On Archaeology and Development

TLDR: Mgomezulu as discussed by the authors argued that it would be too much for an archaeologist's view of the universe to coincide with that of any society, and that the duty of the archaeologist in such circumstances will be more to popularise the aspects of archaeology unknown to the society rather than to coin a brand of archeology ''suited to that society''.

Abstract: by GADI G. Y. MGOMEZULU Box 264, Lilongwe, Malawi. 29 vii 80 \"Archaeology ought to be what archaeology already is. The problem is how can we improve our ways of doing it?\" (Isaac 1971:129). The gist of Miller's (CA 21: 709-15) paper contradicts this premise. It is that archaeology is dependent on \"the structure of society\" and therefore, where it is just being introduced, should be different from the archaeology in societies in which it has a longer tradition. While Miller attempts to disclaim this view, the rest of his article is consistent with it. One may safely say that a society's conception of the universe and its role in it has a lot to do with what that society does and why it is the way it is. A case can be made that it would be expecting too much for an archaeologist's view of the universe to coincide with that of any society. In terms of the time depth of man's history, for instance, an archaeologist may have 3,000,000 years in mind when the society may only be able to relate to a few hundred. The duty of the archaeologist in such circumstances will be more to popularise the aspects of archaeology unknown to the society than to coin a brand of archaeology \"suited\" to that society. A similarly pervasive idea in the article is evolution of societv versus evolution of archaeology. This, to say the least, revives such hackneyed 19th-century evolutionary ideas as Morgan's (1964 [1877]) \"primitive\" and civilized.\" Research by external institutions hould indeed be encouraged by indigenous people, who for the most part lack financial resources and, even more, trained manpower. External institutions, on their part, should include the involvement and training of indigenous people from the beginning. Any other relationship is, in fact, parasitic on the indigenous people. The article is at its best when dealing with the Solomons example. The generalisations from the author's experience in the Solomons are, however, misleading. What needs to be done in \"developing\" countries vis-a-vis archaeology is not to fabricate a different type of archaeology to fit them, but to popularise archaeology without significantly changing its meaning or nature (Mgomezulu 1979).