Divorce or Counselling: A look at the relationship between archaeology and anthropology in Canada

“Effective collaboration [between archaeology and cultural anthropology] need not imply harmonious

agreement. On the contrary, it can proceed only as a dialectic.”   (Leach 1973: 771)

“[Archaeology and cultural anthropology] are part of the same endeavor.” (Gosden 1999: 10)

     There is some concern for growing tension between archaeology and cultural anthropology that have caused some discussion of the separation of archaeology from anthropology. Although some universities in Canada have already done so, I will argue that an archaeology within anthropology better represents Canadian values as well as is important for future work in Canadian archaeology with indigenous groups. I will discuss the history of North American archaeology and its relationship to anthropology as well as discuss why specifically Canada should promote an archaeology that is part of anthropology.

     Through my experience, as a soon to be graduate with an Honours Degree in Anthropology, I find it difficult to see an archaeology separate from anthropology and vice versa. To me, anthropology embodies a mosaic image, with multiple overlapping pieces coming from many different places to show an overall picture. Although abstract and with missing pieces, that picture is our attempt at the embodiment of human culture. Perhaps this is simply because of the way I was taught, however, to me, and many others, it seems intuitive that archaeology and anthropology go hand in hand. They are both after the same goals and often use the same concepts and theories to answer similar questions, the difference being only technical and temporal.

     There is a general difference between North American archaeology and European archaeology. Earle (2008) argues that this is because of the different beginnings each discipline had. In Europe, starting in the nineteenth century, archaeology “sought to determine the individuality of each nation and its people” (Earle 2008: 188) which has led to archaeology and cultural anthropology to evolve as separate fields. While in the United States, archaeology started off as a part of anthropology with similar goals, “seeking to describe societies ignored by most scholars who were focused in the rise of the West” (Earle 2008: 188). In the twentieth century, North America embraced a Boasian vision of anthropology, a four sub-field discipline which includes linguistic, physical, cultural and archaeological anthropology which, when studied together, combine the study of prehistory and culture (Earle 2008: 190). This collaboration has been tried and tested by the changing of times and challenging theoretical perspectives, and has created some competition for funding. That being said, for the most part, North America continues to follow the four sub-field anthropology model. Although this trend is not necessarily upheld by all academic institutions in North America, it is supported by the majority. Therefore, the debate on the separation or the amalgamation between anthropology and archaeology is often discussed as ‘The European Model’ versus the ‘North American Model’ (Earle 2008).

     When it comes to Canadian values, it is well known that Canadians enjoy their hockey, the 2010 Olympic finals for men’s hockey is the most-watched television broadcast in Canadian history (NHL 2010). Canadians value a hockey-style toughness, unafraid to fight when needed, but at the end of the day we watch the game and spend time with our friends and family. We also embrace multiculturalism, diversity and peacekeeping (Government of Canada 2012). So, although we are not afraid to fight when we need to, we would much rather be open and peaceful. Like hockey players, archaeologists and anthropologists are both colleagues and competitors. Together we attempt to answer a wide array of difficult questions by working together, however we also sometimes end up competing over funding and resources, and occasionally the gloves come off, but we are all ultimately there for the same purpose and afterwards we want to get back to spending time with our family and friends.

     Perhaps these values are not as widespread in Canada as was thought, When 40.7% of Canadian marriages in 2008 are projected to end in divorce. It is no wonder the anonymous blogger who by the ‘nom de plume’ of Phil Octetes (2015) is so ready to diagnose the same of anthropology and archaeology. He places archaeology and anthropology under a Huffington Post Infographic (Hillin 2014) which discuss why couples divorce. In his blog (Octetes 2015), he lists off the reasons for divorce displayed in the Huffington Post Infographic and explains how he feels the relationship between archaeology and anthropology have the same issues as these couples. Included in this list are “we are unhappy”, “we argued too much”, “we fell out of love”, “we didn’t communicate anymore”, “we wanted different things”, “they changed” and “we didn’t feel like partners anymore” (Octetes 2015). …. Although these problems seem a bit melodramatic, some of these are important issues with merit and do need to be addressed, the problem with this logic however, is that it presupposes that the relationship between anthropology and archaeology is like a marriage. Andy White (2015), in his blog argues that marriage is not an adequate analogy for the relationship of the two areas of study. It is instead necessary for the two to join together to complete their common goal, which is understanding human culture(s). White (2015) gives a good analogy:

    The central nervous system, the musculoskeletal system, and the circulatory system can each be studied independently, but you can’t really           understand the human body without understanding all of them and how they are interrelated (and the ‘divorce’ of the circulatory system from       the rest of the body would be a pretty messy affair). It is no more possible to amicably ‘divorce’ archaeology from anthropology than it is             possible to amicably ‘divorce’ your brain from your body. (White 2015)

     On the other hand, it seems like those values remain, at least in the eyes of the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) who right in their description of anthropology state that “Anthropology is the study of us, humans, both past and present” (CASCA 2016). In their ‘features of anthropology’ they include; “Holism: anthropologists study any component of humanity in relation to the larger cultural and social whole. This means that humans are seen as living in a web of culture and social relations whereby any belief or activity is tied inextricably to all others” (CASCA 2016). It is hard to see such a web of culture human past is not included, like White’s (2015) quote above, it is hard to envision an amicable divorce between archaeology and anthropology.

     In their 2008-2013 Five Year Strategic Plan, the Canadian Archaeology Association (CAA/ACA 2008) surprisingly mention anthropology only once in a twenty six page plan. This five year plan is worrisome when archaeologists are becoming more and more involved with existing cultures with new ideas of ‘best-practices’ such as community archaeology (Marshall 2002), and the objective set by the CAA/ACA is to “foster cooperative endeavours with aboriginal groups and agencies concerned with First Peoples’ heritage of Canada” (CAA/ACA 2016). It is imperative for archaeologists to be trained in cultural anthropology if proper relations are to be created and maintained with aboriginal groups in Canadian archaeology which lacks equivalent laws to NAGPRA in the Unites States (Kelly and Williamson 1996: 12). Just as archaeologists can help cultural anthropologists learn more about aboriginal groups, archaeology could significantly benefit from the contribution of linguistic, biological, and cultural anthropology as it has expanded past the limits set by its past..Archaeology provides cultural anthropology with several benefits. It can give historical dimensions to see how cultures react to different forces, such as colonialism, globalization et cetera. It also provides continuing research on social evolution over the long-term. When used with cultural anthropological themes such as identity, gender roles, and kinship, it can help better understand these concepts and how they have manifested in current cultures. An understanding of material culture can provide cultural anthropologists with a new perspective as well as new form of evidence and methodology that they can make use of(Earle 2008: 199). In addition, any information gathered from the past can be beneficial to understanding the present, the motto used by the Paleopathology Association (PPA) is ‘Mortui Viventes Docent” which translated to English means, ‘the dead teach the living’. ith archaeology and specifically when it comes to studying culture, that is definitely the case.

     Cultural anthropology, on the other hand, provides archaeology with a supply of ethnographic analogies, perspective in cross cultural research, a strong theoretical background and training in ethnography which can be used in ethnoarchaeological research (Earle 2008: 199).

     Although the growing tension between archaeology and anthropology described by Octetes (2015) is an issue for North American practice, the practices are synergistic and benefit from being together. The holistic anthropology, which includes archaeology better demonstrates Canadian values of diversity, and although there are issues within departments, Canadians do not let a bit of fighting change their ways. With Canadian Archaeology mainly dealing with aboriginal groups, it is essential to keep archaeology and cultural anthropology on a mutual understanding of theoretical perspectives and it is important that each subfield be knowledgeable of the others, and use this relationship to the better benefit of answering the bigger questions which archaeology and anthropology seek to answer. Therefore, I encourage Canadian archaeology and Anthropology to promote a close relationship and set aside each other’s differences and band together in the four subfield system with the focus of a holistic view of culture, both present and past