




































1 

 

 

Perceptions of “Intra-disciplinary” Unity and Division   

 

Review by Anthony R. Tricarico 
 

These “Thin Partitions:” Bridging the Growing Divide between Cultural Anthropology and 

Archaeology  

By Joshua D Englehardt and Ivy A. Rieger eds. 

University Press of Colorado, 2017 

 

These “Thin Partitions:” Bridging the Growing Divide Between Cultural Anthropology and 

Archaeology co-edited by Joshua D. Englehardt and Ivy A. Rieger seeks to reexamine if and to what 

extent the sub-disciplines of Anthropology have become disjunctured. Specifically, Englehardt and 

Rieger sought to evaluate the historical, contemporary, and future relationship between cultural 

anthropologists and archaeologists. The edited volume contained twelve single or co-authored chapters, 

which sought to engage with the idea of “intradisciplinary” theories as a viable tool for unifying 

theoretical divisions. The editors offered a new and welcome perspective on a debate now spanning 

decades and across multiple journal articles, books, and special issues (i.e. Ortner 1984; Watson 1995; 

Gillespie et al. 2003). All of these works have focused on one central question: are anthropology’s four 

sub-fields unified in their goal of understanding the full breadth of humanity? Conflicting answers to 

this question arise every few years as if to demonstrate the continuing ontological reflectivity woven 

into the fabric of anthropology. Ideally the “…roles, goals, and foci of anthropology’s four primary 

subfields [should] complement and weave back into each other, forming a complex disciplinary whole 

that is greater than the sum of its individual parts” (4). The editors both argue that the commonalities 

within each subfield’s history, theories, and methods define anthropology as a unified discipline 

seeking to understand the human cultural experience from different modes of inquiry. This sentiment 

has been expressed similarly in other works as well. Most notably, Watson (1995) argued that an 

archaeological anthropology is the only way of maintaining fruitful collaborations between the 

disciplines, ensuring that anthropological research remains of “…global importance and great intrinsic 

interest” (690). However, Englehardt and Rieger, as well as many of the authors across the volume, 

argue that a critical reevaluation of anthropological theory is needed to ensuring greater collaboration 

between the discipline's subfields. 

 

Both Englehardt and Rieger cite increased specialization of anthropological conferences as the primary 

concern behind the inspiration for the volume. Specifically, they point out the contradiction between 

specialization at a time when many are calling for a more holistic and interdisciplinary anthropology. 

Englehardt and Rieger question whether the subfields share a similar language, calling for an increase 

in shared terminology (similar to an argument made by Ortner 1984). Each chapter in the volume is 

centered on one central question: “How can a renewed emphasis on sub-disciplinary dialogue [i.e. 



2 

 

shared theories and methods] and collaboration benefit anthropology as a whole as it is currently 

practiced in the twenty-first century?” (4) Each author sought to demonstrate the value of continued 

collaboration between cultural anthropologists and archaeologists in addressing shared research 

interests. 

 

Paul Shakman addresses how intra-disciplinary theoretical applications may serve as both unifying and 

dividing forces in chapter two, titled “‘It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time:’ The Fate of Cultural 

Evolution in Cultural Anthropology.” Specifically, Shankman addresses the question: “How did 

cultural evolution move from mainstream acceptance to marginal status in just a few short decades?” 

(46)  His intent was to examine the history of cultural evolution, a once more prominent theoretical 

paradigm in anthropology applied by both cultural anthropologists and archaeologists. Shankman 

argues that cultural anthropologists and archaeologists have shared research interests, highlighting that 

the “disciplinary divide” is a misrepresentation of the historical and contemporary relationship between 

the two subfields. The theoretical application of cultural evolution rests on the main premise that 

culture is adaptive. This notion helps contribute to the integration of cultural and archaeological modes 

of knowledge construction through the examination of interactions between multiple external and 

internal causal variables contributing to cultural change through time. “Cultural Evolution” was widely 

accepted and utilized in both cultural anthropology and archaeology throughout the late-1950s and 

1960s, during a period of continued calls of a more archaeological anthropology (i.e. Philip Phillips 

1955; Binford 1962). Shankman argued that the theory of cultural evolution helped bridge distinct 

theoretical traditions in both subfields until the rise of later Geertzian interpretative approaches in 

anthropology. Interpretative approaches emphasized understanding over explanation, positing “cultural 

evolution” as an “armchair pursuit.” However, Shankman argues that archaeological and socio-cultural 

theories (utilized together) help create a more complete picture than either discipline creates alone. 

Shankman’s argument echoed that of Ortner (1984) who commented decades earlier on similar 

perceptions of sub-field divisions. Ortner (ibid) lamented on the growing theoretical divide between 

each sub-field, though argued that the development of “practice” was reunifying the field under a new 

guise. Practice theory afforded researchers the freedom to apply a host of theoretical perspectives 

directly suited for different modes of power embedded across the globe. This principle did not unify the 

field under one single theoretical paradigm, but under the shared goal of understanding changes across 

systems (ibid). However, understanding which theory would suit a particular research project 

necessitates the adequate knowledge of a wide range of anthropological theories. 

 

A varied “toolbox” of theories mandates the training of new anthropologists utilizing a four-field 

approach. However, Ivy A. Rieger (ch 4) argues that four-field theoretical training is becoming rare at 

the graduate-level. Rieger’s chapter, titled “Ethnographic Stratigraphies: Mapping Practical Exchanges 

between Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology” argued that graduate training (at least theoretically) 

has become increasingly specialized contributing to further intra-disciplinary division. Rieger asks, "If 

we have four subdisciplines housed (typically) within the same university department under the term 

anthropology, but we do not train our students in the four-field model, then does the utility of said 

model of disciplinary organization even exist?" (87)  As a solution, she argues for greater incorporation 

of multiple stakeholders in research as a means of developing effective communication between 

cultural anthropologists and archaeologists. Both cultural anthropologists and archaeologists need to 

work with local communities to effectively conduct research. Therefore, Rieger argues that fieldwork is 

the optimal arena for promoting collaboration. However, effective collaboration begins with graduate 

training. The promotion of a four-field theoretical background provides researchers with the tools to 

effectively determine which theory is appropriate for the research project. Ultimately, Rieger argues 

that both cultural anthropology and archaeology inform one another. "…the ways in which 



3 

 

ethnographies and ethnographic field projects are realized, as well as the ways in which archaeological 

sites and artifacts are interpreted…are all based on the structures of power that resonate with theoretical 

issues surrounding the dissemination and localization of academic knowledge" (96). Throughout the 

edited volume, each author continually reexamines the state of anthropological theory and advocates 

for theory as an effective tool for bridging the sub-disciplinary divide. 

 

David B. Small in chapter 9, titled “The Interface Between Anthropology and Archaeology: A View 

from Ancient Greece” continues this theme, though disagrees with the intra-disciplinary application of 

theories. Small instead argues for the development of new theories that cross the sub-field divide. As a 

classical archaeologist, he offers a different perspective than that of other authors included in the 

volume. Small notes that most classical archaeologists (housed in classics departments) turn more to 

theories from fields such as history. He further demonstrated that cross-cultural perspective may serve 

as the best model of bridging sub-field divisions through the incorporation of his work in Ancient 

Greece. Small argued that certain research foci (i.e. the investigation of small polities) may be informed 

best by combining archaeological and cultural anthropological perspectives. However, he rejects the 

application of sociocultural theory to analyze archaeological questions, calling for the development of 

new intra-disciplinary theoretical paradigms. Small is quick to note though that there is sparse literature 

on this subject and few are taking up this call as of yet.  

 

The final chapter of “These Thin Partitions” served as a mini-commentary on the chapters presented 

previously. Chapter ten is comprised of three entries in which each author provided their own analysis 

of how effectively the work achieved its central goal: to demonstrate the value of continued 

collaboration between cultural anthropologists and archaeologists in addressing shared research 

interests. Donna M. Goldstein in her commentary, titled “Anthropological Pasts and Futures” argued 

that a degree of specialization, condemned by most of the entries, may not be entirely bad for the 

discipline as a whole. Goldstein (2017) noted that sub-field specialization is not a sign of disunity, but 

actually a sign of disciplinary maturity. Instead of focusing on the “reunification” of the sub-fields, 

Goldstein calls on the further development of interdisciplinary collaboration. She notes that 

interdisciplinary collaboration is a “…productive direction rather than something to lament” (258).  

 

These “Thin Partitions:” Bridging the Growing Divide Between Cultural Anthropology and 

Archaeology co-edited by Joshua D. Englehardt and Ivy R. Rieger offered a lively debate on the future 

of intra- and inter-disciplinary collaboration in a twenty-first century anthropology. Each author was 

unified in their opinion that new theoretical applications, whether borrowed from a different sub-

discipline or newly established will strengthen the cooperation of cultural anthropologists and 

archaeologists in new research questions exploring the breadth of human cultural diversity. 

 

References 

Binford, Lewis R. 1962.  “Archaeology as anthropology”. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225. 

 

Englehardt, Joshua D. and Ivy A. Rieger. 2017.  These "Thin Partitions:" Bridging the Growing Divide 

between Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, 

Colorado. 

 

Ortner, Sherry B. 1984. “Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties”. Comparative studies in society 

and history 26(1):126-166. 

 

 



4 

 

Phillips, Philip. 1955. “American archaeology and general anthropological theory”. Southwestern 

Journal of Anthropology 11(3):246-250. 

 

Watson, Patty Jo. 1995. “Archaeology, anthropology, and the culture concept”.  American 

Anthropologist 97(4):683-694. 

 

 

Anthony R. Tricarico is a Ph.D. student in Applied Anthropology at the University of South Florida 

 

 

 

 

© 2018 Anthony R. Tricarico 

 


