Sam Lin
9/24/09
Rethinking the Four Field Approach
The four field approach has been the traditional emphasis of American anthropology
since the founding of the discipline in the early twentieth century. The approach divides the
discipline into four interrelated sub-disciplines of socio-cultural and physical anthropology,
archaeology, and linguistic. This fundamental structure of anthropology, which Stocking
(1995:935) termed the “scared bundle”, has deeply influences the development of the
discipline in North America. However, the nature of these four fields and the boundaries
between them has been debated and changed throughout the years. Especially with the
influence from the recent postmodernist movement, the internal division of anthropology and
its four fields has been more diverse than ever.
In 1904, Franz Boas coined the four anthropological fields by arguing that the domain
of anthropological knowledge is consisted of “the biological history of mankind; linguistics
applied to people without written language; the ethnology of people without historic record;
and prehistoric archaeology” (Boas 1904:523). For Boas and American anthropology at its
early founding period, the goal of the discipline was to study the history of cultures. This
went against the general trend of anthropological study at that time in Britain and continental
Europe where the study of people and culture is based upon the model of unilineal social
evolution. As Stocking (1995:940), pointed out, the cause for such difference can be
attributed to the absence of written record in the New World. Unlike the Old World where
rich historic texts allow the study of history, American anthropology is about the study of
“people without history” through alternative first hand observation. The four fields of
anthropology, in Boas’ view, are the four practicable ways for obtaining these first hand data
to answer the common anthropological question despite their conflicting epistemologies and
perspectives.
At this period, the subjects of anthropological studies were non-western savages with
“vanishing” cultures due to European contact. The strength of archaeology in this inquiry was
to determine chronological sequence of cultural evolution. However, the inability to establish
absolute dates caused archaeology in North America to “simply rank[ed] with ethnological
observations of primitive people” (Boas 1904:522). Although the Boasian school advocated
for the historical approach, this idea of people without history implied short time depth.
Archaeological remains were thought to be left by people who share similar culture to present
day indigenous groups within the same geographical region (Boas 1902, P. 1; i.e. historic
particularism). Thus, archaeology suggests little not already known ethnologically. While
physical, socio-cultural and linguistic anthropology all contribute to the knowledge of
anthropology in their own unique ways, archaeology merely served as the testing ground for
anthropological models and interpretations regarding cultural evolution.
Anthropology as a discipline continued to grow in America under the Boasian school,
and in some sense, into a unified scientific field. A general critique developed towards the
assumption of unilineal cultural evolution and predetermined biological difference between
“race”. Variations between populations were reinterpreted in terms of external factors such as
environmental adaptation. The focus of study is no longer describing cultures evolutionary
sequence, but rather the structure and function of normative societies through “participant
observation” of the ethnographic present. This functionalist approach also led interpretations
Sam Lin
9/24/09
to become synchronic and ahistoric. Anthropologists studied groups of people as units of
observation in “an empathic, holistic, and relativistic manner” (Stocking 1995:949).
The strong positivist impulse continued into World War II and the postwar era as
socio-cultural anthropology became the dominating subfield in anthropology. Along with the
rise of neo cultural evolutionism, anthropologists became increasingly interested in the
universality of cultures and applied anthropology. Attention has moved away from “cultures
of primitive people” to the developmental process of societies or “complex civilizations”. It
was believed that through a rigorous and comparative approach at a global scale, universal
models can be derived regarding social process, and used for political and economic purposes.
Archaeology followed a similar trend of development. With the strong influence of
Boas’ concept of the four field approach as well as the relationship between anthropology and
archaeology, archaeological data continued to be viewed as past ethnographic record and
interpreted in ethnographic terms. The subsequent rise of New Archaeology introduced the
positivists and functionalist approach into New World archaeology. Along the development
of numerous new methods, such as radiocarbon dating, archaeology was seen to be a mature
field that was able to contribute equally to the overall discipline of anthropology as the other
three sub-fields, especially social-cultural anthropology. However, despite this shift towards
“becoming scientific”, the fundamental notion that archaeological record is “distorted”
ethnographic data remained the same (Binford 1962). The goal of archaeologist is to translate
past static records to dynamic social systems where general anthropological theories are
applicable.
During the postcolonial period in the 1970s, a series of political events and social
changes at a global scale, including the independence of previously colonized countries,
caused anthropologists to question the scientific self-confidence of the discipline. The
fundamental boundaries within the traditional framework were confronted and deconstructed.
It was no longer realistic to recover uncontaminated data that is ethnically neutral or free
from political consequences. The awareness of reflexivity also questioned previous
assumptions and the validity of scientific “functionalist” interpretations. Increased
differentiation within anthropology began to occur as boundaries between sub-fields started
to blur.
The same movement in archaeology emerged with the critiques of processual
archaeology inspired by the postmodern movement. Emphasis was placed on the shift back to
history and agency, and the contextual understanding of archaeological remains rather than
universal explanations of cultural process. The destabilization of “previously bounded
intellectual categories” (Stocking 1995:954) in anthropology and archaeology has allowed
flexibility and freedom for various forms of research inquiries from the constraint of
positivity and objectivity.
With the dramatic increase in the internal differentiation of the field in recent years,
some archaeologists began to seek autonomy from anthropology in terms of both
departmental structure and intellectual connections (Wiseman 2002). For some, the four field
approach became a myth that is no longer applicable. For others, however, it remains
essential for the study of certain cultural phenomenon, such as the colonization history of the
Pacific by the Lapita people (Green 1995). Despite these debates, increasing number of
Sam Lin
9/24/09
anthropologists and archaeologists has begun to argue for the unique temporal and spatial
properties of the archaeological data where it is able to demonstrate long-term cultural
processes which short-term ethnographic studies cannot provide.
Recognizing this difference, however, is not enough according to Lyman (2007).
Archaeologists have to accept the fact that archaeological record and ethnographic data, like
paleontology and biology, operates under different tempo and mode and require completely
different theories. In other words, archaeologists should stop considering themselves as
second class anthropologists that depend on the theoretical importation from ethnology, but
rather develop theories specifically for the unique nature of the archaeological record. Only
through this way can archaeology gain a seat at the high table of anthropology along with the
three other fields.
While others argue for the autonomy of archaeology as a discipline and the
abandonment of the four field approach, I would argue that archaeology may separate itself
from anthropology in a structural manner, intellectual independence, however, cannot be
done as the goal of archaeology, no matter in what form, ultimately relates back to
anthropology. As oppose to Lyman’s avocation for evolutionary archaeology as the solution,
I argue that as long as archaeologists see the palimpsest nature of the record and take control
of the scale as well as formation processes (Bailey 2006), the potential of interaction and
contribution between archaeology and the discipline of anthropology as a whole is greater
than ever.
References:
Bailey, Geoff. 2006. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 26:198-223.
Binford, Lewis. R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.
Boas, Franz. 1902. Some problems in North American archaeology. American Journal of
Archaeology 6:1-6.
Boas, Franz. 1904. The history of anthropology. Science: New Series 20(215):513-524.
Green, Roger. C. 1995. Linguistic, biological, and cultural origins of the initial inhabitants of
Remote Oceania. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 17:5–27.
Lyman, R. Lee. 2007. Archaeology’s quest for a seat at the high table of anthropology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:133-149.
Stocking, Jr., George. W. 1995. Delimiting anthropology: Historical Reflections on the
boundaries of a boundless discipline. Social Research 62(4):933-966
Wiseman, James. 2002. Archaeology as an academic discipline. The SAA Archaeological
Record 2(3):8-10.
Sam Lin
9/24/09
Questions
1. Is the four field approach actually relevant or beneficial to anthropology? Has this
relevance changed throughout the development of the discipline?
2. Is the increased fragmentation and blurring of the boundaries between the four fields a
problem?
3. Should archaeology be separated from anthropology? If according to Lyman that
creating archaeology’s own theory can allow the field to gain a seat at the high table
of anthropology, should anthropology just separate itself out from the discipline?