{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01765695067264574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005605381165919282, 'mean_word_length': 5.228621291448516, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
New Directions in Americanist Archaeology

As we approach the end of this millennium, archaeologists are once again in the midst of serious and sometimes heated discussions about the nature of our discipline. But unlike the 1960s and the emergence of the new archaeology, what we are experiencing today has many more dimensions to it. Yes, we are debating issues pertaining to the different intellectual frameworks within which archaeological knowledge is developed. The number of techniques available to archaeologists to gain information about the past has grown enormously, as has our apparent difficulty assessing the reliability of archaeological method in relation to substantive claims. Yet this is not all. The institutional position of archaeology is also of concern. For instance, to what extent do our ideas about the past reflect the historical and contemporary conditions of Western society? How, then, has this context affected archaeological knowledge? Similarly, what should our relationship be to others (e.g., Native Americans, Native Hawaiians) who claim a historical connection to and moral concern about the archaeological record? What can we do about preserving historic properties for the future? Will the discipline continue to grow in terms of jobs available for our students? How does the growth of employment in research and contract-based archaeology relate to our concerns for the preservation of the archaeological record? Possibly, the reasons for this most recent period of change may be of some interest to future historians of the discipline. For the moment, we can simply acknowledge that the transition we are experiencing is a result of our discipline's self-conscious emphasis on intellectual growth (Clarke 1973); a corresponding commitment to improve the technological capacity for observing and communicating aspects about the past (Bishop 1992); and the considerable alterations we have witnessed in the social and political contexts of the world today (e.g., Wylie 1992). In this sense the trend that began with the new archaeology continues, although clearly some of the more recent developments were not anticipated by the original protagonists. All of this has made for some uneasiness among archaeologists. In contrast to the optimistic predictions of the new archaeology, it is unclear to many that this period of introspection and discussion foreshadows a more powerful interpretive paradigm or that it will necessarily lead to positive changes in the profession. This time the issues being raised are not solely about the development of archaeological knowledge, and there is now the realization that the success of ideas in the discipline is not always just a matter of their intellectual merit. Yet, Sabloff(1992) has recently suggested that much of this may not really matter to most archaeologists because these issues concern only a small portion of the profession. I would rephrase this; these issues may not appear to matter to many archaeologists because their relevance to the practice of our discipline remains poorly sketched. I would argue, however, that the multidimensional nature of archaeology today makes it increasingly likely that the various discussions about the discipline will affect most of us who work in the profession. Further, in at least one respect I am encouraged by the debate that now regularly occurs in the pages oi American Antiquity, for I regard this as an opportunity to identify the relations among ideas and of these to the practice and organization of Americanist archaeology.