Publishing Archaeology views Archaeology for what it truly is, " a Comparative Historical Social Science. All four of those words are important to my scholarly identity."
In Smith's latest article entitled "American Anthropologist implies that archaeology is not part of anthropology", he explains his views about "In Focus: (Not) The End of Anthropology, Again? Some Thoughts on Disciplinary Futures". The article explains the future outcome of Anthropology and whether Archaeology, which is barely comparable, will still be hanging on by a thread.
Cultural anthropologists seem to think archaeology has no place in the discipline, but you have to remember and they certainly do as well, without archaeology much of histories past would be completely lost. Why? Not all cultures are observable, but artifacts can tell us a great deal more about the past and how people lived their day to day lives.
Smith goes to explain "The flagship journal of the main anthropological association, in a featured series of papers, implicitly dismisses archaeology as an important part of anthropology. When this is added to the insults from the AAA science fiasco, it helps push people like me further from anthropology."
What are all of your thoughts about this? As anthropologists, do you agree archeology has no significant bearing on the discipline as a whole?