The History of American Archaeology: An Examination of Procedure

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Schuyler

AbstractRecently, there has been an intensification of interest in the history of American archaeology, and a number of general attempts at delineating the history of the entire field have been advanced since 1940. Most of these overall views have taken the form of explanatory-periodization schemes. Four of these schemes are reviewed in this article and then examined in the light of 4 testcase studies: (1) the initial period of archaeology in the Southwest (1840-1860), (2) the history of archaeology in the Grand Canyon region (1540-1964), (3) the development of Kentucky prehistory (1661-1957), and (4) the study of early man in the United States (1500-1965). A number of discrepancies and weaknesses are shown in all the schemes under review, and the use of any such period scheme in the initial history of a science is questioned. The nature of period schemes is then examined resulting in the suggestion that all such undertakings should serve as tentative working hypotheses rather than end goals in themselves.

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Colin Renfrew

The role of the New Archaeology of the 1960s is recognized as decisive in the history of archaeology: an awakening from the “long sleep of archaeological theory” from about 1880 to 1960. But at the same time, limitations in the New Archaeology are responsible for corresponding defects in the present scene. The first of these is the lack of clear policy for the handling and especially the publication of data. It is argued that the outstanding defect of Cultural Resource Management, especially in the United States, is the failure to promote a clear policy that all survey work and all excavations should be adequately published. Accompanying this is the inadequate provision for the effective retrieval, at a national level, of the information which does emerge from CRM projects. The responsibility for this lies at the door of the academic archaeologists.The second defect is the failure to recognize that the New Archaeology primarily offered new and interesting problems, not ready solutions. The widespread misconception that processual archaeology has become “normal science” is partly responsible for the lack of steam in the current theoretical scene in the United States. Some alternative approaches are indicated, and it is suggested that cognitive archaeology may, in the 1980s and 1990s, take its place alongside the social archaeology of the past two decades as a significant growth area.


Author(s):  
Bruce Trigger

Historical works dealing with archaeology have been written to entertain the public, commemorate important archaeologists and research projects, instruct students in the basic concepts of the discipline, justify particular programmes or ideas, disparage the work of rivals, and, most recently, try to resolve theoretical problems. These studies have taken the form of autobiographies, biographies, accounts of the development of the discipline as a whole, investigations of specific institutions or projects, and examinations of particular theories and approaches. They have used the analytical techniques of intellectual and social history and sought to treat their subject objectively, critically, hermeneutically, and polemically. Over time, historical studies have become more numerous, diversified, and sophisticated. Histories of archaeology are being written for all parts of the world, and in a growing number of countries, a large amount of material is being produced at local as well as national levels. There is no end in sight to the growing interest in this form of research. The history of archaeology has been written mainly by professional archaeologists, who have no training in history or the history of science, and by popularizers. Only a small number of these studies have been produced by professional historians. Archaeology has attracted little attention from historians of science, despite its considerable interest to philosophers of science. This lack of interest is hard to understand since the difficulties inherent in inferring human behaviour from archaeological evidence make archaeology an ideal discipline for addressing many of the issues of objectivity that are currently of interest to historians of science. The earliest use of the history of archaeology appears to have been for didactic purposes. In the mid-nineteenth century, the physicist Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, sought to purge American archaeology of useless speculation and to encourage an interest in factual research. To do this, he commissioned Samuel F. Haven, the librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, to write a critical historical review of studies of American prehistory titled Archaeology of the United States (1856). To improve the quality of American archaeology, Henry also published reports on developments in the discipline in the Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, which was widely distributed in North America.


1995 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 752
Author(s):  
James E. Snead ◽  
Thomas C. Patterson

1919 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 414-414
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated

Author(s):  
Rosina Lozano

An American Language is a political history of the Spanish language in the United States. The nation has always been multilingual and the Spanish language in particular has remained as an important political issue into the present. After the U.S.-Mexican War, the Spanish language became a language of politics as Spanish speakers in the U.S. Southwest used it to build territorial and state governments. In the twentieth century, Spanish became a political language where speakers and those opposed to its use clashed over what Spanish's presence in the United States meant. This book recovers this story by using evidence that includes Spanish language newspapers, letters, state and territorial session laws, and federal archives to profile the struggle and resilience of Spanish speakers who advocated for their language rights as U.S. citizens. Comparing Spanish as a language of politics and as a political language across the Southwest and noncontiguous territories provides an opportunity to measure shifts in allegiance to the nation and exposes differing forms of nationalism. Language concessions and continued use of Spanish is a measure of power. Official language recognition by federal or state officials validates Spanish speakers' claims to US citizenship. The long history of policies relating to language in the United States provides a way to measure how U.S. visions of itself have shifted due to continuous migration from Latin America. Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens are crucial arbiters of Spanish language politics and their successes have broader implications on national policy and our understanding of Americans.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document