“An Archaeology of the Four-Field Approach in Anthropology in the United States”Hodder (2005)
-In Hodder’s Europe, most archaeology departments are not in anthropology or
ethnography departments. So, David Clarke’s statement of “archaeology is archaeology
is archaeology,” (1968) is often taken for granted by European archaeologists who see it
as an independent discipline.
-In Europe, the growth of archaeology is tied historically and politically with the project
of the nation-state. The political vision and ambitions of the emerging nation-states
provided the primary concern for major museum and state antiquities authorities to define
the antiquity and historical depth of the national tradition in the 19th century.
-In the U.S., the initial influence on the development of archaeological institutions was
more closely related to colonialism in North America, tied to defining the pre-colonial
Native American “other,” thus tying archaeology immediately to anthropology.
-In the 2nd half of the 20th century, the New Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s
provided an image of archaeology as a subset of anthropology defined as a universalizing
science using cross-cultural generalizations, causing many people to take for granted that
“Archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing.” Even when specific archaeological issue
emerged, the affiliation with anthropology was not doubted.
-Today, anthropology and archaeology find themselves in the different historical context
of postcolonialism, globalism, and the forces of plurality and reflexivity. As sociocultural anthropology become more involved in the linguistic and reflexive turns, many
archaeologists saw this move as a betrayal of anthropology from its true basis in science
and the universal as positivistic sciences, thus divorcing many archaeologists from
cultural anthropology.
-Many have said a gap has emerged between behavioral/processual archaeology and
anthropology, causing some to say that if socio-cultural anthropology once again become
anthropological and reversed its reflexive turn, the gap would be closed.
-Hodder argues that in some contexts, it would be better if the arbitrariness of the
historical connection between archaeology and anthropology be admitted and the
disciplines go their own ways. He points to several examples of harm being done to
archaeology for remaining in anthropology: 1) There has been a restraint in the
development of debates with other disciplines such as history. 2) The development of
archaeological science has been impeded, as is seen with archaeometry and the lack of
training in U.S. anthropology departments. This may be due to the location of both
archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology in the same departments and the social and
behavioral funding agencies. 3) There exists confusion between archaeological science
and scientific archaeology in the U.S., which may inhibit proper funding of
archaeological science within departments dominated by cultural anthropology. 4) The
development of contract archaeology has caused problems as the professionalization of
archaeology focuses less on anthropological questions and more on technical skills,
causing many to feel they have not been properly trained to be archaeologists in
anthropology departments in universities.
-The development of postprocessual archaeology in the 1980s was a reaction against
processual archaeology and thus was not focused on having a unified agenda. This
creates and internal division in archaeology and the diversity causes some to fear a lack
of common ground in the subfield. In the critique of positivism, by embracing history
and agency and engaging with meaning and practice, postprocessual archaeologists have
forged new relationships with the social sciences, including anthropology.
-Postprocessual archaeology is focusing on the intersection between heritage and
globalization, allowing archaeologists to develop complex literature dealing with identity,
locality, diaspora, social life, etc. which are themes that interact with cultural
anthropology. The reflexive turn has caused archaeologists to create new forms of
writing and presentation of the past, and to approach “fieldwork” differently, interacting
with indigenous groups through NAGRPA, and so forth.
-Hodder argues that many believe archaeology can provide a metadiscourse for
anthropology, so he contends that an archaeology of anthropology would involve:
materiality and the long term.
-Material culture has seen increase interests and literature regarding it. Many examples
of “archaeological” approaches within ethnographic studies have been shown, causing
some to suggest that the training of cultural anthropologists could deal with approaches to
the analysis of material culture. The work of Bruno Latour provides an example of how
cultural anthropologist can be trained to recognize how the material act may bring
together different aspects of life.
-The aims of the long term would be to explore how the entanglements with objects over
the long term lie behind visible and discursive social changes.
-Hodder offers up an additional perspective involving collaborative research between
archaeologists and ethnographers to understand the social construction of archaeological
knowledge or the interaction between archaeologists and the local community. He sees
archaeological projects as benefiting from the inclusion of ethnographers and argues that
a new type of cultural anthropology/archaeology student is required, with equal dexterity
in both.
-Hodder makes it clear that his arguments were not for a return to the four fields, but
instead that it reflects independent disciplines coming together to deal with specific
issues, and at other times sitting at different tables with different disciplines.
-He asks, how it is possible to preserve some semblance of disciplinarity while at the
same time allowing for changing allegiances and changing interest groups?