Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T05:45:12.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rifts in the Theoretical Landscape of Archaeology in the United States: A Comment on Hegmon and Watkins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Madonna L. Moss
Madonna L. Moss*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 1218 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 (mmoss@darkwing.uoregon.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent papers by Michelle Hegmon (2003) and Joe Watkins (2003) purport to “map the terrain” of North American archaeology. Yet these two metaphorical maps present very different views of the contours of North American archaeology. Taken together, the two papers highlight problematic divisions between (1) theory and practice in North American archaeology, and (2) academic archaeology and cultural resource management. What are the roles archaeological theory plays in the contemporary practice of archaeology? Why do discussions of archaeological theory have so little to offer stakeholders other than academic archaeologists? Although Hegmon has shown many areas of convergence in archaeological theory, her depiction of “processual-plus” archaeologies dulls the edge of postprocessual critiques of the processual status quo. I argue that feminist, Marxist, and postcolonial archaeologies cannot be subsumed by this label because some of their practitioners aspire to contribute to social change beyond the realm of archaeology itself. These practitioners realize that the practice of archaeology always has political consequences, not just for academic archaeologists, but for a diverse set of stakeholders.

Résumé

Résumé

Los ensayos recientes de Michele Hegmon (2003) y de Joe Watkins (2003) pretenden “trazar el terreno” de la arqueología norteamericana. Con todo, estos dos mapas metafóricos presentan vistas muy diversas de los contornos de la arqueología norteamericana. Tornados juntos, los dos ensayos destacan las divisiones problemáticas entre (1) teoría y práctica en la arqueología norteamericana, y (2) arqueología académica y el manejo de recursos culturales. ¿Cuáles son los roles que la teoría arqueológica juega en la práctica contemporánea de la arqueología? ¿Por qué las discusiones de la teoría arqueológica tienen tan poco para ofrecer a los interesados con excepción de arqueólogos académicos? Aunque Hegmon ha demostrado muchas áreas de convergencia en las teorías arqueológicas, su descripción de las arqueologías “processual-plus” amortigua el filo de las críticas “post-processuales” del status quo “processual.” Yo argumento que las arqueologías feminista, Marxista, y post-colonial no puedan ser confinadas por esta etiqueta, porque algunos de sus practicantes aspiran a contribuir al cambio social más allá del ámbito mismo de la arqueología. Estos practicantes se dan cuenta que la práctica de la arqueología tiene siempre consecuencias políticas, no solamente para los arqueólogos académicos, sino también para una variedad de interesados.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 581 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Conkey, Margaret W. 2003 Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Signs : Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3) : 867–880.Google Scholar
Crumley, Carole (editor) 1994 Historical Ecology, Cultural Knowledge, and Changing Landscapes. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Dongoske, Kurt E., Aldenderfer, Mark, and Doehner, Karen (editors) 2000 Working Together : Native Americans & Archaeologists. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Duke, Philip, and Saitta, Dean J. 1998 An Emancipatory Archaeology for the Working Class. Assemblage 4, University of Sheffield Graduate Student Journal of Archaeology. Electronic document, http : //www.shef.ac.Uk/assem/4/4duk_sai.html, accessed September 28, 2004.Google Scholar
Erlandson, Jon M. 1998 The Making of Chumash Tradition : Replies to Haley and Wilcoxon. Current Anthropology 39 : 477–485.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. J. 1996 Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25 : 63–79.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. J. 2003 Anthropological Archaeology Conducted by Tribes : Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Affiliation. In Archaeology is Anthropology, edited by Gillespie, Susan D. and Nichols, Deborah L., pp. 137–144. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 13, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Goodby, Robert G. 1994 Processualism, Postprocessualism, and Cultural Resource Management in New England. In Cultural Resource Management : Archaeological Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education in the Northeastern United States, edited by Kerber, Jordan, pp. 51–63. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Gosden, Christopher 1999 Anthropology and Archaeology : A Changing Relationship. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle 2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside : Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68 : 213–243.Google Scholar
Ivy, Don, and Byram, R. Scott 2001 Coquille Cultural Heritage and Wetland Archaeology. In Enduring Records : The Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands, edited by Purdy, Barbara, pp. 120–131. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
King, Thomas F. 1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice : an Introductory Guide. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Kirk, Ruth, and Daugherty, Richard D. 1974 Hunters of the Whale. William Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
Leone, Mark, Potter, Parker, Jr., and Shackel, Paul 1987 Towards a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28 : 283–302.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies : Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60 : 199–217.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Kent G. 2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants : the Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee and Cannon, Kenneth P. 2004 Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
McGuire, Randall H. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Meskell, Lynn 2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31 : 279–301.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J., and Ferguson, T. J. 1998 Preservation and Research of Sacred Sites by the Zuni Indian Tribe of New Mexico. Human Organization 57(l) : 30–42.Google Scholar
Moss, Madonna L., and Wasson, George B., Jr. 1998 Intimate Relations with the Past : the Story of an Athapaskan Village on the Southern Northwest Coast of North America. World Archaeology 29(3) : 317–332.Google Scholar
National Park Service 2003 Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Electronic document, http : //www.cr.nps.gov/locaHaw/arch_stnds_7.htm #guide, accessed June 13, 2003.Google Scholar
Neumann, Thomas W. and Sanford, Robert M. 2001 Cultural Resources Archaeology : An Introduction. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Nicholas, George R., and Andrews, Thomas D. (editors) 1997 At a Crossroads : Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Simon Fraser University, Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas C. 1990 Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9 : 189–200.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas C. 2000 Archeologists and Historians Confront Civilization, Relativism, and Poststructuralism in the Late Twentieth Century. In History After the Three Worlds : PostEurocentric Historiographies, edited by Arif Dirlik, Vinay Bahl, and Peter Gran, pp. 49–64. Rowman & Littlefield, New York.Google Scholar
Paynter, Robert 2000 Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian World of North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(3) : 169–217.Google Scholar
Scher, Philip W. 2004 The Politics of Preservation : An Anthropological Perspective. Paper presented to the International Committee for Museums of Ethnography Session of the International Council of Museums General Conference, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B., and Gumerman, George J. (editors) 1977 Conservation Archaeology : A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Spector, Janet D. 1993 What This Awl Means : Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Spector, Janet D. 2000 Collaboration at Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan (Village at the Rapids). In Working Together : Native Americans & Archaeologists, edited by Dongoske, K. E., Aldenderfer, M., and Karen Doehner, pp. 133–138. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Sprague, Roderick 1974 American Indians and American Archaeology. American Archaeology 39(l) : l–2.Google Scholar
Stapp, Darby C., and Burney, Michael S. 2002 Tribal Cultural Resource Management : the Full Circle to Stewardship. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Stein, Julie K., and Phillips, Laura S. 2002 Vashon Island Archaeology : A View from Burton Acres Shell Midden. Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture Research Report No. 8. Burke Museum, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
VanPool, Christine S., and VanPool, Todd L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64 : 33–53.Google Scholar
VanPool, Christine S., and VanPool, Todd L. 2003 Introduction : Method, Theory, and Essential Tension. In Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by VanPool, T. L. and VanPool, C.S. pp. 1H. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe E. 2000 Indigenous Archaeology : American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe E. 2003 Beyond the Margin : American Indians, First Nations, and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68 : 273–285.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe E. 2004 Archaeology, Aboriginals and the Past : the Politics of Representation. Anthropology News 45(8) : 12.Google Scholar
Welch, John R. 2000 The White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program : Origins, Operations, and Challenges. In Working Together : Native Americans & Archaeologists, edited by Dongoske, K. E., Aldenderfer, M., and Karen Doehner, pp. 67–83. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison 1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests : Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57 : 15–35.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Larry J. 2000 A New and Different Archaeology? With a Postscript on the Impact of the Kennewick Dispute. In Repatriation Reader : Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 294–306. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar