The Political Economy of Archaeology in the United States

Author(s): Thomas C. Patterson

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28 (1999), pp. 155-174
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223391 .
Accessed: 16/01/2013 13:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999. 28:155-74

Copyright? 1999 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved

THE POLITICALECONOMYOF
IN THE UNITED STATES
ARCHAEOLOGY
Thomas C. Patterson
Departmentof Anthropology,TempleUniversity,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19103;
e-mail: tomcpat@astro.temple.edu

highereducation,antiquitiesmarkets,labor
Key Words: professionalization,
economic
market,
restructuring
* Abstract The professionalizationof archaeologyin the late nineteenth
centurywas linkedto the growthof antiquitiesmarketsandthe developmentof
museumsas institutionsof educationand social reproduction.Professionalarchaeologistsmoved into the universitiesin largenumbersafterWorldWarII
andthen increasinglyinto the privatesectorafterthe mid-1970s.In the United
States,archaeologistscurrentlyconfronta highly segmentedlabormarketwith
significantwage and benefits differentials,and increasingnumbersface marginalemployment.At the sametime, descendantcommunitiesandgovernment
regulationsare transformingthe ways by which archaeologistshave traditionally conductedtheirinvestigations.

CONTENTS
Introduction...................................................
What Is Political Economy? ......................................
The Rise of Capitalismand Archaeology............................
Archaeology in the United States:Higher Educationand Social
Reproduction ................................................
PostwarAmerica: Mass Educationand Archaeology After
World War II ................................................
Political-Economic Crises and Archaeology in the Late Twentieth
...................
Century .................................
The Political Economy of Archaeology on the Eve of the New
Millennium ..............................................
What Is To Be Done? ...........................................

0084-6570/99/1015-0155$12.00

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156
156
157
158
161
164
....

167
169

155

156

PATTERSON

INTRODUCTION
This review examines the connections between archaeologyand wider politicaleconomic, social, and cultural currentsin US capitalist society. It builds on a
growing body of studies thatexplore the historicaldevelopmentof these linkages
both in the United States and in othercountries(Diaz-Andreu& Champion1996;
Hammond 1980; Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Patterson1986, 1989, 1995; Schmidt &
McIntosh 1996; Schmidt & Patterson 1996; Silberman 1982, 1989, 1994). The
articlebegins with a brief descriptionof political economy and some implications
Marxist currentshave in its study. There follows a review of (a) the linkages
between the developmentof capitalism,antiquitiesmarkets,and archaeology,(b)
the connectionsbetween education,employment,andthe reproductionof capitalist social relationsand culture,(c) the effects of mass educationafterWorld War
II on employment and the composition of the profession, (d) the impact of the
political-economic crises of the late twentiethcenturyon archaeology,and (e) the
political economy of archaeologyon the eve of the new millennium.

WHAT IS POLITICALECONOMY?
Scottish writersduringthe Enlightenmentwere among the first to conceptualize
political economy. They arguedthathumansociety hadprogressedthrougha succession of stages and linked the development of political authority,morality,
property,class structures,and the position of women to changes in the mode of
subsistence(Meek 1976). Today's neoliberalwritersdefine political economy as
the interactionof political processes and exchange in a free marketwhere economically rationalindividualsattemptto maximize goals. Largely ignoring history in their definition, they sever the connections between the political and
economic realms in orderto subordinatethe state to politically defined economic
strategiesbased on the maximizationof profit, accountingprocedures,and more
efficient humanresourcemanagement.Marxistsdefine political economy as concerned with the crisis-riddenprocesses of the accumulationof capital and its distribution,includingprices, wages, employment,political arrangements,and class
structuresand struggles. They examine the historicaldevelopmentof capitalism,
i.e. how accumulationand distributionshape and are shapedby the class struggle
manifested in relations of dominationand subordinationand in the hierarchies
that exist in the workplace, in the market,and in the wider society (Desai 1991,
Mohun 1993).
While neoliberals see value as a creation of the market,Marxists understand
that surplusand value are createdby the workerswho producethe commodities
sold in the market, and so they focus on the social relations of productionand
ownershipof the means of production.The neoliberalsdo not considerthe effects
of wealth and power differentials in the market, but the Marxists pay careful
attentionto the historical developmentof class differences and the rules governing the distributionof wealth.

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFARCHAEOLOGY

157

Because in capitalist societies the differentialcapacities of individualsto satisfy their needs and aspirations are historically constituted and reduced to the
power of money, class position andclass strugglehave significantcultural,social,
and symbolic dimensions. Marx & Engels [1964:38 (1845)] called these dimensions "forms of social consciousness" and referredto them repeatedly in their
writings [Engels 1969 (1845), 1972 (1884); Marx 1963:47,124-35 (1852), 1977:
931-40 (1867)]. Bourdieu (1984, 1986, 1987) has explored the connections
between class, culture,andpower. He acknowledgesthateconomic relationsplay
the dominantrole in structuringsocial hierarchiesand then points out that shared
culture,social connections, and the capacityto legitimatethem in the wider society are resources that individuals and groups deploy to define their position in
class hierarchies.Brodkin(1998) has begun to examine the creationand contestation of the cultural,social, and symbolic dimensionsof class position and struggle
that exist because capitalistemployers in the United States consciously construct
segmented labormarketsthat are structuredand stratifiedby class, racial, ethnic,
and gender differences.

THE RISEOF CAPITALISMAND ARCHAEOLOGY

Capitalismas an economic system is based on (a) the creationof value by workers
who do not own the means of productionand are forced to sell their laborpower
for money in orderto survive, and (b) the appropriationof this value and its sale
for profitby those who own the means of productionand determinehow the profits will be used. Modem capitalismhad its origins five centuriesago in the class
struggles and commercial expansion of various Europeanstates (Brenner 1985,
Ster 1988). It developed within the context of a network of emerging national
states that underwrotethe accumulationof capital on a world scale. The states
were the contradictoryproducts of ongoing struggles in and against emerging
capitalistclasses that could not separatethemselves from workersand thathad to
contain labor as a condition of their own existence. They accomplished this by
imposing the exchange of money for laborand reconstitutingworkersas citizens
with equal rightsbefore the law. They reproduced"thecontradictionsof 'capital'
in the political form"(Bonefeld 1993:65-66, Goldmann 1973:15-33).
The first rumblingsof capitalismin the late fifteenthcenturyoccurredat a time
when humanistteachers employed by wealthy Europeanmerchantand banking
families avowed that the Greek and Roman cultures were models of excellence
that should be emulated (Rowe 1965). It was also a time when merchantsand
travelersvisited distant lands where they tradedfor local goods and incidentally
acquired exotic souvenirs, which they either sold or placed in private and state
collections. Theiractivities underwrotethe creationof antiquitiesmarketsandthe
development of antiquarianstudies in Northern Europe (Lack 1970, Sklenar
1983:6-40, Trigger 1989:27-72). These marketsfurtherfueled the growthof cottage industriesinvolved in the plunderof archaeologicalsites and forgeryof artifacts [Fagan 1992, Jefferson 1955:97-100 (1785), Meyer 1973]. By the end of the

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158

PATTERSON
sixteenth century, writers were already complaining about forgery and about
unscrupulousindividualsplantingandthen "discovering"Europeanantiquitiesin
the New Worldas a way to supporttheirclaims for territorialpossessions [Castellanos 1944:19 (1589), Trahere 1673].
Marketsfor new kinds of exotic objects sprangup duringthe late eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries as more remote parts of the world-Polynesia, the
NorthwestCoast of NorthAmerica,the easternMediterranean,and the American
southwest-became enmeshed in the capitalist world system, and as the extension of agriculturallands,mining, deforestation,andthe constructionof railroads
and canals in Europeuncovered antiquitiesburied over time (Cole 1985, Wade
1976, Kristiansen1981). The extension and developmentof capitalismalso provided new opportunitiesfor looting and forgery (Arango 1924, Edge-Parrington
1910). Archaeology emerged as a set of practicesconcernedwith the acquisition
of antiquitiesthroughexcavationor purchase,with appraisalsof theirauthenticity
and value in the market, and with interpretationsof their significance that
increasedtheir monetaryvalue. Archaeologistsprovidedaccounts of the peoples
who producedand used the antiquitiesin question.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES: HIGHER

EDUCATION AND SOCIAL REPRODUCTION
Archaeology was never a monolithic discipline because different parts of the
world have differentmeanings in the historicalnarrativescraftedand reproduced
by rulingclass and state intellectualsin the United States (Patterson1997). These
accounts have never questioned the idea that social or cultural hierarchiesare
natural.Perhapsthe most familiar of these is the claim that civilization arose in
the Holy Land, spread to Greece and Rome, reached new levels in northern
Europe,and achieved its highest expression in the United States.In this story,the
Holy Land was the source of civilization; the Judeo-Christiantraditionwas the
civilizing process; and classical Greece and Rome were the societies in which
white Europeanmen inventeddemocracy,republicaninstitutions,and statesmanship. The rest of the world was excluded, because its peoples had not attainedthe
same levels of development.
Archaeology was reconfiguredduring the period of imperialistexpansion in
the late nineteenthcenturyto provide materialevidence supportingsuch claims
(Patterson 1995:39-68). Classical archaeologistsstudied the remains of Greece
and Rome; however, since the books of the New Testament were written in
Greek,Christianitywas linked with the Europeancivilizations andwith the white
race. Because the Old Testamenttexts were written in Semitic languages, Judaism was joined with Egypt and Assyria, with races that were not quite white, and
with the less-developed societies of the Orient (Bernal 1987, Brinton 1890, Silberman 1982:171-88). As the biblical archaeologistsand Assyriologists sought
to differentiatetheir subject matter,the founders of the Archaeological Institute
of America, establishedin 1879, supportedinvestigationsin the easternMediterranean.However, they had little interest in the work of archaeologistsstudying

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFARCHAEOLOGY

159

the ancestors of the American Indians or the Stone Age peoples in Europe,
because they considered them to be uncivilized and as not having contributed
materiallyto human progress (Hinsley 1985, Norton et al 1880). In spite of the
Archaeological Institute of America's perspective, various museums and individuals did supportarchaeologicalresearchin the United States, the Andes, the
Maya region, Egypt, and the Near East. The diverse geographical and topical
interestsof archaeologistsat thattime laid the foundationsfor a technical division
of labor that, with modifications and elaborations,still persists.
Archaeology as a discipline and profession composed mostly of waged workers crystallized in the last quarterof the nineteenth century, when the United
States was consolidating its North American territorial claims and overseas
empire. This was a time marked by the creation of land-grantuniversities, the
development of the first graduatetraining programs, the differentiationof the
social sciences, and the establishment of museums (DiMaggio 1982; Hinsley
1981, 1985; Meyer 1979; Ross 1991). These were symptomatic results of the
restructuringof US society afterthe collapse of Reconstruction:the emergenceof
a stratumof mostly native-bornmale managersandbureaucrats,the creationof an
industrialworkforce stratifiedby ethnicity and fueled by immigration,and the
relegation of people of color and women to the most degraded, unskilled, and
lowest-payingjobs (Brodkin 1998, Braverman1974).
From the 1890s throughthe 1930s, archaeologistsemployed by museums or
by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, or whose research was funded by
patronslike JohnD Rockefeller,had to pay attentionto the views of theirbenefactors. Museum directorsand the presidentsof philanthropicfoundationsused the
knowledge they producedto shape culturalunderstandings(Rainger 1991:16981). The informationfurnishedby the archaeologistsprovidedsorely needed contrasts in a society that was rapidly industrializingand in which concentrated
wealth and power coexisted uneasily with widespreadpoverty and alienation.As
the representativesof capital,they clearly saw the potentialthreatto their control
of the economy posed by popularand organizedanticapitalistgroupsthat offered
alternativeideological interpretationsof power arrangements(Slaughter& Silva
1982:75).
What archaeologists working with precapitalist civilizations provided were
perspectives thatresonatedwith the views of the powerful. Morley and the other
Mayanists employed by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, for example,
offered interpretationsthat transformedexploitative class relations into a technical division of labor.Benevolent, culturallyrefinedruler-priestsresidingin lavish
ceremonial centers performed necessary religious sacrifices for the illiterate
artisan-peasantswho fed, clothed, and housed them in order to ensure that harmony and order were maintained in the universe (Becker 1979, Castafieda
1996:1-152, Schele & Miller 1986:18-24, Thompson 1954:106). In effect, the
Mayanists and archaeologists who dealt with other precapitalist civilizations
either naturalized distinctions between the powerful and powerless or rooted
them in the remote historicalpast. Their discussions of the creative capacities of
native peoples, the pathfrom savageryandbarbarismto civilization, and archaeo-

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

PATTERSON
logical culturesas markersof nationalidentitysupportedexisting power relations
and ideas of social hierarchy. They suggested that oppressive social relations
were the naturaloutcome of human history and implied that nothing could or
should be done to eliminate such inequalities.
The first generation of archaeologists employed almost entirely by the government or museums were storekeepers, surveyors, naturalists, engineers, or
classicists. Subsequently,a college educationand an appreciationof culturalsensibilities andpracticesof the upperclasses gained in museumsand otherspaces of
learning and enculturationwould increasingly become the vehicles for gaining
entranceinto the archaeologicalprofession andthe managerialstratum(Bourdieu
& Passeron 1990, Gramsci 1971). That first generationhelped to underwritethe
reproductionof the new class structureand its distinctiveelite culturesin the context of theiremploymentas museumcurators,governmentofficials, teachers,and
universityprofessors, as well as throughtheir writings (Rydell 1984).
The professionalizationof archaeologyinvolved the developmentof a technically specialized language, methodology, and disciplinaryculturethat bound the
trained professionals together and distinguished them from individuals whose
claim to authorityderived from their social position ratherthan their mastery of
the specialized knowledge and practices. Professional archaeologistswould use
this knowledge, methodology, and culture selectively to exclude amateursfrom
full participationand membershipin the discipline and in its professional organizations (Moser 1995, Patterson1986).
Although higher educationhad been a minor growth industryin the late nineteenth centurybecause of the formationof land-grantuniversities and women's
colleges, only a small fraction of the total population-about 230,000 men and
women out of 100 million-attended college in the year 1900. Some studied
archaeologyin courses taughtby anthropologists,classicists, or biblical scholars,
but only a few actuallybecame professional archaeologists.On the eve of World
WarI, probablyno morethan 100 individualsin the United States,almost all men,
earned their living from the practice of archaeology. Because of the technical
division of laborthatappearedfromthe 1880s on, it is difficult to generalizeabout
the development of the discipline as a whole. Nevertheless, the development of
archaeologyas a subfield of anthropologyprovides some insights. Between 1894
and 1942, 39 men and 2 women submitteddoctoraldissertationson archaeological topics and received PhDs in anthropologyfrom Harvard(20), Chicago (7),
Columbia(5), Pennsylvania(4), California(2), Yale (2), and Michigan (1). They
constituted 21% of the 191 PhD recipients in anthropologyduring this period
(Thomas 1955:701-52). Of the 29 individualswhose careersare easily traced, 19
were employedby museumsor by the CarnegieInstitutionof Washington'sMaya
Project,three worked for the federal government,and seven taught.
Employment opportunitiesfor archaeologistsand the worldview that guided
theiractivities shiftedduringthe GreatDepression.In 1933, the TennesseeValley
Authorityinitiated archaeologicalinvestigations in areas that would be flooded,
and the Civil WorksAdministrationasked the SmithsonianInstitutionto provide
archaeologiststo direct projects in states with high levels of unemployment.The

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFARCHAEOLOGY

161

suddendemandfor trainedarchaeologistsoutstrippedthe supply andthe ability of

universities to provide them on shortnotice. With the creationof the Works Progress Administration a year later, archaeological projects became even more
deeply embedded in federally funded relief programs (Faguette 1985, Lyon
1996). Archaeologicalprojectswere popularwith relief agencies for two reasons.
Most of the money was spent on labor,andthey did not producea commoditythat
competedwith the privatesector. In 1934, 25 men and 6 women signed the constitution of a new organization,the Society for AmericanArchaeology, whose goals
were to stimulate archaeological research, to promote closer relations between
professional archaeologists and others interested in American archaeology, to
guide amateurs,and to curb the sale of antiquities.By 1940, the society had 823
members, not all of whom made their living from archaeology.
The Keynesian political policy launchedin the 1930s was designed to ameliorate the unemployment caused by the economic crisis and to ensure continued
capital accumulationby regulating the working class. It was a state-sponsored
pact in which working-class interestswere strengthened.Workersexpected full
employment and rising standardsof living in returnfor the labor peace that the
capitalistswanted in orderto maintainprofitability.Archaeology was molded to
fit the new relationshipbetween the public and private sector that crystallized
with the rise of the capitalistwelfare state.
In this milieu, the Social Science ResearchCouncil and otherfoundationspromoted, throughfellowships, grants-in-aid,and conferences, the view that social
scientists should focus their energies on resolving the pressing problems of society rather than on developing or drawing boundaries around their discipline
(Fisher 1993:232, Linton 1945). For example, several archaeologists played
prominent roles in the development of area studies in the 1930s. In 1939, the
National Research Council respondedto a request from the assistant directorof
the Works Progress Administrationand convened a committee of professional
archaeologists to develop standardizedcriteriafor evaluating the data accumulated by various relief archaeologyprograms.The governmentarchaeologistsat
the Smithsonianwere critical of colleagues who paid little attentionto the theoretical foundationsof theirwork-a view thatwas seconded by Harvardcritics of
the Carnegie'sMaya Project(Kluckhohn1940, Taylor 1948). The criteriarecommended by the committee were rooted in logical positivism (Guthe 1940).

POSTWARAMERICA:MASSEDUCATIONAND
ARCHAEOLOGY
AFTERWORLDWAR II
The structureand composition of archaeology as a profession was transformed
afterWorld War II. The GI Bill of Rights Act of 1944 underwrotecollege educations for more than2.1 million men, almost exclusively white, and 65,000 women
who served in the US armedforces duringthe war (Solomon 1985). They flooded
college campuses and many enrolled in anthropologyand archaeology courses.
This createda steadily increasingdemandand a new labormarketfor professionally certified college teachers,not only at the long-establishedcolleges but also at

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

PATTERSON

new campuses that were springing up across the country. Between 1945 and
1954, 61 individualsreceived PhDs in archaeologyfrom Columbia(16), Harvard
(15), Chicago (9), California(5), Pennsylvania(5), Yale (5), Michigan (4), and
Arizona (2). These represented22% of the 276 doctoratesawardedin anthropology duringthat period. The majorityof recipientsjoined college and university
faculties, which had, by the mid-1960s, probablybecome the major sources of
employmentfor archaeologists-a condition that would last for about a decade.
Mass educationwas also responsiblefor a veritableexplosion in the numberof
archaeologistsand a change in the composition of the profession as women and
white ethnics appeared in the membership lists of the Society for American
Archaeology (SAA). In 1946, 586 men and 75 women belonged to the society. Its
membershipgrew at an annualrate of 3% through 1956 and at an annualrate of
6% throughthe late 1960s. In 1969, 1531 men and 263 women belonged to the
organization.By 1976, its membershipstood at 3654 men and 1440 women, and
the percentageof women had doubled from 14.7%to 28.3%. The percentageof
women crept up to approximately35% by 1983, and since then it has remained
stationary(Patterson1995:81-82). Froma slightly differentperspective,between
1956 and 1969 5.3 men joined the society for every woman; between 1969 and
1976 the ratiodroppedto 1.8 men to 1 woman;andby 1991, male and female studentswerejoining the SAA in approximatelyequalnumbers.Womenbornduring
the postwarbaby boom who joined the SAA in the late 1960s and early 1970s and
received tenureapproximatelya decade laterwere often the daughtersof veterans
who had benefitted from the GI Bill a generation earlier. These were the first
women to raise gender and women's issues within the profession (Conkey &
Spector 1984). Even thoughtheir absolutenumbersare still small (less than2%),
people of color have also begun to join the SAA and otherprofessional archaeological organizationssince the late 1970s (Zeder 1997:13-14).
A second factor in the transformationwas the 1946 reorganizationof the
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation (1947:352-57), which stressed developing area studies programsfor foreign service personnel, establishing a plan that
would benefit anthropologyif a National Science Foundationwere established,
exploring possibilities for introducinganthropologyinto elementaryand secondary school curricula,and establishing liaisons with other organizationslike the
SAA to explore mattersof mutualinterest.The reorganizationreasserted,and in
the process redefined,the disciplinaryinterestsof anthropologyand archaeology
vis-a-vis the othersocial sciences. Henceforth,the discipline of anthropologywas
consideredto be composed of four fields: ethnology or culturalanthropology,linguistics, archaeology,and physical anthropology.The Wenner-GrenFoundation
for AnthropologicalResearch provided the mythic charterfor this endeavorby
sponsoringa conference in 1953 on the currentstatus of anthropology(Kroeber
1953, Tax 1953). A few years later, anthropologistsbegan to examine in more
detail how this four-field discipline was actually integrated(Haraway1989; Tax
1955, 1964).
In the 1950s, and less so in the 1960s, many of the new programswere housed
in joint departments,where anthropologistsand sociologists shared resources

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFARCHAEOLOGY

163

under circumstancesthat they themselves did not create. These conditions were
the bureaucraticand budgetaryconstructs of deans and provosts who, in those
days, for the most partwere academics. Kroeber& Parsons(1958), widely recognized as the deans of the two fields in the postwaryears, provided a rationalefor
distinguishing between the activities of anthropologistsand sociologists. Many
academic bureaucratswere apparentlyconvinced of the distinction, if not by the
strengthof their arguments,then by the weight of their reputations.As a result,
many of the joint departments-e.g. at the University of Californiaat Los Angeles-were dissolved duringthe 1960s and replaced by separatedegree-granting
departments.These newly created, freestandingbudgetaryunits were distorting
mirrorsreflecting in complex ways the proclaimed autonomy of the two disciplines.
The postwarexpansionof anthropologyprogramswas historicallycontingent.
A common patternwas thatculturalanthropologistswho received theirdegrees in
the 1940s or early 1950s foundednew programs.They hired anotherethnologist
or two, then an archaeologist, a physical anthropologist,and a linguist to round
out the curriculum.The demandfor archaeologistsincreasedafter 1956 and persisted at high levels into the early 1970s. Given this history, fewer archaeologists
had experience in joint departments,where the divisions followed disciplinary
lines that separatedanthropologistsfrom sociologists. Instead, they were hired
into academic settings where the separationwas either alreadya fait accompli or
imminent.Thus, anthropologistsbegan to draw ever-finerdistinctionswithin the
discipline of anthropologyitself, and the new anthropologydepartmentsincreasingly became the loci of subdisciplinaryturf wars once their budgetarylinkages
with sociology were dissolved. This was especially true when the theoretical
underpinningsfor the connections of the four fields were obscuredby empiricist
and positivist understandings(Wolf 1980). In this context, interpersonalslights
and thoughtless remarks often fueled separatisttendencies between the fields
(Binford 1972:10-11, Willey 1984:10).
Although many archaeologistsparticipatedin the united front constitutedby
the reorganizedAmerican AnthropologicalAssociation, they also pursuedindependent relations with the federal government through the Committee for the
Recovery of Archaeological Remains that was formed in 1944 (Johnson et al
1945). The committee lobbied successfully for increased federal support for
archaeological investigations in the United States. It joined forces with archaeologists employed by the SmithsonianInstitutionand the National Park Service
for the InteragencyArchaeological Salvage Program(IASP) which eventually
spreadsome of the costs of archaeologicalsalvage projectsfrom the federal governmentto state agencies and the private sector. The InteragencyArchaeological
Salvage Programpromotedthe creationof state archaeologicalsurveys and also
providedboth summertrainingand full-time employmentfor archaeologists.The
National Science Foundation was the other major source of funding after the
Social Science Division was created in 1954. That year, it awarded $30,000 to
fund two projects. By 1967, it was spending approximately$2 million a year on
archaeologicalresearch,60% of which was being carriedout in places otherthan

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

PATTERSON
the United States. Its currentannualexpendituresfor archaeologicalresearchare
approximately$3.5 million, which means that, with adjustmentsfor inflation,
expenditureshave remainedsteady since the late 1960s (Patterson1995:79-80).

POLITICAL-ECONOMIC
CRISESAND ARCHAEOLOGY
IN THE LATETWENTIETHCENTURY
The Keynesian political policy established in the 1930s began to unravel in the
1960s. By the end of the decade, the state could no longer guaranteethatworkers
would realize theiraspirations,or thatit could secure for the capitaliststhe conditions for sustained capital accumulationthey desired. As the monetary form of
capital was increasingly separatedfrom productivecapital, the state had no way
of controllinghow or where capitalwas invested. The overaccumulationof capital on a global scale was expressed domestically in a series of financial crises
associated with outflows of capital and growing balance-of-tradedeficits. The
monetaristpolicies launched in the 1970s and 1980s attemptedto resolve these
crises by subordinatingthe state and civil society to the power of money in the
market(Clarke 1988:298-305, 341). Domestically, the political minions of the
capitalists devalued the currency,precipitatedsteadily rising levels of structural
unemployment,and forced increasingnumbersof people to use creditas a way of
maintainingacceptablestandardsof living. At the same time they dismantledearlier gains made by the workersand intensified and exploited divisions within the
working class.
The costs of higher education,which since the end of World War II had been
shoulderedpartlyby the federalandpartlyby the stategovernments,were rapidly
shifted onto the students and their parents. This meant that fewer poor students
and people of color attendedcollege, which erased the small gains made in the
mid- and late 1960s. The students who did attend college after the early 1970s
often had incurredenormousdebts by the time they graduated.As a result, many
of those who might have majoredin anthropologya decade earliernow majored
in business administration,not because they were fascinatedwith the materialbut
because they perceived that the availability of well-paying jobs after graduation
was more likely to be in the area of business.
At the same time, after adjustmentsfor inflation, many college and university
budgetsstoppedgrowing or hadbegun to decline-a conditionthatpersists.Most
anthropologydepartmentsexpected the steady growththey had experiencedearlier in their histories to continue indefinitely, but as a result of these no-growth
budgets, by the mid- to late 1970s they had stopped growing (d'Andrade et al
1975). No new staff were added to their faculties, and frequently,faculty members who departed,retired,or died, were not replaced.The levels of financialsupport for graduatestudentsdeclined, and there were significant shifts in the types
of supportavailable. There was steadily increasing reliance on marginallypaid
part-timeteachers,usually graduatestudentswho were either completing or had
just finished their dissertationsand were unable to find full-time employment in

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE POLITICALECONOMYOF ARCHAEOLOGY

165

the academy. This led to the rapid formation of two-tier faculties composed of
tenure-trackslots andtemporaryor adjunctpositions with fewer benefits, if any.
As the numberof tenure-trackpositions available in higher educationdeclined
duringthe late 1970s, individualswith doctoratesincreasinglyaccepted employment outside the academy in Cultural Resource Management (CRM) archaeology. Coincidentally, federal legislation enacted between 1966 and 1974
transformedthe labormarketfor archaeologists.The centerpiecesof this legislation-the Historic Sites PreservationAct of 1966, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and the Archaeological and Historical ConservationAct of
1974-laid the foundationsfor CRMarchaeologyin the United States.This infrastructurehas been buttressedover the years by an increasinglydense networkof
federal and state laws, amendments,and regulationsthatprovide funds to record,
recover, and preserve archaeological informationthat is threatenedby federal,
state, county, and even local action (Dworsky et al 1983, Schiffer & Gumerman
1977).
Despite the fact thata numberof archaeologistsin the privatesector may have
desiredwhat they considereda superiorposition in the academyratherthanone in
the CRM firms,they eventuallyfound employmentin CRM.Ultimately,the decision regardingwho would employ them was not theirsto make, and it had little to
do with the quality of their work or their intellect. The reason for this shift in
accessible options was that the "culturalcapital" acquired and internalizedby
graduate school archaeology students, including those in the top-rankedprograms, was no longer easily convertedin the new labormarketinto the academic
jobs the students had been trained to expect. As the archaeology profession
became increasingly stratified,an importantindicatorof an archaeologist'sposition andemploymentwas the datewhen the PhD degreewas awarded.Archaeologists trainedbefore the early 1970s were more likely to hold positions in colleges
or universities than those who received their degrees after the late 1970s. The
internal stratificationof the profession is sustained ideologically by both academic and CRM archeologists who give pure research priority over applied
researchand who choose to ignore the conditions that have underpinnedthe formation of a hierarchicallyorganized labormarket.
By 1980, an estimated 6000 individuals were engaged in CRM archaeology;
knowledgeable sources estimate that 15,000 men and women worked on CRM
projects in the mid-1990s. Although some were employed by various federal,
state, county, and local agencies or by universities with CRM programs, the
majoritywere employees or consultantsfor private firms that preparedenvironmental impact statements assessing the significance of the archaeological
resources that would be affected by activities of the government,contractors,or
land developers. By the mid-1970s, hundredsof CRM companies had emerged.
Annual expenditures on CRM investigations reached their current levels of
approximately$300 million in the late 1970s. Contractarchaeologywas big business, and CRM firms dreamedof makingeven more money when the federalgovernment considered building a railroadnetwork for its Star Wars initiative and

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

PATTERSON
cleaning up toxic waste at SuperfundSites, because both would require impact
statements.
Why a society that has surrenderedto the power of money in the markethas
supportedCRM archaeologyso lavishly since the 1970s and continuesto do so is
a questionwith myriadanswers.Let us considerthree.First, CRMwas createdin
response to a widening of the antiquitiesmarket,markedby a change from an
exclusive concern with movable objects to an emerging one with historic buildings and properties.Studies and restorationsof buildings and propertieson the
National Register not only served to enhance their value during the real estate
boom of the last 20 years, they also provided their owners with significant tax
incentives and exemptions. Second, CRM and National Registry stamps of
approvalon the recycled historicbuildingsandpropertiesare immediatelyvisible
displays and symbols of a heritage that links the present to an earlier real or
inventedtraditionin a time of crisis (Bodnar1992, Hewison 1987). Propertiesand
historic districts-like Monticello, Ellis Island,or IndependenceHall-underpin
majornetworksof tourist, service, and commercialenterprisesthat add millions
of dollars each year to local and regional economies. Third,in a less direct manner, these constructionsof heritagenot only shape ourunderstandingsof the past,
they also constrainthe kinds of society we can imagine for the future(Williams
1977:121-27). They bring to mind Orwell's [1983:32 (1949)] observationthat
"[w]ho controls the past...controlsthe future;who controls the present controls
the past."
If the temporarilyemployed archaeologists who lack benefits representthe
lower tier of the internallystratifiedprofession in colleges and universities, then
their counterpartsin CRM archaeology are the archaeologicalfield technicians.
The men and women employed as field technicians usually have BA degrees in
anthropology.They typically move fromjob to job, earnunder$10/h, and receive
no benefits. Since 1993, organizersfromthe United ArchaeologicalField Technicians have sought to unionize this segment of the profession. The managersand
owners of many CRM firms, who are significantly better paid than the technicians, have fired or black-balledorganizersto preventunionizationof this floating reserve of army labor. Some firms have also supporteda federal regulation
thatwould classify field techniciansas unskilled or semi-skilled workersin order
to reduce their wages to even lower levels. Managersand owners have provided
diverse accounts of worker-ownerrelationsin the industrythat range from statements that there is no class structurein CRM because everyone is an archaeologist, to justifying the differencesin wages andbenefits because they arenecessary
if the companyis to remainprofitable,get contracts,andprovide employmentand
trainingopportunitiesfor the field technicians.
So far, none of the associationsrepresentingprofessionalarchaeologistsin the
United States have dealt at all with issues raised by the internalstratificationof
the profession or by the marginal employment or underemploymentof sizable
percentagesof their members. Twenty percent of the SAA's 5000 membersand
the Society for Historical Archaeology's 1650 members reportedlyearn under
$20,000 per year, which is below the poverty level (Wall & Rothschild 1995:28,

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFARCHAEOLOGY

167

Zeder 1997:78-109). It is also clear that most of the 15,000 men and women
involved in CRM archaeology do not belong to one of these professional organizations. They have opted to purchase food and other essentials and struggle to
keep alive dreamsof jobs with salaries above the poverty level, health insurance
and the other benefits enjoyed by colleagues who are better placed in the new
labor market.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ARCHAEOLOGY ON

THE EVE OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM
Various states enacted legislation duringthe nineteenthand twentieth centuries,
claiming that antiquitieswere partof the nationalpatrimonyand seeking to controlboth access to andtrafficin these goods. In the 1980s, many countries,including the United States, agreed to honor a UNESCO convention stipulating that
members would only import legally exported cultural properties. Although
archaeologistshave broughtthe effects of looting and smuggling to the attention
of authoritiesand have overwhelmingly supportedthe legislation enactedto curtail these activities, the laws themselves have had only minimal effects. In 1990,
the illicit tradein antiquitiesprobablytopped $1 billion per year, andthe prices of
these objects soaredafterthe stock marketcrashof October1987 (Acar & Kaylan
1990; Kaiser 1990, 1991). The laws have not stoppedthe looting. The plunderof
Mayan archaeological sites is a growth industrynow estimated at $120 million
per year, and single objects, like a gold flap looted in 1987 from one of the
recently discovered elite tombs at Sipan on the northerncoast of Peru, regularly
sell for more than $1.5 million (Dorfman 1998:29, Slobodzian 1997). The laws
have also not stopped some museums from accepting gifts of illegally exported
antiquitiesor preventedthem from purchasingundocumentedobjects (Robinson
& Yemma 1998, Yemma & Robinson 1998). Nor have they slowed the production of forgeries; according to a report,from a knowledgeable source, probably
more than half of Sipan gold objects now in private collections were made after
1987. Nor have the laws preventedarchaeologistsfrom implicatingthemselves in
the antiquitiestradeas buyers,appraisers,or unpaid-but-informedonlookerswith
good stories to tell collectors. However, the laws have succeeded in making the
antiquities markets and traffic more specialized, complex, and secretive as the
linkages connecting looters, forgers, dealers, museums, archaeologists, government officials, and private collectors have become more intricate (Brent 1996,
Coe 1993, McIntosh 1996, Paul 1995, Steiner 1994).
Throughoutthe twentieth century,archaeologistsand their professional associations have generally supportedlegislation that would protect archaeological
sites in the United States from looting and destruction.In general,these laws have
sought to limit access to materialremainsto professionally qualifiedand certified
archaeologists. Even though their goal seems to be a noble one, since the early
1970s it has come under attack from two distinct quarters.One line of attack
comes from the owners of plunder-for-profitoperationswho portraytheir activi-

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

PATTERSON
ties as archaeologyand from looters who lamentthe fact thatthey do not have the
same degree of access to archaeological sites as certified professionals (Elia
1991). These looters claim that what they do is no different from what professional archaeologistsdo (Powell et al 1993:27). Most archaeologistsand the governmentadamantlydisagree.
The otherline of attackwas launchedby Native Americanswho had long protested the negative images of their people employed by archaeologists and the
way archaeologiststreatedthe remainsof theirancestors(McGuire 1994; Trigger
1980, 1984, 1985; Zimmerman1997). This protestcame to a head in 1971 when
membersof the AmericanIndianMovement disruptedan archaeologicalexcavation in Minnesotaby filling the trenches, seizing the collections, and destroying
field notes. Maria Pierson, a Lakota Sioux woman, passionately described the
emotions she felt when the remains of white people from a CRM-excavatedsite
were reburiedat a nearbycemetery,whereasthe remainsof Indiansfromthe same
site were placed in cardboardboxes and deposited in a naturalhistory museum.
Native Americanconcernsaboutthe treatmentof the deadthey claim as ancestors
gained momentumduringthe 1970s. These resurfacedin the 1980s when a coalition of Native American groups pushed for and won federal legislation that had
been resisted by the professional archaeological associations. Their efforts
spannedtwo decades and culminatedin the passage of a series of laws, including
The Native American Graves Protection and RepatriationAct of 1990 (NAGPRA) (Ferguson 1996, Rose et al 1996). This law "... broughtto the fore the issue
of the reburial of human remains now in public institutions" (Zimmerman
1997:93).
Whatis apparentfrom the events thatled to the passage of NAGPRA is the degree to which the professional associations, notably the SAA (but not all of its
members),misinterpretedthe depth of public sentimentin a milieu where scientists who do not producemicroprocessorsor computersoftwareare typically portrayed as self-absorbedindividuals who are either uninterestedin, or unable to,
addressthe pressing issues of the day. In a society where the vast majorityof the
populationstill feels sympathyfor people oppressedby capital,the state, andtheir
agents, Native Americancommunitiesand their allies held the upperhand.In the
late 1980s, the debate was structuredby legislators on the Select Committee on
IndianAffairs in a way thatpittedNative Americancommunitiesagainst archaeologists. It was not a difficult decision for them to sympathize publicly with
Native American concerns and to simultaneously enact laws and amendments
that have left the issues unresolved.
Federally mandatedCRM excavations at the African Burial Groundin New
York sparkedsimilar concerns among the city's African-Americancommunities
in 1991 (Epperson1997a,b;LaRoche & Blakey 1997; Perry 1997). As the extent
and importanceof the burialgroundwas increasinglyunderstood,the descendant
communitieswere concernedabouthow the culturaland physical remainswould
be interpretedand about the assumptionsthat would underliethose assessments.
They specifically asked aboutthe issue of accountabilityand how the archaeologists involved would address the interests of the descendant communities and

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEPOLITICAL
OFARCHAEOLOGY
ECONOMY

169

their claims on the culturalproperty.They pushed for, and got, investigatorswho

heeded their concerns as well as those of the scientific community.
The events that led up to NAGPRA and the African Burial Groundsituation
are informative. The issues and the positions involved are much more complex
than as presentedby the media. They have sparkedheateddiscussions, dialogues,
compromises, working relationships, and even cooperationbetween archaeologists andthe descendantcommunitiesin some states andregions but not in others.
Anotherconsequence has been that some descendantcommunitiesare becoming
involved in the recovery and public presentationsof their culturaltraditions.The
Zuni, Hopi, and Navaho, for instance, have long done the CRM archaeology
required on their reservations, and many have their own museums (McGuire
1997:76). In late 1980s, the MushantuxetPequot used casino profits to launch
extensive archaeologicalinvestigationsin Connecticutandto establisha research
instituteconcernedwith Native Americanpeoples. In 1995, the communitiesand
scholars involved in the African Burial Groundproject established an office of
public education to provide currentinformationabout the burial ground and its
interpretation.They are collaborating with trained professionals to challenge
much of the archaeologicalprofession for control over their own histories, how
and where those histories should be portrayed,and how they should be interpreted.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
The archaeological profession must confront two problems in the new millennium. One is the marginalemploymentand institutionalizedpoverty of a growing
numberof its members. The other involves the recognitionthat other communities and groupshave claims to the stewardshipof the past thatare as legitimateas
those of the archaeologists. Resolution of the disagreementsthat will inevitably
emerge requiresa clear understandingof the different standpoints,structuresof
power, and politics involved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have sharedtheir insights about the political economy of archaeology and provided constructivecriticisms of my work on this subject. I want to
thank Wendy Ashmore, Martin Beral, Karen Brodkin, Elizabeth Brumfiel,
Carole Crumley, TerrenceEpperson,Don Fowler, ChristineGailey, Peter Gran,
Theresa Kintz, Mark Leone, Randall McGuire, Sarah Nelson, Robert Paynter,
WarrenPerry, Paul Rechner, Peter Schmidt, Neil Silberman, Karen Spalding,
Bruce Trigger, Gordon Willey, Rita Wright, Alison Wylie, and LarryZimmerman for the help and clarificationthey have generouslyprovided.Needless to say,
I am solely responsible for the analysis in this paper.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org.

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

PATTERSON

LITERATURE CITED
Acar 0, KaylanM. 1990. The Turkishconnection: an investigative report on the smuggling of classical antiquities. Connoisseur,
Oct., pp. 130-37
Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 1947. Proc. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 1946. Am. Anthropol.
49(2):346-71
Arango L. 1924. Recuerdos de la Guaqueria
en el Quindio, Vols. 1,2. Bogota, Colomb:
Cromos. 190 pp.
Becker M. 1979. Priests, peasants, and ceremonial centers:the intellectualhistory of a
model. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. N Hammond, G Willey, pp.
3-20. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Beral M. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.Vol. 1,
The Fabrication of Ancient Greece, pp.
1785-985. London: Free Assoc. Books.
575 pp.
Binford L. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar.464 pp.
Biolsi T, Zimmerman L, eds. 1997. Indians
andAnthropologists. VineDeLoria Jr. and
the Critique of Anthropology. Tucson:
Univ. Ariz. Press. 226 pp.
Bodnar J. 1992. Remaking America. Public
Memory, Commemoration,and Patriotism
in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ:
PrincetonUniv. Press. 296 pp.
Bonefeld W. 1993. The Recomposition of the
British State During the 1980s. Hants,UK:
Dartmouth.282 pp.
Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinctions: A Social Critique of the Judgmentof Taste. Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniv. Press. 613 pp.
Bourdieu P. 1986. The forms of capital. In
Handbook of Theoryand Researchfor the
Sociology of Education, ed. J Richardson,
pp. 241-58. New York: Greenwood
BourdieuP. 1987. What makes a social class?
On the theoretical and practical existence
of groups. BerkeleyJ. Sociol. 37:1-17
BourdieuP, PasseronJC. 1990. Reproduction
in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. 259 pp.

Braverman H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly

Capital. The Degradation of Workin the
TwentiethCentury.New York: Mon. Rev.
465 pp.
BrennerR. 1985. The agrarianroots of European capitalism. In The Brenner Debate.
Agrarian Class Structure and Economic
Developmentin Pre-IndustrialEurope, ed.
T Aston, C Philpin, pp. 213-327. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
BrentM. 1996. A view inside the illicit tradein
African antiquities. See Schmidt & McIntosh 1996, pp. 63-78
BrintonD. 1890. Races andPeoples: Lectures
on the Science of Ethnography.New York:
NDC Hodges. 313 pp.
Brodkin K. 1998. Global capitalism: What's
race got to do with it? Presented at Annu.
Meet. Am. Ethnol. Soc., Toronto, Can.
CastafiedaQ. 1996. In the Museum of Maya
Culture:TouringChichenItzc. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. 341 pp.
CastellanosJ. 1944 (1589). Elegias de varones
ilustres de Indias. Bibl. Autores Esp. (4).
Madrid:Talleres "Orbe"
Clarke S. 1988. Keynesianism, Monetarism
and the Crisis of the State. Hampshire,UK:
EdwardElgar. 368 pp.
Coe M. 1993. From huaqueroto connoisseur:
the early market in pre-Columbianart. In
Collecting the Pre-ColumbianPast, ed. E
Boone, pp. 271-90. Washington, DC:
DumbartonOaks
Cole D. 1985. CapturedHeritage: the Scramble for Northwest Coast Artifacts. Seattle:
Univ. Wash. Press. 373 pp.
Conkey M, Spector J. 1984. Archaeology and
the study of gender. In Advances in Archeological Method and Theory, ed. M
Schiffer, 7:1-38. Orlando,FL: Academic
d'AndradeR, Hammel E, Adkins D, McDaniel C. 1975. Academic opportunityin anthropology, 1974-1990. Am. Anthropol.
77:752-73
Desai M. 1991. Political economy. In A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, ed. T Botto-

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE POLITICALECONOMYOF ARCHAEOLOGY

more, pp. 426-28. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell
Diaz-Andreu M, ChampionT, eds. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe.
London: UCL. 314 pp.
DiMaggio P. 1982. Culturalentrepreneurship
in nineteenth-centuryBoston: the creation
of an organizationalbase for high culturein
America. Media, Cult. Soc. 4:33-50
Dorfman J. 1998. Getting their hands dirty?
Archaeologists and the looting trade. Linguafranca 8(4):28-37
Dworsky D, McVarish V, Perry K, Robinson
S. 1983. Federal law. In A Handbook of
Historic Preservation Law, ed. C Duerksen, pp. 191-342. Baltimore,MD: The Conserv. Found. and Natl. Cent. Preserv. Law
Edge-Parrington J. 1910. Maori forgeries.
Man 10(4):54-55
Elia R. 1991. Populararchaeology and the antiquities market: a review essay. J. Field
Archaeol. 18:95-103
Engels F. 1969 (1845). The Condition of the
Working Class in England. Herts, UK:
Granada.336 pp.
Engels F. 1972 (1884). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New
York: International.285 pp.
Epperson T. 1997a. The contested commons:
archaeologies of race, repressionand resistance in New York City. Unpublished paper. Philadelphia
EppersonT. 1997b. The politics of "race"and
cultural identity at the African burial
ground excavations, New York City.
WorldArchaeol.Bull. 7:108-17
Fagan B. 1992. Rape of the Nile: TombRobbers, Tourists,andArchaeologists in Egypt.
Wakefield, MA: Moyer Bell. 407 pp.
Faguette P. 1985. Diggingfor dollars. the impact of the New Deal on the professionalization of American archaeology. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Riverside. 411 pp.
Ferguson T. 1996. Native Americans and the
practice of archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:63-79
Fisher D. 1993. FundamentalDevelopment of
the Social Sciences. Rockefeller Philan-

171

thropyand the UnitedStates Social Science

Research Council. Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich.
Press. 343 pp.
GoldmannL. 1973. ThePhilosophy of the Enlightenment: The Christian Burgess and
the Enlightenment.Cambridge,MA: Mass.
Inst. Tech. Press. 100 pp.
GramsciA. 1971. On education. In Selections
from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio
Gramsci,ed. Q Hoare,G Smith,pp. 24-43.
New York: International
Guthe C. 1940. The basic needs of American
archaeology. Science 90:528-30
Hammond M. 1980. Anthropology as a
weapon of social combat in late 19th
century France. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 16:
118-32
HarawayD. 1989. Remodeling the humanway
of life: Sherwood Washburnand the new
physical anthropology, 1950-1980. In Primate Visions: Gender,Race, and Nature in
the WorldofModern Science, pp. 186-230.
New York: Routledge
Hewison R. 1987. TheHeritage Industry:Britain in an Age of Decline. London: Methuen. 160 pp.
Hinsley C. 1981. Savages and Scientists: the
Smithsonian Institution and the Development of American Anthropology, 18461910. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Press. 319 pp.
Hinsley C. 1985. From shell-heaps to stelae:
early anthropology at the Peabody Museum. In History of Anthropology, ed. G
Stocking, 3:49-74. Madison: Univ. Wis.
Press
Jefferson T. 1955 (1785). Notes on Virginia.
Chapel Hill: Univ. NC Press. 315 pp.
JohnsonF, HauryE, Griffin J. 1945. Reportof
the planning committee. Am. Antiq. 9:
142-44
Kaiser T. 1990. Dealing for dollars. J. Field
Archaeol. 17:205-10
Kaiser T. 1991. The antiquities market. J.
FieldArchaeol. 18(1):87-89
KluckhohnC. 1940. The conceptual structure
in Middle American studies. In The Maya
and TheirNeighbors, ed. C Hay, R Linton,

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

PATTERSON

S Lothrop, H Shapiro, G Valliant, pp.

Savage. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.
41-51. New York: Appleton-Century
Press. 249 pp.
Kohl P, Fawcett C, eds. 1995. Nationalism, Meyer K. 1973. The Plundered Past. New
York: Atheneum.353 pp.
Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology.
UK:
Univ.
Press.
Meyer K. 1979. The Art Museum: Power,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
329 pp.
Money, Ethics. New York: Morrow. 352
KristiansenK. 1981. A social history of DanPP.
ish archaeology (1805-1975). In Towarda Mohun S. 1993. Political economy. In The
Blackwell Dictionary of TwentiethHistory of Archaeology, ed. G Daniel, pp.
20-44. London:Thames & Hudson
CenturySocial Thought,ed. W Outhwaite,
T Bottomore, pp. 477-79. Oxford, UK:
KroeberA, ed. 1953. AnthropologyToday:An
Basil Blackwell
Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, IL:
Moser S. 1995. Archaeology and its discipliUniv. Chicago Press. 966 pp.
KroeberA, Parsons T. 1958. The concepts of
nary culture. the professionalization of
Australian prehistoric archaeology. PhD
cultureand of social system. Am. Soc. Rev.
thesis. Univ. Sydney, Aust. 282 pp.
23:582-83
Lack D. 1970. Asia in the Making of Europe. Norton C, BrimmerM, Peabody O, Greenleaf
Vol. 2(1), A Centuryof Wonder.Chicago,
E, ParkmanF, et al. 1880. First AnnualReIL: Univ. Chicago Press. 257 pp.
port of the ExecutiveCommittee,Archaeol.
Inst. Am., Cambridge,MA
LaRoche C, Blakey M. 1997. Seizing intellectual power: the dialogue at the New York Orwell G. 1983. (1949). 1984. New York:
African burial ground.Hist. Archaeol. 31:
Penguin Books. 267 pp.
PattersonT. 1986. The last sixty years: toward
84-106
a social historyof Americanistarchaeology
Linton R. 1945. The Science of Man in the
in the United States. Am. Anthropol. 88:
WorldCrisis. New York: Columbia Univ.
7-26
Press. 532 pp.
Lyon E. 1996. A New Deal for Southeastern Patterson T. 1989. Political Economy and a
discourse called Peruvian archaeology.
Archaeology. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala.
Cult. Hist. 4:35-64
Press. 283 pp.
Marx K. 1963 (1852). The Eighteenth Bru- PattersonT. 1995. Towarda Social History of
maire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: InArchaeology in the United States. Fort
ternational.162 pp.
Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace College Publ.
181 pp.
Marx K. 1977 (1867). Capital. Vol. 1, A CriT. 1997. Inventing WesternCivilizaPatterson
York:
New
Political
Economy.
tique of
tion. New York: Mon. Rev. 156 pp.
Vintage Books. 1143 pp.
Marx K, Engels F. 1964 (1846). The German Paul B. 1995. "Collecting is the noblest of all
passions!": Wilhelm von Bode and the reIdeology. Moscow: Progress. 158 pp.
McGuire R. 1994. Archeology and the first
lationship between museums, art dealing,
and private collecting. Int. J. Polit. Econ.
Americans.Am. Anthropol.94:816-36
McGuire R. 1997. Why have archaeologists
25(2):9-32
thought the real Indians were dead and Perry W. 1997. Archaeology as community
service: the African burial ground project
what can we do aboutit? See Biolsi & Zimin New York City. N. Am. Dialogue:
merman 1997, pp. 63-91
Newsl. Soc. Anthropol.N. Am. 2(1):1-5
McIntosh R. 1996. Just say shame: excising
the rot of culturalgenocide. See Schmidt& Powell S, GarzaC, HendricksA. 1993. Ethics
and ownership of the past: the reburialand
McIntosh 1996, pp. 44-62
Meek R. 1976. Social Science and the Ignoble
repatriationcontroversy. In Archaeologi-

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE POLITICALECONOMYOF ARCHAEOLOGY

cal Method and Theory, ed. M Schiffer,
5:1-42. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Rainger R. 1991. An Agenda for Antiquity:
Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate
Paleontology at the American Museum of
Natural History, 1890-1935. Tuscaloosa:
Univ. Ala. Press. 360 pp.
Robinson W, Yemma J. 1998. Harvardmuseum acquisitionsshock scholars. TheBoston Globe, Jan. 16, p. Al
Rose JC, Green TJ, Green VD. 1996. NAGPRA is forever:osteology and the repatriation of skeletons. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
25:81-103
Ross D. 1991. The Origins ofAmerican Social
Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press. 508 pp.
Rowe J. 1965. The Renaissancefoundationsof
anthropology.Am. Anthropol.67:1-20
Rydell R. 1984. All the World's a Fair: Visions of Empire at AmericanInternational
Expositions, 1876-1916. Chicago, IL:
Univ. Chicago Press. 328 pp.
Schele L, Miller M. 1986. TheBlood of Kings.
Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. New
York: Braziller. 542 pp.
Schiffer M, GumermanG. 1977. Culturalresource management. In Conservation Archaeology: A Guidefor CulturalResource
Management Studies, ed. M Schiffer, pp.
1-17. New York: Academic
SchmidtP, McIntoshR, eds. 1996. Plundering
Africa's Past. Bloomington: Ind. Univ.
Press. 280 pp.
Schmidt P, PattersonT, eds. 1996. MakingAlternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western
Settings. SantaFe, NM: SAR. 312 pp.
Silberman N. 1982. Digging for God and
Country:Exploration,Archeology, and Secret Struggle for the Holy Land, 17991917. New York: Knopf. 228 pp.
Silberman N. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New
York: Holt. 285 pp.
Silberman N. 1994. The Hidden Scrolls:

173

Christianity,Judaism, and the Warfor the

Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Putnam &
Sons. 306 pp.
Sklenar K. 1983. Archaeology in Central
Europe: The First 500 years. New York:
St. Martin's. 182 pp.
Slaughter S, Silva E. 1982. Looking backwards: how foundations formulatedideology in the Progressive Period. In Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The
Foundations at Home and Abroad, ed. R
Arnove, pp. 54-86. Bloomington: Ind.
Univ. Press
Slobodzian J. 1997. FBI agents strike gold in
Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Inquirer,
Oct. 10, p. Al
Solomon B. 1985. In the Company of Educated Women:A History of Women and
Higher Educationin America.New Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press. 298 pp.
Steiner C. 1994. African Art in Transit.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 220
pp.
Stem S. 1988. Feudalism, capitalism, and the
world-system in the perspective of Latin
America and the Caribbean.Am. Hist. Rev.
93:829-72
Tax S, ed. 1953. AnAppraisal ofAnthropology
Today.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 395
PP.
Tax S, ed. 1964. Horizons in anthropology.
New York: Aldine. 391 pp.
Tax S. 1955. The integrationof anthropology.
See Thomas 1955, pp. 313-28
Taylor W. 1948. A study of archeology. Mem.
Am. Anthropol.Assoc. 69. 256 pp.
Thomas W, ed. 1955. Yearbookof Anthropology-1955. New York: Wenner-Gren
Found. Anthropol.Res. 377 pp.
ThompsonJ. 1954. TheRise and Fall of Maya
Civilization. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press.
328 pp.
Trahere T. 1673. Roman Forgeries, or, A
TrueAccount of False Records. Discovering the Impostureand CounterfeitAntiquities of the Church of Rome by a Faithful

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

PATTERSON

Son of the Church of England. London: Wall D, Rothschild N. 1995. Report on the
JonathanEdwin. 316 pp.
membership questionaire. Soc. Hist. Archaeol. SHANewsl. 28(4):24-31
Trigger B. 1980. Archaeology and the image
of the American Indian. Am. Antiq. 45: Williams R. 1977. Marxism and Literature.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 217 pp.
662-76
Trigger B. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: Willey G. 1984. Archaeological retrospect 6.
nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man
Antiquity58(1):5-14
WolfE. 1980. They divide and subdivide, and
19:355-70
call it anthropology.TheNew YorkTimes,
Trigger B. 1985. The past as power: anthroNov. 30, p. E9
pology and the North American Indian.
In Who Owns the Past? ed. I McBryde, Yemma J, Robinson W. 1998. Guatemalan's
demand return of artifacts. The Boston
pp. 11-40. Melbourne: Oxford Univ.
Press
Globe, Jan. 13, p. Al
Trigger B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Zeder M. 1997. TheAmericanArchaeologist.
A Profile. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
212 pp.
Univ. Press. 500 pp.
Wade E. 1976. Thehistoryof the SouthwestIn- Zimmerman L. 1997. Anthropology and redian art market. PhD thesis. Univ. Wash.,
sponses to the reburialissue. See Biolsi &
Zimmerman1997, pp. 92-112
Seattle. 297 pp.

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:51:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions