Joshua Englehardt - These Thin Partitions

Bridging the Growing Divide between Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology

EDITED BY

Joshua D. Englehardt and Ivy A. Rieger

University Press of Colorado

Boulder

2017 by University Press of Colorado

Published by University Press of Colorado
5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C
Boulder, Colorado 80303

All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of The Association of American University Presses.

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State University, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Regis University, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, Utah State University, and Western State Colorado University.

This paper meets the requirements of the ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

ISBN: 978-1-60732-541-3 (cloth)
ISBN: 978-1-60732-542-0 (ebook)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Englehardt, Joshua, editor. | Rieger, Ivy A., editor.
Title: These thin partitions : bridging the growing divide between cultural anthropology and archaeology / Joshua D. Englehardt and Ivy A. Rieger, editors.
Description: Boulder : University Press of Colorado, 201. | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016032564| ISBN 9781607325413 (cloth) | ISBN 9781607325420 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: ArchaeologyMethodology. | EthnologyMethodology.
Classification: LCC CC79.E85 T54 2016 | DDC 930.1dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016032564

Cover illustration Svetlana Lukienko/Shutterstock

Joshua D. Englehardt and Ivy A. Rieger

Vincent M. Lamotta and John Monaghan

Paul Shankman

Fredrik Fahlander

Ivy A. Rieger

Joshua D. Englehardt

Joseph R. Hellweg

Lilia Fernndez Souza

Ashley Kistler

David B. Small

Kent Fowler and Derek Johnson

Donna M. Goldstein

William A. Parkinson

Figures

Table

Speaking the Same Language?

JOSHUA D. ENGLEHARDT AND IVY A. RIEGER

This volume presents a critical evaluation of an issue seemingly ever present in Americanist anthropology: the relationship between cultural anthropology and archaeology. In the 70 years since Philip Phillipss (1955 :246247) famous axiom [New World] archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing, anthropologists have questioned whether archaeology truly is part of anthropology. Today, few anthropologists of any geographical or subdisciplinary background would deny that there exist key differences between the theoretical trajectories, discourses, research foci, funding options, conferences, writing styles, analytical techniques, and field methods in each anthropological subfield. We agree with those who argue that such diversity is a positive attribute that can lead to new and innovative forms of scholarly contributions and collaborations (e.g., Earle 2003 ; Gillespie et al. 2003 ). Nonetheless, we have discovered through practical experienceas have many colleaguesthat this diversity can also lead to miscommunication, feelings of alienation, and, in the most extreme cases, a rigid separation of anthropologists and their subdisciplines from one other due to feeling that they no longer have anything in common.

In short, many wonder not only if archaeologists and cultural anthropologists canor shouldproductively collaborate, or if we belong in the same academic departments or discipline as a whole, but also if we are even capable of speaking a common language, and if engaging in mutually intelligible discourse is a goal for which all anthropologists should strive. Rather than repackaging the sacred bundle, as Segal and Yanagisako (2005) termed it, or calling for the resurgence of a holistic anthropological ideal steeped in feelings of Boasian nostalgia, the chapters of this volume instead explore the following questions: What are the benefits of speaking the same language? How can a renewed emphasis on subdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration benefit anthropology as a whole as it is currently practiced in the twenty-first century?

To establish the basic parameters for this discussion, we depart from the broad definition of anthropology offered by the American Anthropological Association (AAA): the study of humans, past and present. The AAA defines cultural anthropology as the examination of social patterns and practices across cultures, with a special interest in how people live in particular places and how they organize, govern, and create meaning. Archaeology, as defined by the Society for American Anthropology (SAA) is the study of the ancient and recent human past through material remains. Nuancing these definitionsor reading between the linesreveals a common focus on culture that is at the heart of our discipline ( Flannery 1982 ; Watson 1995 ). Understanding the distinct yet interrelated aspects of human culture is thus the ultimate goal of each anthropological subdisciplinethis is what anthropologists should, and do, study. In this sense, the roles, goals, and foci of anthropologys four primary subfields complement and weave back into each other, forming a complex disciplinary whole that is greater than the sum of its individual parts. From this perspective, and following the definitions above, each subfield is part of anthropology, just as anthropology as a whole is formed by its subdisciplines. Anthropological subfields thus need each other to provide meaning and relevance to the discipline itself, as well as to contextualize the work of researchers in its subfields. If one rejects this premise, then anthropology truly is nothing more than a dubious, made-up discipline, as Wallerstein (2003) suggested.

Of course, these assertions are debatable, and have been the subject of much previous scholarship (e.g., ). Indeed, the practical reality of how the anthropological subdisciplines interact with one another is much different than that suggested by idealistic pronouncements of holism or its benefits. Still others may question whether a palpable division between anthropological subdisciplines really exists, and if so, if we as anthropologistsor the public in generalshould even care. In addition to the fundamental questions outlined above, each chapter in this volume seeks to address these critical issues. Although perspectives may differ, all of the chapters here share an interest in highlighting commonality, tangibly demonstrating the benefits of collaboration between cultural anthropologists and archaeologists, and rekindling an intradisciplinary dialogue that has lately grown sterile.