assemblage 4 -- Prestige in Archaeological Discourse

S. Hutson, Prestige in Archaeological Discourse

ENDNOTES

1. I read a version of this paper at the 63rd Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, Washington, USA, March 28, 1998. (back to text)

2. 'Professors' is used here in the American sense and includes persons who would be described as lecturers, professors, and readers in Britain and elsewhere. Similarly, 'faculty' in this article refers to the academic staff of a deparment. (back to text)

3. Today the distinction between academic archaeology and archaeologies that traditionally have been located outside of the academy (at least in the US), like CRM, is less clear as professors begin to apply for contract work and academic programmes begin to focus on heritage management. (back to text)

4. The silencing of CRM and other domestic archaeologies in the public and private sectors, however, is extremely interesting given that salaries in CRM in the US can be higher (Zeder 1997a: 90-94) and that funding for CRM archaeology is about five times as large as the funding for academic archaeology (ibid.: 170). In other words, in some senses, the structure of rewards seems to favour CRM archaeology more than it does academic archaeology. Two recent developments in archaeological demographics and institutions might represent early consequences of this restructuring of the system of rewards. First, younger men are beginning to move away from careers in academia and into careers in the private sector. This sector employs large numbers of individuals with master's degrees, possibly explaining the increase in males who end their education at the master's level (Zeder 1997b: 15). Second, this new demand for master's degrees might also be correlated with a proliferation of graduate institutions that offer only a terminal masters degree and the increasing separation between terminal and ongoing MA/MS-granting institutions (Zeder 1997a: 39-41). It will be interesting to see what other institutional and demographic consequences this recent restructuring of the system of rewards might bring. (back to text)

5. I included in these calculations only staff with PhDs from US universities. (back to text)

6. Emeriti and Emeritae professors are included, if they are listed as teaching full or part time. I did not include those who teach in American universities but have received dissertations from foreign programmes. There are a number of possible problems in using the AAA Guide as a data base. Occasionally, due to non-specific labelling, it was difficult to determine whether an archaeologist had a teaching position. Also, the Guide only lists staff members who are part of a formally organized anthropology department. In other words, not all archaeology professors might be listed in the AAA Guide. Finally, the list of research interest by professors in the Guide is not necessarily the most accurate way of determining what subjects an anthropologists actually teaches. In difficult cases I used my best judgement. (back to text)

7. Lucas (1995: 37) makes a similar comment in relation to science and archaeology in Britain in the earlier part of this century. (back to text)

WORKS CITED

Bair, J.H., W.E. Thompson, and J.V. Hickey. 1986. The academic elite in American anthropology: linkages among top-ranked graduate programs. Current Anthropology 27(4): 410-12.

Baker, F., S. Taylor, and J. Thomas. 1990. Writing the past in the present: an introductory dialogue. In Writing the Past in the Present (eds F. Baker and J. Thomas). Lampeter: St. David’s University College, pp. 1-11.

Barthes, R. 1974. S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bayard, D. 1969. Science, theory and reality in the 'New Archaeology'. American Antiquity 34: 376-84.

Becher, T. 1989. Academic Tribes and Their Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Bristol, PA: SRHE and Open University Press.

Blakey, M.1983. Socio-political bias and ideological production in historical archaeology. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology (eds J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey). Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 5-16.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bradley, C. and U. Dahl. 1994. Productivity and advancement of women archaeologists. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 189-94.

Cowgill, G. 1993. Distinguished lecture in archaeology: beyond criticizing new archaeology. American Anthropologist 95(3): 551-73.

Embree, L. 1989a. The structure of american theoretical archaeology: a preliminary report. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology (eds V. Pinsky and A. Wylie). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 28-37.

Embree, L. 1989b. Contracting the theoretical archaeologists. In Tracing Archaeology’s Past: the Historiography of Archaeology (ed. by A. Christenson). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 62-74.

Ford, J.A. 1938. A chronological method applicable to the Southwest. American Antiquity 4: 260-4.

Ford, A. and A. Hundt. 1994. Equity in academia -- why the best men still win: an examination of women and men in mesoamerican archaeology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 147-56.

Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge (trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith). London: Tavistock Press.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish (trans. A. Sheridan). New York: Vintage Press.

Foucault, M. 1981. The order of discourse. In Untying the Text (ed. R. Young). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gero, J. 1983. Gender bias in archaeology: a cross cultural perspective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology (eds J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey). Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 51-8.

Gero, J. 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity 50: 342- 50.

Gero, J. 1991. Genderlithics: women’s roles in stone tool production. In Engendering Archaeology (eds. J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 163-93.

Gero, J. 1994. Excavation bias and the woman-at-home ideology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds. M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 37-42.

Gero, J. 1995. Railroading epistemology: Palaeoindians and women. In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past (eds I. Hodder, et al.). New York: Routledge.

Gero, J., D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey (eds). 1983. The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis.

Hodder, I. 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-16.

Hodder, I. 1985. Postprocessual archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8 (ed. M. B. Shiffer). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-26.

Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, M. 1998. Relativists are good to think and good to prohibit. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, WA, March 25-29, 1998.

Kelley, J., and W. Hill. 1994. Relationships between graduate training and placement in Canadian archaeology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5. pp. 47-52.

Kelley, R. 1992. Toward a reconciliation of processual and postprocessual archaeologies. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future (ed. L. Wandsnider). Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 20, Southern Illinois University, pp. 254-65.

Kushner, G. 1970. A consideration of some procesual designs for archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 35: 125-32.

Lucas, G. 1995. Interpretation in contemporary archaeology: some philosophical issues. In Interpreting Archaeology (ed. by I. Hodder, et al.). London: Routledge, pp. 37-44.

Mason, Alden J. 1938. Observations of the present status and problems of Middle American archaeology. American Antiquity 4: 300-17.

McGuire, R. 1992. A Marxist Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

McKern, W.C. 1935. Editorial. American Antiquity 1: 81-3.

Moran, P., and D.S. Hides. 1990. Writing, authority and the determination of a subject. In Archaeology After Structuralism (eds I. Bapty and T. Yates). London: Routledge, pp. 205-21.

Nelson, S.M. and M.C. Nelson. 1994. Conclusion. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5. pp. 229-35.

Parezo, N. and S. Bender. 1994. From glacial to chilly: a comparison between archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 73-82.

Paynter, R. 1983. Field or factory? Concerning the degradation of archaeological labor. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology (eds J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey). Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 17-30.

Preucel. R. 1995. The postprocessual condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3: 147- 75.

Reyman, J.E. 1994. Gender and class in archaeology: then and now. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 83-90.

SAA Bulletin. 1993. Ph.D. programs in archaeology: results of an SAA Bulletin survey. SAA Bulletin 11(1): 8-11.

Shanks, M., and I. Hodder. 1995. Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology (ed. I. Hodder, et al.). London: Routledge. pp 3-29.

Shanks, M., and C. Tilley. 1988. Social Theory and Archaeology, 2nd ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1989. Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeology Review 22(1): 1-56.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1992 Re-Constructing Archaeology, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Spencer, C.S. 1997. Evolutionary approaches in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 5(3): 209-64.

Stark, B.L., K.A. Spielmann, B. Shears, and M. Ohnersorgen. 1997. The gender effect on editorial boards and in academia. SAA Bulletin 15(4): 6-9.

Steward, J.H. and Frank M. Setzler. 1938. Function and configuration in archaeology. American Antiquity 4: 4-10.

Thomas, J. and C. Tilley. 1992. TAG and postmodernism: a reply to John Bintliff, with comment from Bintliff. Antiquity 66: 106-114.

Tilley, C. 1989. Discourse and power: the genre of the Cambridge inaugural lecture. In Domination and Resistance (eds D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley). London: Routledge, pp. 41-62.

Tilley, C. 1990a. Michel Foucault: towards an archaeology of archaeology. In Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism (ed C. Tilley). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 281-347.

Tilley, C. 1990b. On modernity and archaeological ciscourse. In Archaeology after Structuralism (eds I. Bapty and T. Yates). London: Routledge, pp. 127-52.

Tilley, C. 1993a. Introduction: interpretation and a poetics of the past. In Interpretative Archaeology (ed. C. Tilley). Oxford: Berg, pp. 1-27.

Tilley, C. 1993b Prospecting archaeology. In Interpretative Archaeology (ed. C. Tilley). Oxford: Berg, pp. 395-416.

Trigger, B. 1991. Constraint and freedom: a new synthesis for archaeological interpretation. American Anthropologist 93: 551-69.

Watson, P.J. 1986. Archaeological interpretation, 1985. In American Archaeology Past and Future (eds D. Meltzer, D. Fowler, and Sabloff). Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 439-58.

Watson, R. 1990. Ozymandias, king of kings: post-processual archaeology as critique. American Antiquity 55: 673-89.

White, H. 1978. The Tropics of Discourse. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wylie, A. 1983. Comments on The Socio-Politics of Archaeology: the demystification of the profession. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology (eds J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey). Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 119-30.

Wylie, A. 1994. The trouble with numbers: workplace climate issues in archaeology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 65-72.

Wobst, M. and A. Keen. 1983. Archaeological explanation as political economy. In The Socio- Politics of Archaeology (eds J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacy, and M.L. Blakey). Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 79-90.

Yellen , J.E. 1994. Women, archaeology and the National Science Foundation: an analysis of fiscal year 1989 data. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology (eds M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie). Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5, pp. 53-58.

Zeder, M. 1997a. The American Archaeologist: A Profile. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Zeder, M. 1997b. The American archeologist: results of the 1994 SAA census. SAA Bulletin 15(2): 12-17.

BACK TO TEXT