Artefacts,archaeologists and American Indians

Abstract

Archaeologists traditionally have observed the style and technology of artefacts and used this to classify archaeological assemblages, describing the repeated association of artefact groups as a ‘Culture’. We continue to place overwhelming reliance on our ability to derive meaningful information about past culture from artefacts, yet the importance these objects had for the members of the cultural group (past and present) is not adequately considered. The typological approach sidelines the creative role of the artisans, we find out a little about their economy, gain momentary glimpses of their religion, but learn almost nothing about their humanity. Archaeologists tend to focus on the physical, technological or esoteric attributes of an artefact, while indigenous populations tend to focus on the object's ritual or social importance. This is most apparent in the treatment of funerary artefacts. Until recently, many American Indian tribal groups have seen no distinction between ‘grave robbing’ and ‘archaeological excavation’ it made no difference to them whether the dead were disturbed by looters or by qualified archaeologists. By involving indigenous populations in the design, practice and dissemination of archaeological research, we can add humanity to our study of the human past, and take a step toward a truly worldwide archaeology.     

Science, the Cold War, and the American State

Harvey M. Sapolsky. Science and the Navy: The History of the Office of Naval Research .
Stuart W. Leslie. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford .
Robert A. Divine. The Sputnik Challenge: Eisenhower's Response to the Soviet Satellite .
D iplomatic H istory , Vol. 20, No. I (Winter 1996).