History and Archaeology Bulletin Board	2000

On our way to the altar ...

Posted by Kevin M. Bartoy on February 25, 2000 at 09:08:46:

In this thought provoking article, Phil Levy dealt with an important and frequently contested issue. The "history versus anthropology" debate is, and has been, a common battleground in American historical archaeology. As young scholars enter the discipline, we often spend a good deal of time in trying to define the academic boundaries of the hybrid disclipline of historical archaeology. Much of this "fence building" seems to rehash arguments first broached at the inception of historical archaeology as recognized subdiscipline in the late 1960s and early 1970s. To use Phil's imagery, we seem constantly on a race to the altar to tie that knot between history and anthropology, but seldom do we get close to hallowed ground. Yet, I believe that Phil, in this article, has moved us in a more productive direction, a direction that seeks a resolution to the contested boundaries between history and anthropology.

As colleagues at William and Mary as well as at Colonial Williamsburg, Phil and I have had many wonderful discussions concerning the relation between history and anthropology. From these discussions, I have been consistently struck by the fact that while history and archaeology may be increasingly unhappy bedfellows, history and anthropology are beginning to enjoy a more congenial, and perhaps conjugal, relationship. Recently, there has been a distinct "turn" within the field of anthropology towards a more historical mode of thinking. Sociocultural anthropologists, who have long been burdened by the synchronic approaches to culture introduced through the work of British social anthropologists such as A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, have begun to recognize the importance of diachronic approaches to culture and society. The work of Jean and John Comaroff, Sherry Ortner and Richard Fox demonstrate the increasing importance of "historical" perspectives to understanding culture. Many of these anthropologists draw their inspiration from English social historians, such as E.P. Thompson, as well as English and French sociologists, such as Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu. I believe that these "new directions" in anthropology provide practitioners of historical archaeology with a new opportunity to disregard the process of boundary definition and to recognize the importance of interdisciplinary projects that attempt to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the human past.

Yet, since the advent of the "New Archaeology" in the 1960s, archaeology in general and historical archaeology in particular has continually been haunted by "scientistic" approaches to the past. Most likely due the material emphasis on archaeological remains, archaeologists have been saddled with the belief that the "facts" are "out there" awaiting discovery. This belief has led archaeologists to increasingly narrow their perspectives towards statistical methods, materials science and "scientistic" approaches. As archaeologists focus in upon the arcane minutiae of "other peoples' garbage," we lose our connection to the general public as well as our connection to more humanistic scholars interested in the totality of human experience rather than, say, the development of .22 caliber shell casings or the manufacturing process of tin cans. It is far past time that archaeologists embrace some of the recent developments in social theory that will lead us towards a more complex understanding of the human past and should also lead us closer to cooperative projects with other disciplines.

I am explicitly speaking as a dissenting voice from within the discipline of anthropological archaeology. Yet, I believe, although I may be overstepping my bounds, that Phil presents a similar voice of dissent from within the discipline of history. I am strongly convinced that our mutual dissent is trending towards a similar goal, and that goal is the increasing recognition of the importance of "everyday life," including the idea of "space" which Phil discussed in his article. I firmly believe that as the ideas of Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu become commonplace within academic circles, scholars will begin to emphasize the daily "practices" that constitute and reconstitute society. A complex undertanding of these practices must take into account many different sources of information and it must do it in such a way that we strive towards an holistic, rather than parochial, understanding of the past. Just as archaeologists must become more familiar with historiography, historians need to become more familiar with anthropological and archaeological theory. And, members of both of these disciplines must become familiar with a variety of works in sociology, philosophy and geography that address themselves to a more holistic understanding of the human past. Just in passing and as examples, I would like to recommend a variety of readings that cross disciplinary boundaries yet, taken together, provide for a more complex understanding of the lived experience: the work of Julian Thomas within archaeology, the works of Bourdieu and Giddens within sociology, the works of Habermas and Heidegger within philosophy, and the works of Pred within geography.

As we begin to disregard the unproductive process of disciplinary boundary definition, we need to replace it with the recognition of our mutual disciplinary weaknesses in regards to the human past. In doing this, we should look to combine our strengths to allay these weak spots, and work together to reach a more holistic understanding of the human past. Of course the vision that I have expressed is far too simple, especially since there exist strong institutional structures which keep our disciplines divided. Yet, if we are to reach the altar and "kiss the bride," we are going to have to transcend these structures and refuse to be satiated by tradition and inertia. It is really in the hands of our new generation. Shall we rehash the arguments of our ancestors? Or, should we learn their lessons and move forward unencumbered by their legacy of failure in regards to the "history versus anthropology" debate?

Back to Board