another discipline/depart-ment. Creating separate departments of archaeology

Is Archaeology Anthropology?

is considered a pragmatic means for archaeology toget the respect it deserves (e.g., Meltzer 1979; Wise-man 1980, 1998).

The Historical Argument: Our Unique Past IsInsufficient Justification for Present Circumstances

The separation of archaeology from anthropology isoften taken to be a quite logical step given that in manyother countries archaeology is not housed in anthropol-ogy departments but instead is found in free-standingdepartments of archaeology or prehistory or is allied withhistory, art history, or classics. James Wiseman (e.g.,2001), among others, has therefore urged anthropologi-cal archaeologists to move away from a relationshipbased on what is widely believed to be a singular andnow obsolete historical foundation (see discussions inBarfield, Earle, this volume; see also Pinsky 1992:163;Taylor 1983 [1948]; Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff1993). Over 20 years ago, George Gumerman and DavidPhillips (1978:187) plainly expressed what was alreadylikely a widespread opinion when they questioned"whether given the historical development of the disci-pline since 1958 [Willey and Phillips's declaration ofarchaeology as anthropology], the automatic associationof archaeology with anthropology is currently philosophi-cally justified, and not merely the institutionalization ofhistorical accident" (emphasis added).

The special circumstances of North AmericanBoasian anthropology in the early twentieth century in-clude the holistic engagement with Native Americancultures, which were seen as "vanishing" and thus in needof multiple forms of "salvage," a view rooted in assump-tions of shallow time depth and relative stability fromthe past to the ethnographic present (e.g., Trigger 1989).The emphasis of Euro-American archaeologists on thestudy of ancient Native America—"the Other"—unlikethe nationalist focus of European archaeologists, ce-mented the tie of (prehistoric) archaeology to anthropol-ogy rather than to history (see Earle, this volume). Incontrast, the much later development of North Ameri-can historical archaeology—the study of "Us"—has muchmore tenuous ties with anthropology (see Majewski, thisvolume). These historical circumstances are cited notonly as reasons to abandon the anthropological synthe-sis, but as forms of corruption in its origin, especiallygiven the colonial contexts within which both archaeol-ogy and anthropology arose and which generated an espe-cially troublesome attitude toward native peoples asif they were on the verge of extinction (e.g., Gosden1999; Trigger 1980).

Moreover, subfield methodological differencesstrained the relationship of archaeology to anthropologyfrom the beginning. Practitioners of both failed to en-gage in what should have been common goals, such asunderstanding cultural change, and as Julian Stewardcomplained in 1942, even among early ethnographers andarchaeologists "techniques and procedures have loomedas ultimate goals. Ethnology tends to ignore the resultsof archaeology, while archaeology, concentrating on itstechniques for excavation and its methods for descrip-tion and classification of the physical properties of arti-facts, comes to consider itself a 'natural,' a 'biological,'or an 'earth-science' rather than a cultural science" (Stew-ard 1942:339). Since that time, increasing specializationwithin all of the subfields of anthropology has become aserious threat to its cohesiveness and even to the unityof archaeology itself (e.g., Borofsky 2002:471-472;Schiffer 2000:2; T. Douglas Price in Wiseman 2001:11).

A major difficulty that leads to such divisiveness isthat in its ambitious attempt to investigate the entirety ofhuman experience, archaeology encompasses enormousdiversity. There are vast differences in time scales atwhich various archaeologists work. Research questions,methods, and theoretical orientations of those who dealwith early human populations in the distant past (Clark,this volume) may seem to have little in common withthose of archaeologists who study historically docu-mented peoples (see also Crumley 1994:2-3). Similarly,anthropology that examines large swaths of time on aglobal scale from an evolutionary perspective—for in-stance, research dealing with questions of disease anddemographic patterns (Armelagos, this volume)—willlook very different from the contextual analyses confinedto narrow frames of time and space. Paleoanthropologistsresearching the deep past and bioarchaeologists oftenhave much in common with another sister discipline, bio-logical anthropology (Armelagos, Clark, this volume),while those who work in the more recent past tend todeal with questions that ally them with ethnographersand social historians (Majewski, this volume).

This diversity of topics and the new interdiscipli-nary alliances that are being formed and strengthenedbecause of them may motivate the splitting of anthro-pology in novel ways to match the present realities. Somehave found the disciplinary ties to anthropology "restric-tive," in that anthropology is "not broad enough" for theresearch undertaken by archaeologists, especially thoseexamining environmental/ecological issues and long-term or evolutionary processes (Gumerman 2002). Thesenew alliances need not correspond to the traditional sub-field boundaries that are a legacy of our discipline's his-

Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

tory but could focus on specific topics and techniques,such as paleoanthropology, bioanthropology, historicalanthropology, and ecological anthropology. Archaeol-ogy could legitimately contribute to many of these newdisciplines (e.g., van der Leeuw and Redman 2002)—orit could strike out on its own.

The Methodological Argument: What We Do IsMore Important Than Why We Do It

This discussion brings us to a second line of argumentthat has become increasingly heard in calls for separatedepartments and programs in archaeology: our specificmethods and techniques are what provide our uniqueidentity as archaeologists, and they implicate a corpusof research interests that is at odds with those of otheranthropologists. Field and laboratory methods provide acommon foundation for archaeologists trained in diversetraditions that span the sciences and humanities. Thus itseems easy to conceive archaeology as a unitary disci-pline grounded in a shared methodology. Conceivingarchaeology as "technique" not only would provide dis-ciplinary independence but also "permits the archaeolo-gist to test more freely the theories and models that haveemanated from many disciplines [besides socioculturalanthropology] while not denying we can develop our ownbody of theory" (Gumerman and Phillips 1978:188). Asnew technologies, such as materials analysis, geographicinformation systems, and bioarchaeological methods,become more accessible, archaeologists of all disciplin-ary backgrounds share greater interests in their applica-tion, reinforcing their methodological links.

Thus, some archaeologists have argued that archaeo-logical methods are sufficiently different from those ofethnology and other social sciences to warrant treating"archaeology as itself (see Trigger 1989:357ff; alsoFerrie's [2001] interview with MacNeish; Wiseman1980). This is especially possible in large departmentswhose faculty teach courses only within their narrowspecializations and delegate most undergraduate instruc-tion to graduate students and non-tenure line faculty.Furthermore, given that method is integrated with theory,the increasing importance of methodological differencesamong and within the subfields of anthropology alsoimplicates inevitable theoretical differences.

The Theoretical Argument: Is There Stilla Tie That Binds?

Phillips's original argument for the alignment of NewWorld archaeology with anthropology, which has been

echoed many times since then, emphasized the theo-retical linkage: "American archaeology stands in aparticularly close, and, so far as theory is concerned,dependent relationship to general anthropology"(Phillips 1955:246, emphasis added). In terms of theo-retical interests, archaeologists and their socioculturalcolleagues have experienced an uneven history, withperiods of convergence and divergence (Gosden 1999).Already by the 1930s there seemed to be a lack of com-mon intellectual objectives (Steward and Setzler 1938).This was also the period when "salvage" archaeologydemanded more attention from archaeologists, seemingto further detach them from the academic pursuits of eth-nographers (see below). Such centrifugal forces dimin-ished in the middle decades of the twentieth century whenfunctionalism encouraged a closer relationship betweenarchaeology and sociocultural anthropology. Phillips(1955) together with his colleague Gordon R. Willey(Willey and Phillips 1958) attempted to engage archae-ologists in the social implications of their typologicalunits, an effort that could be said to have culminated inLewis R. Binford's (1962) path-breaking article "Archae-ology as Anthropology."

Furthermore, by the 1960s a renewed theoretical in-terest in comparative and evolutionary studies of humansocieties crosscut the anthropological subdisciplines andcontributed to an explosive growth of archaeologicalknowledge (Pinsky 1992:176; Trigger 1998b:696; Willeyand Sabloff 1993). However, the research of sociocul-tural anthropologists engaged with culture as symbols,meanings, and "texts" diverged from the focus of theprocessual archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s with itspresumption that archaeologists could not be "paleo-psychologists" (Binford 1965:204), although not all ar-chaeologists eschewed these approaches. Symbolic andstructuralist theory was followed by Gramscian hege-mony, Foucauldian discourse, and other postmodern,postpositive, poststructural, and postcolonial approaches(collectively referred to as "afterology" [Sahlins1999:404]) that strongly appealed to later twentieth-century sociocultural anthropology (Ortner 1984). How-ever, they seemed to have far less to offer archaeology(J. Kelly 2002) and contributed to a further drop in cross-subdisciplinary communication, although, again, somearchaeologists have found value in these theories.

At the same time, archaeologists had been question-ing the need to follow research agendas established withinsociocultural anthropology, contesting the implication ofSteward's (1942:341) earlier characterization of archae-ology as relegated to "the position of the tail on an eth-nological kite." That is, they wanted to be "more than

Is Archaeology Anthropology?

the bastard stepchildren of anthropology" (Lyman et al.1997:213). By the 1970s there were a number of callsfor archaeology to develop its own theory, one that bet-ter matched the analysis and interpretation of the ar-chaeological record (e.g., Binford 1977:6-7; Meltzer1979:654), especially given the very different timeframes of archaeological and ethnographic research (e.g.,Bailey 1983:182; Binford 1981:197-198). Rather thanattempt to operationalize the empirical units of ethnog-raphers—which we could never do as well—it was con-sidered better to develop our own (e.g., Deetz 1972:114;Renfrew 1978:94). Archaeologists should no longer de-pend on theories first filtered through anthropology; theyshould have unlimited access to theories from the socialand the other sciences (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978;Trigger 1989:372-373). Indeed, the dependence on an-thropology and the concomitant absence of archaeologi-cal theory was said to have contributed to archaeology'sfailure to become a full-fledged science (Dunnell 1982:1;Meltzer 1979:654).2

This growing theoretical divergence is a major fac-tor motivating archaeologists and biological anthropolo-gists, but also some sociocultural anthropologists, tobreak away from an increasingly meaningless four-fieldacademic structure (see Barfield, this volume, for theperspective of the latter group). The recent separation ofthe Anthropology Department at Stanford University intoa Department of Anthropological Sciences and a Depart-ment of Cultural and Social Anthropology has becomecharacterized as a split of positivist archaeologists andbiological anthropologists from antipositivist sociocul-tural anthropologists. This development is used to sup-port the argument that archaeology, which is necessarilya materialist enterprise, is fundamentally opposed to an-timaterialist sociocultural studies.3

Postmodernism often emerges as a focal point inthe arguments for divorce—as a principal reason we nolonger get along—although it may also serve as a straw-man or distraction to avoid dealing with more pressingchallenges to the practice of archaeology (Fox, thisvolume). For example, Robert Kelly (2002) sees therejection of scientific, evolutionary, and materialistapproaches by the more "critical" postmodernists (fol-lowing Knapp 1996:130) as the most important factorunderlying the current calls for archaeologists to leaveanthropology. Within the broad and inchoate umbrellaof positions labeled "postmodern" there are the "criti-cal" nihilist and hyper-relativist strains (Knapp 1996:135)that leave little place for a holistic anthropology encom-passing an explication of the entirety and diversity ofthe human experience, especially the evolutionary and

scientific approaches more often employed by archae-ologists (Trigger 1998a:245). Bernard Knapp (1996:144)has argued that the rejection of material culture theory,long-term change, and human agency in the past espousedby some extremist positions would render archaeologyvirtually irrelevant if not impossible. On the other hand,the social and interpretive approaches that derive from"moderate" postmodernism (Knapp 1996:131) have ad-vanced archaeological knowledge and provide an oppor-tunity for archaeology to "lead the way" in developingthese theoretical perspectives (Knapp 1996:152).

Thus, this schism does not fall strictly along sub-disciplinary lines within anthropology. Furthermore,criticisms of "critical" or "radical" postmodernism havebeen made by sociocultural anthropologists and othersocial scientists, most of whom take more moderate po-sitions (Knapp 1996:136). There is now a "post-mortemon postmodernism" (J. Kelly 2002) and a resurgence ofconcern for science among many sociocultural anthro-pologists (e.g., the recently formed Society for Anthro-pological Sciences; http://anthrosciences.org). However,what is often construed as a split between science andantiscience associated with postmodernism is not con-fined to the academy, given that postmodernism itselfhas been characterized as a societal "condition" (Lyotard1984). Geoffrey Clark (this volume) argues that in theUnited States the varied political agendas of anti-intel-lectual, antiscience, and antievolutionism groups exac-erbate theoretical schisms in the academy. Thus, we needto consider the impact of extra-academic factors on therelationship of archaeology to anthropology.

Practical Factors

Our discipline is defined not only by its intellectualconcerns, having to do with the substantive content, theo-ries, and methods, but also by its specific institutionalstructure—the organization of university and collegedepartments, the training of students, professional asso-ciations and journals, and archaeological practice out-side the academy (Gosden 1999:33). These factors havealso been raised in the arguments for or against autonomy.Centrifugal forces of subdisciplinary specialization thatare as old as the discipline of anthropology are exempli-fied—and increasingly intensified—by the proliferationof specialist professional societies and interest groups,changes within academic institutions that have fosteredfactionalism, the explosive growth in nonacademic em-ployment, and the increasing realization that all archae-ologists must take "real-world" factors into account, bothinside and outside of academia.

Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

Professional Societies and Disciplinary Identities

Physical anthropologists and linguists each formedseparate professional organizations and journals in theearly decades of the twentieth century (Pinsky 1992:164-165; Stocking 1976:23-30). The Society forAmerican Archaeology was not established until 1934,significantly, in response to the rapid growth of "ama-teur archaeology" projects carried out under govern-ment auspices and in recognition of the growing gaptherefore between anthropological objectives and mostarchaeological practice (Pinsky 1992:166). The estab-lishment of the SAA has also been characterized "bothas a symptom of intensified subdisciplinary specializa-tion, and as an aggravating factor in that process" (Pin-sky 1992:167).

Thomas Patterson (1999:162) observed that a 1946reorganization of the American Anthropological Asso-ciation (founded 1902) reasserted and also redefined thefour-field structure of anthropology, which was only latermirrored in academic departments. A number of the largersubdisciplinary organizations were affiliated with theAAA, which managed certain business affairs for themsuch as membership billing and publications. However,a 1982 Internal Revenue Service ruling impacted theassociation's ability to provide such services. Severalorganizations, including the SAA and the American As-sociation of Physical Anthropologists, opted to managetheir own association business rather than face dissolu-tion under the proposed AAA reorganization plan (Greenand Fowler 1983:1). The AAA established a new sectionto represent the interests of archaeologists within theassociation—the Archeology Division (publisher of thisvolume)—and created the Biological AnthropologyDivision to represent the interests of biological an-thropologists. Nevertheless, that decision likely affectedthe identity of many SAA members in terms of the intel-lectual alliance of archaeology with anthropology.4

The resulting co-presence of two professional asso-ciations dedicated to archaeology is now believed bysome to represent a major division within archaeologyitself. Bruce Smith (2001:215) recently asserted that ar-chaeologists who participate in the AAA, publish inAmerican Anthropologist, and are proponents of four-field anthropology are "intellectual theoreticians" en-gaged with big-picture questions of culture change. Theycontrast in his opinion with "scientist" archaeologists whoare "particularists concerned with discovering and docu-menting the scatter of hard facts." Smith considers thatit is the latter group that recognizes the "reality of thedecline in interaction between sociocultural anthropol-

ogy and archaeology" and are more likely to belong tothe SAA (but see below).

The SAA, which at this writing has almost 7,000members, has created a distinctive identity as a profes-sional organization. It has been active in shaping publicand legal policies in the United States, in recognizingthe growth of practicing or cultural resource manage-ment archaeology, in public outreach, and in promotingarchaeological education. Many professional and studentarchaeologists, faced with the increasing costs of mem-bership in either organization (SAA or AAA-AD), havechosen to join the one that is devoted solely to archaeol-ogy, further reinforcing their identities as "archaeolo-gists" more so than as "anthropologists."

The Archeology Division of the AAA, which at thiswriting has over 1,400 members, is a minority memberof the much larger association, although it is one of thelarger sections. The great majority of AAA membersidentify themselves as sociocultural anthropologists(Borofsky 2002:471). Despite the recent reorganiza-tion of the AAA that sought to reduce subdisciplinaryfactionalism, Borofsky (2002:471) suggests that, as thelargest percentage of members, sociocultural anthropolo-gists—who, he presumes, have more in common withone another than with members in the other subfields—should dictate the future directions of the AAA. Heblames the stultifying bureaucracy of the AAA and aca-demic anthropology departments for not being able torespond to what he sees as a mandate for change awayfrom the "myth" of the four fields.

Changing Educational Structures

Institutional academic constraints have also beenfaulted for subfield fragmentation. Post-war anthropol-ogy was influenced by the expanded opportunities inNorth American higher education for the working andmiddle classes (mostly men) made possible by the GIbill and the overall growth of colleges and universitiesto accommodate the baby-boom generation. Free-stand-ing departments of anthropology became more commonin the 1960s (usually splitting off from joint sociology-anthropology departments), and their faculties increas-ingly represented all four subfields (Patterson 1999:163).Subdisciplinary specialization intensified in the early1970s as the expansion of universities and the growth ofanthropology departments generally came to an end, andfunding constraints furthered compartmentalization(Patterson 1995:106-113, 1999:161-162). Competitionfor resources for faculty lines and graduate admissionstended to exacerbate subdisciplinary factions.

Is Archaeology Anthropology?

As for students, both undergraduate and graduateeducation operate within a limited time framework es-tablished by academic conventions in North America andfurther promulgated by resource constraints. The vari-ous impulses pulling students away from a generalgrounding in anthropology are strong, including narrowspecializations coupled with the increasing intersectionsof archaeology with other disciplines ranging from arthistory to zoology, the need for special professional train-ing, and an appearance of lack of common interests, ifnot outright tensions, among the subdisciplines.

Graduate students were therefore encouraged to spe-cialize even more, and to compensate for this factor, otheranthropology requirements began to be curtailed ordropped altogether in some departments. Over time, asnew faculty and graduate teaching assistants lacking acomprehensive anthropology background joined depart-ments in increasing numbers, the inability or unwilling-ness to communicate across the subdisciplines and to passon a holistic view of anthropology—one that examinesthe entirety of human biological, cultural, and historicalexperience—to the next generation of students intensi-fied. Scalar stress in very large departments probablynecessitates some form of organizational subdivision thatusually follows subdisciplinary lines (Cowgill 2002).These changes have contributed to the feeling by manyarchaeologists, who are usually outnumbered by socio-cultural anthropologists in U.S. academic departments,that the sociocultural majority has little understandingof or concern for archaeology (Cowgill 2002).

The Growth of Nonacademic Archaeology

Both the SAA's founding and its later split fromthe AAA occurred in periods when salvage or CRM ar-chaeology was growing rapidly. Indeed, in the 1930s itwas "the mounting demands of survey and salvagework...which in fact relegated archaeology to a 'back-water' within the Boasian domain [Cole 1976:121], andwhich preserved its subdisciplinary marginality for quitesome time" (Pinsky 1992:177). By the 1970s CRM hadbecome a significant force restructuring the practice ofarchaeology in the United States, prompting calls forestablishment of an autonomous discipline of archaeol-ogy even at that time (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978).

The enormous shift in funding and employment forarchaeology to the government and private sectors hasproduced tensions within archaeology itself—betweenarchaeology as "science," archaeology as an academicdiscipline, and archaeology as "business" (see Ander-son, Clark, Doelle, this volume)—even as it has also

continued to fuel the divisiveness between archaeologyand sociocultural anthropology. It has long been ques-tioned whether CRM-bound students would be betterserved by training in separate departments of archaeol-ogy, especially now given the huge demand for practic-ing archaeologists (e.g., Gumerman and Phillips 1978;Wiseman 1980, 1983, 1998; see Anderson, Gillespie, thisvolume). Because the majority of archaeology graduatestoday will likely obtain nonacademic jobs, and the spe-cial professional training needed for these jobs is nottypically provided in research-oriented anthropologydepartments (Fagan 1999; Zeder 1997), this dramaticemployment change has again been cited as reasonenough for creating separate departments of archaeol-ogy (e.g., Wiseman 1998).

In sum, the arguments for rethinking the traditionalplacement of archaeology within anthropology are com-plex and multifaceted. They require serious considerationfrom a variety of perspectives responding to both thesubstantive and practical issues that have been raised.

Organization and Scope of the Volume

In the chapters that follow, the contributors considerthese factors as they discuss from their own experiencethe interfacing of archaeology and anthropology in theoryand practice. The chapters are grouped to form two partsthat address these different but overlapping issues in therelationship between archaeology and anthropology. PartII considers intellectual and theoretical factors with pa-pers by Timothy Earle, George Armelagos, ThomasBarfield, Geoffrey Clark, John Terrell, and TeresitaMajewski. Practical and institutional factors are exploredin Part III in papers by Susan Gillespie, Rosemary Joyce,David Anderson, William Doelle, and T. J. Ferguson.Commentaries are offered by Jane Hill and Richard Foxin Part IV. In the concluding chapter we return to theintersection of these various factors in the calls for bothseparation and continued unity and examine future di-rections that archaeology might take.

The archaeology contributors represent the gamutof the profession, from research to teaching to museumcuration and interpretation to CRM and public outreach.They include archaeologists who advocate for archaeol-ogy as science and others who emphasize historical andhumanist approaches. We also sought the perspectivesof biological and sociocultural anthropologists. GeorgeArmelagos's research in skeletal biology from a bioso-cial and evolutionary framework bridges anthropology'ssubdisciplines. Ethnographer Thomas Barfield chairs theAnthropology Department at Boston University, one of

10 Deborah L Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

the rare institutions at which the anthropological archae-ologists are in a separate Department of Archaeology withother archaeologists. The volume's commentators, JaneHill, a linguist and former president of the AmericanAnthropological Association, and Richard Fox, an eth-nographer and current president of the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., and pasteditor of Current Anthropology, bring a broader perspec-tive to bear on the current state of archaeology's rela-tions with the rest of anthropology.

No contributor list can fully represent the totality ofAmerican archaeology. There is certainly a great diver-sity of experience and perspective among archaeologiststoday, but attempts to characterize their differences arenot as clearcut as is often portrayed. For example, thereis a strong perception that the aims of academic and CRMarchaeology are at odds with one another, but this viewis often contested (e.g., Clark, Anderson, Doelle, this vol-ume). Archaeologists might also seem to be divisible alonga "science-humanities" dichotomy, but many actuallyspan that presumed gap (e.g., Renfrew and Zubrow 1994),and departments of archaeology such as that at BostonUniversity are an indication that such differences neednot preclude collegial collaboration and coordination.

Bruce Smith's characterization (above) of a sepa-ration between AAA-affiliated four-field-advocating"intellectual theoreticians" and SAA-affiliated au-tonomy-advocating "scientist archaeologists" also doesnot withstand close scrutiny. Archaeologists arguing bothfor and against separation from anthropology include in-dividuals along the full range of the science-history-hu-manist continuum. In fact, there is substantial overlap inthe leadership of the AAA-Archeology Division and theSAA. For example, Robert Kelly, the current SAA presi-dent, served on the AAA-AD Executive Committee, ashave two other current SAA board members, PatriciaMcAnany and William Doelle. All the members of thecurrent AAA-AD Executive Committee have also servedeither on the SAA Executive Board or on SAA commit-tees, and most members of the AAA-AD also belong toSAA. We agree with Smith that the historical decline inparticipation in the annual meeting of the AAA by ar-chaeologists and the decline in archaeologists publish-ing in American Anthropologist (even though there hasbeen some reversal of those trends [Nichols and Gillespie2000]) reflect a separation between archaeology and so-ciocultural anthropology. The expense of belonging toboth organizations and attending the annual meeting ofboth is also a factor. Our point is that the archaeologicalcontributors to this AAA-AD-sponsored volume expressmany of the same concerns about the relationship of ar-

chaeology to anthropology as our colleagues who advo-cate for separation, but we differ in our perspectives as towhat kind of change is needed and how to accomplish it.

The editors asked for and received from the authorsa frank discussion; no aspect of this issue was off-limits.The intensification of calls by archaeologists to separatefrom anthropology after the original symposium hassharpened the focus of the contributors' comments andhas added a sense of urgency to the debate. They presentstrongly, even passionately, held views, many based onpersonal experiences and varied research perspectives.The authors do not agree with one another as to how orwhy anthropology and archaeology should be related,which is itself a reflection of the enormous diversity en-compassed by anthropological archaeology. Neither wenor the other authors are satisfied with the status quo,and a variety of recommendations for change are offered,although they are not easy solutions.

The contributors generally take the position that ar-chaeology indeed still is, and should continue to be, an-thropological, but they come to this conclusion from abroad range of viewpoints based on their research per-spectives and experiences both within and outside theacademy. This position is not meant to be a panacea forcurrent intellectual, practical, and interpersonal difficul-ties that promote divisiveness, nor is it a dogmatic modelfor all academic departments to follow. The authors,however, do provide compelling counterargumentsagainst the calls for separation and for archaeology asanthropology.

A cknowledgments

We are grateful to Timothy Earle for his perspectiveon some of the issues. John D. Kelly and George L.Cowgill have allowed us to cite their papers from theAD-sponsored session at the 2002 SAA meeting. We alsothank Jay Johnson, AD Publications Director, for hisvaluable suggestions, along with the very helpful com-ments of the reviewers. David Grove and John Watanabewere sounding boards for ideas as we wrestled with thedifficult issues raised in the volume. Lauren Hendricksand Marina Ma, Dartmouth students, provided able as-sistance with citations and bibliographic entries. We areespecially grateful to all the contributors' commitmentsto the successful completion of this volume.

Notes

1. All of the SAA 2000 participants are representedhere. Papers by Anderson, Clark, Fox, Gillespie, and

Is Archaeology Anthropology? 11

Joyce were solicited following the symposium. RosemaryJoyce also collaborated in planning the symposium.

2. Notably, however, this growing split was not uni-formly felt even in North America (Earle, this volume),and south of the Rio Grande archaeology is a vital partof anthropology, which Bernal (1980) has called the na-tional discipline of Mexico.

3. See the concluding chapter: this departmental di-vision has been misrepresented, as there are archaeolo-gists and sociocultural anthropologists in both daughterdepartments.

4. This is the opinion of Barbara Stark (personalcommunication) from her experience as the first (transi-tional) chair of the Archeology Division.

References

Bailey, G. N.1983 Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. An-

nual Review of Anthropology 12:165-192.

Bender, Susan J., and George S. Smith, eds.2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Cen-

tury. Washington, DC: Society for American Ar-chaeology.

Bernal, Ignacio1980 A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished

Civilizations of Middle America. New York:Thames and Hudson.

Binford, Lewis R.1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiq-

uity 28:217-225.1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cul-

ture Process. American Antiquity 31:203-210.1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in

Archaeology. L. R. Binford, ed. Pp. 1-10. NewYork: Academic.

1981 Behavioural Archaeology and the "PompeiiPremise." Journal of Anthropological Research37:195-208.

Borofsky, Robert2002 The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Myth-

makers. American Anthropologist 104:463-480.

Braidwood, Robert J.1959 Archeology and the Evolutionary Theory. In Evo-

lution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal.

B. J. Meggers, ed. Pp. 76-89. Washington, DC:Anthropological Society of Washington.

Cole, John R.1976 Nineteenth Century Fieldwork, Archaeology, and

Museum Studies: Their Role in the Four-FieldDefinition of American Anthropology. In Ameri-can Anthropology: The Early Years. J. V. Murra,ed. Pp. 111-125. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Cowgill, George L.2002 Archaeology Loses If It Doesn't Pay Attention to

Other Social Scientists and Historians. Paper pre-sented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Denver.

Crumley, Carole L.1994 Historical Ecology: A Multidimensional Ecologi-

cal Orientation. In Historical Ecology: CulturalKnowledge and Changing Landscapes. C. L.Crumley, ed. Pp. 1-16. Santa Fe: School of Ameri-can Research Press.

Deetz, James F.1972 Archaeology as a Social Science. In Contempo-

rary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory andContributions. M. P. Leone, ed. Pp. 108-117.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dixon, R. B.1913 Some Aspects of North American Archaeology.

American Anthropologist 15:549-577.

Dunnell, Robert C.1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense:

The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archae-ology. Journal of Anthropological Research38:1-25.

Fagan, Brian1999 An Academic Time Warp: New Archaeologists

Don't Fit the Job Market. Discovering Archaeol-ogy l(July-Aug.):8-ll.

Ferrie, Helke2001 An Interview with Richard S. MacNeish. Current

Anthropology 42:715-735.

Flannery, Kent V.1983 Archaeology and Ethnology in the Context of Di-

vergent Evolution. In The Cloud People: Diver-

12 Deborah L. Nichols, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie

gent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civili-zations. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, eds. Pp.361-362. New York: Academic.

Gosden, Chris1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Re-

lationship. London: Routledge.

Green, Dee F., and Don F. Fowler1983 Change in SAA Management Announced. SAA

Bulletin 1(4): 1-2.

Gumerman, George J.2002 Letter to the Editor. The SAA Archaeological

Record 2(4):3.

Gumerman, George J., and David A. Phillips, Jr.1978 Archaeology Beyond Anthropology. American

Antiquity 43:184—191.

Hoebel, E. Adamson1949 Man in the Primitive World. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Ingold, Tim1992 Editorial. Man 27:693-696.

Kelly, John D.2002 Hegemony in Anthropological Theory. Paper pre-

sented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Denver.

Kelly, Robert L.2002 Counterpoint: Archaeology Is Anthropology. The

SAA Archaeological Record 2(3): 13-14.

Knapp, A. Bernard1996 Archaeology Without Gravity: Postmodernism and

the Past. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 3:127-158.

Lees, Susan2002 Counterpoint: Separation versus a Larger Vision.

The SAA Archaeological Record 2(3):11-12.

Lyman, R. Lee, Michael J. O'Brien, and Robert C. Dunnell1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York:

Plenum Press.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois1984 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowl-

edge. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, trans.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Meggers, Betty J.1955 The Coming of Age of American Archaeology. In

New Interpretations of Aboriginal American Cul-ture History. B. J. Meggers and C. Evans, eds. Pp.116-129. Washington, DC: Anthropological So-ciety of Washington.

Meltzer, David J.1979 Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American

Archaeology. American Antiquity 44:644-657.

Nichols, Deborah L., and Susan D. Gillespie2000 Willey Prize Clarification. Anthropology News

41(6):3.

Ortner, Sherry B.1984 Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Compara-

tive Studies in Society and History 26:126-166.

Patterson, Thomas C.1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the

United States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceCollege Publications.

1999 The Political Economy of Archaeology in theUnited States. Annual Review of Anthropology28:155-174.

Phillips, Philip1955 American Archaeology and General Anthropologi-

cal Theory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropol-ogy 11:246-250.

Pinsky, Valerie1992 Archaeology, Politics, and Boundary-Formation:

The Boas Censure (1991) and the Development ofAmerican Archaeology during the Inter-WarYears. In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on theHistory of American Archaeology. J. E. Reyman,ed. Pp. 161-190. Aldershot: Avebury.

Renfrew, Colin1978 Space, Time and Polity. In The Evolution of So-

cial Systems. J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, eds.Pp. 89-112. London: Duckworth.

Renfrew, Colin, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, eds.1994 The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archae-

ology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Is Archaeology Anthropology? 13

Sahlins, Marshall1999 Two or Three Things That I Know about Culture.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,n.s., 5:399-421.

Schiffer, Michael Brian2000 Social Theory in Archaeology: Building

Bridges. In Social Theory in Archaeology. M. B.Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-13. Salt Lake City: Univer-sity of Utah Press.

Smith, Bruce D.2001 The Transition to Food Production. In Archaeol-

ogy at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. G. M.Feinman and T. D. Price, eds. Pp. 199-230. NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Steward, Julian1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology.

American Antiquity 7:337-343.

Steward, Julian, and F. M. Setzler1938 Function and Configuration in Archaeology.

American Antiquity 4:4-10.

Stocking, George W., Jr.1976 Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology:

Thoughts Toward a History of the Interwar Years.In Selected Papers from the American Anthropolo-gist, 1921-1945. G. W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 1-53. Washington, DC: American AnthropologicalAssociation.

Strong, William Duncan1952 The Value of Archaeology in the Training of Pro-

fessional Anthropologists. American Anthropolo-gist 54:318-321.

Taylor, Walter W., Jr.1983 [1948] A Study of Archeology [sic]. Center for Ar-

chaeological Investigations. Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University.

Trigger, Bruce G.1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American In-

dian. American Antiquity 45:662-676.1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.1998a Sociocultural Evolution: Calculation and Contin-

gency. Oxford: Blackwell.1998b "The Loss of Innocence" in Historical Perspective.

Antiquity 72:694-698.

van der Leeuw, Sander E., and Charles L. Redman2002 Placing Archaeology at the Center of Socio-

Natural Studies. American Antiquity 67:597-605.

Watson, Patty Jo1995 Archaeology, Anthropology, and the Culture

Concept. American Anthropologist 97:683-694.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff1993 A History of American Archaeology. 3rd ed. New

York: W. H. Freeman.

Wiseman, James1980 Archaeology as Archaeology. Journal of Field

Archaeology 7:149-151.1983 Conflicts in Archaeology: Education and Practice.

Journal of Field Archaeology 10:1-9.1998 Reforming Academia. Archaeology 51(5):27—30.2001 Declaration of Independence. Archaeology

54(4): 10-12.2002 Point: Archaeology as an Academic Disci-

pline. The SAA Archaeological Record2(3):8-10.

Zeder, Melinda A.1997 The American Archaeologist: A Profile. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira.