Book review: Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship by Christopher Gosden

In this era of native title claims in the colonised world archaeology and anthropology need to collaborate more than ever before. The need and reasons for this collaboration were recently discussed by both archaeologists and Indigenous peoples at a recent native title and archaeology workshop (see Smith and Roberts 2001:72). This book is timely, therefore, as it aims to explore some of the reasons why archaeology and anthropology can usefully collaborate, despite differences in basic data and timescales (p.205). Gosden, in his exploration of these reasons, endeavors to chart and analyse the changing relationship between the two disciplines. This book is divided into two parts: the first part of the book is devoted to the historical relationship between archaeology, while the second part aims to deconstruct this relationship in the contemporary scene.

Gosden's introduction readily acknowledges that this is an ambitious task. Thus, while this book is certainly a worthwhile contribution to the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology the reader may feel at times that the aims of the author are occasionally lost in the immense amount of material he has to cover. Furthermore, the tangents that he takes, particularly in the latter half of the book, although interesting, sometimes appear to depart from the book's intention. To be fair, however, Gosden does acknowledge that in this latter section he is arguing from a particular perspective and that his own opinions will be included in the text (p.119). It is for this reason, in relation to this latter section, that he emphasises that to "purport to present a bland and balanced overview would be intellectually dishonest" (p.119). This statement is indicative of Gosden's approach throughout the book. Indeed, he consistently analyses the ways that archaeology and anthropology have made and do make claims about the production of objective knowledge. Thus, he often refers to reflexive or reflective techniques and researchers. For example, on a number of occasions he mentions the caution provided by Bourdieu (1990) that "the model of reality should not be mistaken for the reality of the model" and that anthropologists should not forget or suppress their views as outsiders (p.125).

Gosden begins this book with a brief overview of the statement "archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing" (Willey and Phillips 1958:2). This leads into the author''s analysis of the history and usage of the term ''anthropological archaeology'' in America and Britain for the last forty years (with brief comments on South Africa, New Zealand and Australia). This concise analysis allows for a discussion concerning the influence of evolutionary frameworks, ethnographic analogies and parallels on the relationship between archaeology and anthropology about which Gosden states (p.9):

"I feel that ethnoarchaeology is immoral, in that we have no justification for using the present of one society simply to interpret the past of another, especially as the present is often seen as a latter-day survival of stage[s] [sic] passed elsewhere in the world, for instance where hunter-gatherer groups from Africa or Australia are used to throw light on the European Palaeolithic. Societies ought to be studied as interesting in their own right or not at all."

This statement is important in the context of this book as Gosden suggests that this type of relationship between archaeology and anthropology (i.e. analogies between past and present) is destructive, however he sees many other justifications for looking at the relationship between the disciplines (p.9).

Part One of this book, as already stated, investigates the historical relationship between archaeology and anthropology in the "period before they became institutionalised subjects of teaching and research with their own methodologies, expectation of results, forms of training and academic departments" (p.15). To do this Gosden deconstructs two collections: the Pitt Rivers' and Tradescant's collections. This approach works well and allows Gosden to succinctly cover a large gulf of time - the movement from colony to empire in the European world, all the thought of the Enlightenment and the recognition of European prehistory among others. The author''s discussion of Pitt Rivers also allows him to introduce another theme - the importance of intellectual and social milieus on the development of the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology. For example, Gosden provides a persuasive argument to suggest that Pitt Rivers had a compelling intellectual as well as social reasons for adopting Darwin's ideas of evolution (see p.28). Furthermore, he states (p.33):

"One of the myths about academia is that it is a disinterested pursuit of truth in which it is the validity and efficacy of the ideas that is important and not the personalities, positions of power or career structures of the people putting forward the ideas."

An Australian example of the ''professionalisation'' approach may be seen in Moser's (1995) work, and indeed Gosden acknowledges her influence. Chapters Three and Four continue with these themes and assess the "double helix of ideas and institutional structures in both archaeology and anthropology" (p.34). Of interest in this section is Gosden''s analysis and comparison of the works of Malinowski, Cushing and Boas. Indeed, it is interesting to historically assess the reasons why Cushing's contribution to anthropology and archaeology have been devalued in comparison to the accounts of Malinowski and Boas. This devaluing seems particularly important in light of re-evaluations of Malinowski''s work after the publication of his diary (Malinowski 1967) where he frequently used the term ''nigger'' to describe the people he was researching in Kiriwina. In comparison Gosden believes that Cushing used a "reflexive style, putting himself and his concerns in the picture..." in his discussions concerning Zuni life (p.45). Furthermore, Gosden believes that Boas systematically wrote Cushing and other members of the Bureau of American Ethnology out of his accounts of the growth of anthropology to promote the myth that he was the founder of anthropology in North America (p.45).

Chapter Four moves on from discussions concerning the convergence and diversion between archaeology and anthropology in relation to subject matter and methodologies and focuses on theoretical questions. As would be expected Morgan and Tylor's theories warranted serious critique here. On the topic of theoretical relationships Gosden concludes that the two disciplines are now "drawing on and developing similar bodies of theory, in a way which they have not done for a century, around the body, aesthetics and practice" (p.205).

Part Two shifts to discussions concerning contemporary problems and issues in anthropology and archaeology. In this section Gosden argues for "a particular viewpoint seeking a conjunction between cultural anthropology and archaeology, around issues of practice and agency in the material world" (p.120). Thus, in Chapter Six Gosden privileges discussions relating to practice-based and relational or transformational views. With this in mind the author links in discussions of areas such as gender (in relation to archaeology and anthropology) which he believes is a perfect point from which to study transformations (p.131).

Chapter Seven explores the material dimension of life. This is obviously the area where archaeology and anthropology meet closely as Gosden notes (p.152):

"A consideration of topics such as landscape and material culture crosses the boundary between the two disciplines so regularly as to blur any real distinction [between] (sic) them and the will to break down boundaries is now quite pronounced, especially in Britain."

He also notes that the study of landscape is appealing partly because it "crosses the boundaries between geography, art, history, anthropology, archaeology and other disciplines" (p.153). Indeed, Gosden regularly analyses the connection between history, anthropology and archaeology throughout this text (see for example his discussions about the work of Sahlins). On this point the author concludes that both archaeology and anthropology are now "making something of a return to nineteenth-century concerns with history, in which past and present can be compared, although the spirit of enterprise is now quite different" (p.205).

Chapter Eight addresses the impacts of globalism, ethnicity and post-colonialism on archaeology and anthropology. Gosden importantly notes here that the disciplines are "attempting to catch up with the ways in which the world has changed and to re-orient their modes of operation, as well as to question the types of knowledge they produce" (p.180). In relation to this point he notes that anthropology felt these changes soonest and most keenly but that similar dilemmas also confront the post-colonial archaeologist (p.180).

The presentation of this book is immaculate with very few textual errors. Although minimal, maps, tables, diagrams, photographs etc. are clearly reproduced and well formatted. Structurally the book is sound with clear distinctions between chapters whilst maintaining common threads that create a coherent whole.

In summary, I would argue that whilst this book investigates the mutual history of anthropology and archaeology it will be of most use to archaeologists that are interested in or need to know more about anthropological concepts and trends. This point is readily acknowledged by the author (p.xi). Furthermore, I would argue that if the two disciplines want to meaningfully collaborate a sound understanding of such theoretical questions and relationships on both sides is necessary to encourage dialogue. Indeed, it is perhaps for this reason more than any other that I highly recommend Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship.

References

Bourdieu, P. 1990 The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Malinowski, B. 1967 A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Moser, S. 1995 Archaeology and its Disciplinary Culture: The Professionalisation of Australian Prehistoric Archaeology. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Archaeology, Classics and Ancient History, University of Sydney.

Smith, P. and A. Roberts 2001 Report on the Native Title and Archaeology Workshop, Adelaide, South Australia. Australian Archaeology 52:72.

Willey, G.R. and P. Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.