Archaelogy and Cultural Nationalism In the American Southwest, 1895-1920 (original) (raw)

1993, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology

During the past twenty-seven years, the objective of providing fU'St-class training to students in archaeology has remained uncbanged. The department, at least within its own perception, ba.� remained oriented toward graduate work, and largely gauges its undergraduate success by its ability to turn oul students prepared to carry on graduate studies elsewhere. The graduate programme has not been changeless. The early emphasis on instruction in tbe natuml sciences (especially in geology, vertebrate palaeontology and palynology) has gradually declined, and with it the environmental approach. Sessional instructors who were specially suited to offer courses, not only ancillary ftelds, but also in specialized archaeological subjects, have by and large disappeare d from the scene as a result of budgetary cuts. Course offerings by other departments have offset tbese losses to a certain extenL At the same time, the field of archaeology itself bas developed greater sophistication and requires more in-depth instruction at both graduate and undergraduate levels. If anytbing, the department has taken a swing back in the direction of the Social Sci ences, particularly in its theoretical stance. But probably not one of the an:haeology faculty would go so far as to subscribe to the notion that "archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing," an aphorism widely accepted by North American arcbaeologists 25 or SO years ago. Method and theory courses are given more prominence in recent years. While the coneem is primarily archaeological, the issues lately have moved toward broader concern with contemporary society. Method and theory are emphasized in all courses. On a more particularistic level, advanced undergraduate inslruction includes such courses as museology, ceramic analysis and comput ers. Seminars are given largely to discussions of curr ent issues in archaeology, and include a wide moge of topics. Area} coverage bas expanded appreciably in response to the special interests of new faculty members. Until 1974 the Faculty of Graduate Studies insisted that the department limit is scope to New World archaeology, but when this stricture was laid to rest, African studies rose into prominence. Aside from Europe and Oceania, staff members bave not personally specialized in regions outside the Americas and Africa. The department does. however, offer courses in general Old World archaeology as well as. topical courses which are not confined geographically. The subtle shifts that can be detected in the archaeology program can be seen as moves away from the natural sciences. environ mental studies and descriptive reconstructions of the past to great concern with contemporary archaeological problems; contem porary not only in the sense of keeping uJrto-date in relation to modem trends in world archaeology. but also in the sense of addres sing modem social issues from the archaeological perspective. James It: Snead Department or Anthropology University of CaUfornia.Los Angeles Traditional histories of archaeology have been described by a recent commentator as resembling travel journals, providing n •• .an account of the slow journey out of the darkness of subjectivity and speculation towards objectivity, rationality, and science" (MumlY 1989:56). In recent years new approaches to this subject have taken a more critical look at the tangled social and intellectual currents surr ounding the development of archaeology. One of the least contestable points to arise from the cmrent theoretical debates within the discipline is that of the fundamental relationsbip between the observer/scientist and the. production of knowledge (for example. Leone 1986). This topic is central to modem sociocultura1 anthropology (Stocking 1983) and is particularly pertinent to the history the field. In North America research OD the history of prehistoric archaeology bas bee n dominated by considerations of adminislrative and intellectual contexts (for example, Meltzer 1983; Dunnc1l1986; Hinsley 1987; Fowler 1989; Trigger (989). Few scholars, hy comparison. have deull with the role of social histury in this process (but scc PallersOD 1986: Hinsley 1989). The present study adopts the perspective of social history in examining archaeology as it developed in the southwestern United