C
R
.'
t'
T1T
" 7
Y''
T
'.Q
J
.ii
Si9
.0
000000
000
From
can Sullivan
.
Attached are several of the more summative of many
documents pertinent to the following motion I wish to place
before Senate on February
3,
1969 under the agenda
subdivision for Faculty Business, Faculty of Arts.
MOVED
(1) that Senate accept in princ-iple an
administrative scpara-on of Archaeology Studies
from the Department
of
Political Science. Sociology,
and Anthropology and authorize that Archaco logy
Studies become an administrative rcsoonsibiiity
under the office of the Dean
of
Arts
AND
•
-
(2)
that Senate form an ad hoc committee
0
comprising the Dean
of
the Faculty of Arts, the
Bursar, the Academic Vice-President, and one other
Faculty member on Senate whose responsibility will
he
to see that an equitable and timely separation
of
Archaeology Studies from T'SA is implemented.
In addition to the documents attached here, verbal
presentations will be made at the
Senate
meeting.
-
•
jL
'
.:2".,,.
;. ,. ...,•
-,
DHS :els
attachments:
Memo. Dec. 11, 1968 to B. Sullivan from R. Carlson, P. Nobler
4emo. Dec. 16, 1968 to all members of the Faculty of Arts, RB,
.
0
from Deal. Sullivan, subject
Jan. 30,
,
1969 to all members of Faculty of Arts from Bean
0
•
Sullivan, Referendum Ballot U [results]
Memo. Nov. 8 1968 to IT) . H Sullivan from M. Br i enhe rcj PSA
Abstract by R. Carlson and P. Nobler.
0
•
TiS.Ttip 1i'
;blcr
Assiotri.it.
1::scfcsc
./'
•__)
/ )
-
j'c:
1
-•
I
floy/L (.Lc'
J(C1.C.t!O iyo';::;c.::
j
.-
]);'.n
Of
P
•:;
O WE S:
of !t:ci
c'
JI;
L:c
:;
4e
(4t/
¶fho
Ave
hac
ology
of th PSJ\ J
1CU°'t
LL'
t:.on of tho
of t.ho AT
cha co N
z y
f:'oii
znL
I:'t.on
1MUM:'o.co .
0."
1nt
,c':.
n1
a nd
.
'i':o'ont
.;
i'nJ ::t1c1
pJ.y
t.ho:' ni
now addAti
ons
to t3
plawnt
PV
gran. TWO are Souna ac
a
dem
i
c
w a
sons
fo
p
-:t
ciooJ.o: h:; b•::n
-djto'c:).
Sfl33 It0 O
P
SMUZ Q $TJ
)31
the 1! DDpRoWnt.
At tho onsat
th:i A
pplan
D
nOtOn
c:f t.hci A
W WO TM
p:c'g:i; ofc:.c1 no nova trn thl';
nr
of p:
. c::c.nt
h
t.ho hiü!ding of any PY0910M. V ith
fcou].ty! Mduistrativa thangas, a
nd
:itr n.':r
c.:co*c.:
of g:oITh
;Xncc j
tt t
. :t:o
1
p:o3
hovo a:isIn
1 110 1 5 11
our o pin
i on can cnly
bo soNsd by
!::
acoio;y
f:o2PSA.
I't
to thc39
pro
b lown
e;'D
t:o
(.f(CC.I3
in
n1j;ot
tCI'
tio:'•
t
w ohn
iq
l
0s,
thcony, and
O j
.
Of :.t
botE;n PSA on tho ono 1:n: and
kwh3solo g y on thc ('?
In
t
0,0 CI'
in PS
I
C'
c
on di
tion
of
intonwo
OWSH MO
N
contows
-
-'
Irr
econal inblo
viczywinto
ORMUZ
to
PIDMU I
ON rcc_U
and
pho:'
of
MucKlon.
1i'tJ.
t'.
c.on1.c intw
y c sts Ohich
GT!
':1
iiost c--* ^.
- . . - .;^l - !:,:-.--.--,
t%n
0
03
p':;noto
depa
p tn on
tal
u5:.y ro
Sinoo inst
bDon -ii-..
W
"intoE-td
of
c'c'ach
to FORAM Swi
cnaB,
•
inci
in Ojoh
Avchas
olc l y
doos not f.t s3igly b3ma
p se of
:.
mature
of thc oj
. :;inJ.no
L'C"IG3'
th to ho C1901cal
rd
:nfz.:.v.:
and £oc.o; on
rnt
s poe
his
K
y
l
e
pst
As s
uch
it cff
.
': ).i.o
NO
MY.
•
foor sol
u
tlow
to 1'0110n;
of c.cpz:.y ecoloty.
Un
d
3wtoo PV00
0 wj
doprtit:nt.i
tho po wcH Ano
b
an
o
l
o
g
y p;;o';
U'.0
to c1cvoop in its cm
'ht.
In our o4n.cn t.lio only
:ty
to
i.:
xtn
integrity
of tho p
yo l
rnm
npd
lIoot
OxistAnS
obliZa
t
i
onn
to
o' V OO
Ns
:
to h2vo tho unjvcysity pvovido u.n adidnistrativa S H O W
in
(CCO.ibLLC
ec
c l
si
ons
coo
iI0
by
c1000
offo:-od
i
v
i
sion
cour
s
os
pI'tinOilt to t.ho
of S tudonts
in oil throw F'oultios and ooc:'hf. 'no:o pinii; :1
uppar
dllJ.ci en Co
CO
\hLeh d'v7 stunts
f:c.ii rny
do!t
1"0
PSA rojors
o:.hor than t.ho -o
r1'h
to
1:tjo:'
in !
iIOiO
t-.ho t.hoo
couco.
Both
tho Crn:'o
Ci and
tho NC
ulind
LrTh ooicel ro
Our rescarch prc.n
conco
nt
y
ntwo
on F:.tih ColurJio as this roglan
vitu'iiy unhno:Tn £.rc-h.c)iCgiC_.y, a
nd is emi
nontly s.it:.:lo as
r.
1c:T.inc
laboratory. Thtc
p-joCt.;
C'ra prcsont.ily in oration in
Do pia
vi
now,
Our un
pDiPt. r
e
m
a
ins: IcoXoçj and
PSi tro
diTfo:::.nt
I.oih on:1
do
not boion in tho
dcp:ont
..
Deal) Sullivan
R. 1, 3
Daceiber J.6, .J.0
-
SflPARi'fIO OF AICHA:OLOCY ROi PSA
Several months ago Professors Cariscu and Hobler approacied the Acting
0"
asking for odmin
istraLive separat ion
from
the
PSA Department. Shortly aftar
I was elected
)
the Acting President called together
Professor r5n5cmberg,
Profe.3soi.
Carison, Professor flobler, and myself, at which time on agreement
wa g
reached that the
Dean would undetake to suggest procedures for the several pcss5.bi15ties inherent in
the motion of 'administrative separation' . The procedures for becoming a Department
were one matter internal and cternal separation with no increased commitment
of-
University resources (other than those already committed to the study of
archaeology)
were the other procedural possibilities.
After the Acting Vice--President was appointed, he became cognizant of the his-
tory of the matter. Professors Carlson and Hobler, as I understand it, have discussed
their proposal at length with Professor Hacring. The Academic Vice--President has
Indicated the following: "After stud
ying th
e
docuentation
m
I find myself sympathetic
with the request by Carlson and
flobler, and I
am of the opinion that their roposal is
academically sound". Professor IIaer-ing has suggested that the matter when formally
stated, should
g
o to the Arts Faculty for approval or disapproval and then back to
himself for submission to Senate. I agreed with this procedure.
Several weeks ago Professors Canlson and Hobler presented a paper to PSA
concerning 'structural separation of the archaeology program' . Discussions were hcld
in the Department end the foilo\:5.ng motion was passed and appears as transmitted to the
Dean by Professor Briemberg. (attachment jl)
On December 13., I received a formal request from Prof cssors Carlson end Hobler
for formal
ndmi.n
istrat l
y
e senarat ion from the PSA Department. (attachment
2)
The
-batract of tnut request is attached. Documentation is on file in my office and
available for any member of the Faculty of Arts wishing further information. Professor:
Canison and Hohier have indicated their willingness to elaborate and exnlain the matter
to any interested member of the Faculty. I have requested that Professor Dniemhorg,
Acting Head of the PSA Department, make avoalable all. the information pertinent to the
discussions of separation of the archaeology program from PS! that have occurred in his
Department. That information will hopefully he available in the Dean's Office, and an
abstract sinilar to that of Professors Carlson and Hobler will be circulated by my
off-ice if Professor Briemherg so dcsras.
On December 11 the procedures to be followed in presenting the question of the
meeting of the
separation of archaeology studies from PSA were discussed at a special
Dean's Committee of Faculty of Arts Chairmen and Heads, and it was agreed that the
matter should proceed to referendum and then to Senate. A firm unde:cstending that the
request of administrative
separation,
since it is not a request for- full Departrrer.it
status, carries with it no
obligation by
the Faculty of Arts for any increase in
-
support, budgetary or othaewise, beyond those resources now committed. to archaeology
SLUd1CS
hy ui d
i
s
LCLI
d2"j 36
th
ai
cnacu1.oy s
LU '
ics
ii
1 bLeome an
COu
n
r
J.
ía
subdivision under the Dean of the. Faculty of Arts, if final authorization for ad.,ini--
strative separation passes Senate and is 5.mp].cmented.
I urge all members of the Faculty to study carefully the documentation nd
proposals concerning the separation of archaeology studies from PSA. Several copies
of the documents will
be available:
from the Dean's Secretory. Anyone wsn1ng
explanation
or
elaboration should consult the parties involved.
THE
IEEE! EEDUN BALLOT ON
THE sE
p Aro\T 1ou
OF ARCHAEOLOGY FRON PSA
SHOUlD
FE RETUENFI) TO
THE
OFFIC !
OF THE DEAN OF
ARTS 110 LATER
THAN
4:00 P. N.
JANUARY
9
1969.
LET NE rE.:uN
YOU
TO PUT YOUR ELLOT IN
THE
COIN
LiWF:LQPE
ATTACHED •
SEAL IT,
AN!) THEN
PLACE ThAT
EN
VF.!.OPE WI THIN
11!
- E OTI JEL
ENVELOPE
(ATTACHED)
ADEPESSE!)
'10 THE
DEAN
ON
WN IC! I ENVELOPE
-
YOU
WJ.LL WRITE YOUR NAI4E.
k:m.cifluUiU
to all me rrbcrs of
the
From
l'aoulty of Arts
Date
DUE:
.
FACULTY O
To
of
2%l
2\
1
r
m
O
ts
enhe,:s
f
Faculty
From
De.n Su11ivn
Subject:
Referendum Fcl1ot
3
Date
January
10, 169
Proposal
That
Arc7iaco Zoc-Jy
Studies
becoi;u
scpa:ctc fo
the
PSI
1)pc.I.i;!t.
The Rcturn.ng Officer and scrutinee^:ing co;Tttee
reportE; t.hat
the result of the
abovc rc ercndu!1
ballot is
.
as follows:
Yes
7
DO
13
?J)Stain
12
Tptal valid
all
io:
Spoiled
-
6
DITS :
C S
0
S
I.
:
J
iv:
.L
i
.i
.:•.j
i\
J
1);
i
lU
!.
i
Tfl
)j\j
7
Li
(:r
i
LU )
) i
t!\
•
C.S
To
A.M. SuU5van
Dean,
Chairman,
. ...........11ty....
QJ..JXJ.S
.............................................................
.
......atPflt.................. ..... .......................
...
Wed. ....
A.
1.oiogy
.....
.
P.S....A.
8th...Nov.etnbcr... .... .1.988..............................................
Pursuant to my earlier memorandum on the subject of the Department's
curriculum and the place of archaeology: at a Faculty meeting on 29th October,
1966 the following motion was passed:
-
"That the Department shall focus on recent and contemporary world society
but that it shall maintain and expand its interest in culture], history, cultural
pre-history and cultural, evolution for the purpose of illuminating a general
body of theory on the development of human society.
"That, to this end the Department support: the course additions put forward
in the Knight report.
"That given this general statement of direction the archaeologists now
in the Department are asked to make their own decisions regarding the
future context of their work.
14 in favour
0 opposed
1 abstention
At a meeting of the P. S.A. Students Union on Saturday, 2nd Number, 1968
the following motion was passed:-
"It was resolved that the P. S. A. students concurred with the spirit of
Professor Aherle's motiQn- (Faculty plenum, 29th October, 1968 meeting).''
You may, thus, take this motion as an expression of Departmental policy.
In case of any ambiguities about the third paragraph of the motion, may I add
that it was so worded so that the Department qua department would neither express
approval nor disapproval regarding the attempt to establish a separate department
of archaeology.
Rather it would be left to the discretion of individual members
of the Department to express their views in the Faculty of Arts should this
contingency situation arise.
If you wish further information I should be pleased
to
provide it.
14
.
NB/mw
.
I
..
•--
I
cz;
2-t(
4
ABSTRACT
The divergence in subject watter, method, techniques and
theory between Political Science, Sociology, and Aithropoloy
(P.S.I\. )
on
the one hand and Archaeology on the other • which is in keeping with
current trends in the Social Sciences, stronly indicates that these
two fields should be separates structurally at the departmental level.
Simon Fraser University has an established archaeological proraa
related particularly to the needs of the province.
! 0
S
R. CARLSOI,
P.
IIOBLER.
December, 1060
t.
The Field of Archaeolo.y
Archaeology is
the
science of human prehistory. It is the
organized body of knowledge which refers to ran 's prehistoric past
It differs
significantly
from the field conventionally described
as History in that it is histery roconstructe.1 from archaeological
and ethnological fats rather than from a written record of events.
As such its data methods and techniques are significantly different
Those parts of traditional ethnography concerned with material culture
belong with archaeology as archaeologists are thc only scholars today
who are concerned with the material culture of preliterate peonies.
0
Archaeology reconstructs not only the particular history of particular
people but also general world prchistor'y. Already
in Canada there
are
precedents for the above concestion of Archacalogy such as in the
National Museum with its Division of Hunan history rather than
division of Anthropology as is ccnmncn.
in
ruseurs of the United States,
and at the University of Calgary where this conception of Archaeology
is implicit in the calendar of courses
in
its De p
artment of Archaeology.
Both theNational Research
Council
and the Canada Council recognize
Archaeology
as a
separate discipline. The formation of the Society
for Canadian Archaeology in 197 is another indicator of growth and
specialization of the field. Archaeology has been considered as part
of Anthronolo;y in the United States;, but a structural division
between Archaeology and
Anthropology already has precedents in Canada
.
-2--
ç;;Z.2ti
and in our opInion such a division is
long overdue in the American
Universities. historically archaeology has been both an incependcnt
field and one interrelated with a number of other fields. It originated
in
the eighteenth century or earlier as md ependent ant iQunr
In the early 1 9 th century links with scicnt!fic geology were estabi ished
as the two fields developed in perspective and
method. In much of
Europe • China and the Soviet Union the tics between riadern prehistoric
archaeology and geology have keen maintained to the cutunl benefit of
each. Other ties were early established between the interests of the
archaeologist and the classical scholar. in North America today thcr
are ties between archaeology and history in the sub-field of
;toric
archaeology. The point is that the for;.-.al outlines of academic
disciplines are never fixed. Fields develop and interests change.
Some fields converge towai.'d one another (such as anthrcpoloy and
sociology) and other fields diverge away from one another (such as
anthropology and archaeology). If we are to keep abreast of current
trends the division between Archaeology and Anthropology must bn
recognized. and planred for in an increasing iiunber of universities.
Anthropology arose as a discipline partly in response to the
penetration of Euro-American culture into
the unknown corncr of the
world and focussed on the study of the culture of non-western
Peoples. A major question which Anthropology once asked was
"111ere
do
these peoples and cultures
fit in history?" As such Archaeoloy was
-e-I
le g
it mateiy part of An thrOpOlogy. Today , Antiropologv
00
.
attempts to answer this question. Archaeology has developnd en increasingly
specialized body of techniques and methods for answering this and re).oted
questions. The long range forecast
:
is that
in
the future Anthropology
will focus even more on non-historical proniens such as those rctatcd to
the integration of large
scale
social systews, on issues of social .end
cultural planning, planning in newly developed countries, and or problems
of underdevelop:ient. Anthropology is converging toward Sociology,
Political Science, and Kcorio
T . j
1CS
and problems of the modern world whereas
Archaeology is diverging from Anthropology even more than in the past
toward the historical and natural sciences. ?ente1 health, medical
anthropology, and urban studies and planning are not: legitimate concerns
of Anthropologists and have little relationshi
p
with Archaeology. The
P.S. A. Deportment
.
' s interests are in keepirn with the modern convergence o.
Political Science, Sociology, and Anthropology, but hear little rd at iomsh
L)
to the areas of interest of Archaeology or
,
to the education which
Archaeology students at this uniiver'sity receive. To not recognize the
divergence of Archaeology from F.S.A.
in
terms of academic goals and areas
of interest merely perpetuates a system of organiz.ing knowledge. which is no
longer structurally or functionally viable. There is no going beeP.
:- See F'rantz, C.
The Current NUicu and the Immediate Future
cf
U.S.
Antnromo1cg " Fe1lo
et1rLtcr, Am rj
i
c;ln
A
jithroj ulo: mm'
Association,
Vol.. 9,
1.98.
;o.
5, Nay,
-
Archaeology has diver
g ed
consistently
over the last
twenty
years toward the hard
sciences.
The accumulation of archaeoJ.cgical
•
facts and the discoveries of the patterns of interrelatedness of these
facts is to a large extent the result of the application of techniques
•
developed
in the hard
sciences
to the problem of predicting manes
P r
ehistoric past.
Radiocarbon
and potassium-argon dating, statist ics
and computer programming, a variety of pedoloical and palvnologi.cal
a
nalyses, and studies in
r:ianuaJ•ian
osteology are some cd the areas with
Which the modern archeeoiosl•st must have a broad familiarity even though
his primary specialty remains the
re-cognition and analysis of
cuatura1.
remains. I(n;lcdge in those fields is necessary as it is the arcologist
who directs the investigation of prehistoric sites, collects non•-culturvU.
as well as cultural data from these sites, and integrates
both
the cu3.tueal
and non-cultunal material into a meaningful chapter of the orehis-Lory cf
that part of the globe in which he is working. Archaeology is chiaractenircii
by empiricism and
induction.
Archaeology cffers little data and fe:.er
solutions to problems of con tempoary social issues.
The goal of the Archaeology program at Simon Fraser University
is the education of students in terms of current ideas regarding man's
Prehistoric past and how such ideas may be evejuated in terms of scfcntific
method. This goal is best accompJ.ished in our opinion by offering ccurses
pertinent to the general education of all students in the faculties of Arts
Science, and Education on the lower division level and by the presentation
of somewhat more advanced courses on the upper
division
and graduate levels
for students specializing in Archaeolcgy and related fields. Such
students are expected to ne hroedJ.y educcitc:1 and are encoui'ecd
- . 5--
wx
to e:p1ore a variety of courses in the humanities
LIfld
sciences as those
relate to their major interests. This broad interdisciplinary prograu
is necessary as Archaeology itself has one foot in the humanities and
the pther ,
in the natural sciences and as such students must ho educated
in these two areas of knowledge. Courses of particular value to the
Archaeology student are offered in the departments of History, Geography,
Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics as well as some in
P.S. A.
The Present Archaeology Progr'atn at S.F.U.
History: Archaeology has been adminst ered since the beg.utniuig
of S.F.U. in
1965
through the Department of Political Science, Sociology,
and Anthropology. At the onset the im:lenentation of the Archcology
program offered no more than the usual number of proble:s consistent with
40
the building of any program. With increased enrollments inc eased faculty,
ad
ministra-tive changes, and new directions
of
growth of PSA, certain
structural and functional prohiens have arisen which can only be solved by
separating ArchaeolOgY
from
P"
30.-
CertaJn of these problems stem from
the lack of perception of the difference between british and Americar
Anthropology in setting up the P.S.A. Department. The demand
for Archaeology
courses by students and majors was not anticipated either. The course
program in Archaeology was not started until Fall Semester, 1936 as the
senior archaeologist was conducting field research in Africa. The first
Archaeology course,
PSA
272, Old World Prehistory, was first offered in
Fall Semester, 1966 with an enrollment of 53 students. The following
semester the succeeding
course,
P.S.A. 273 New World Prehistory, had an
enrollment of 153 students. The enro].lmcrit figures for these courses
-0--
have steadily grown with 1.7 and
215
in the academic year 1c'7-6G.
These lower division courses are designed for both the general student
in
Arts,
Science, and Education wishing to obtain a general liberal arts
background, and to provide the specialist with the necessary pro-requisites
for more advanced courses. Enrollment in upper division courses have
ranged from 9 to 55.
We have attempted to keep these numbers snail, but
student pressure and our ethical responsibility to students has been forcing
increased enrollments. There are a knoiu 26 students who wish to maj or
in
the field.
Present Facilities: The division of Archaeolog
y maintains an
la j:
which in addition to serving as a research and
teaching laboratory for advanced students houses the arcaeolo5cal. and.
ethnogrciiic
collect ions of
the
versitY.
Addi-t iceici sçncc for a
display area
(r.aiseur.)
wicr
those items related to the J.owcr division
teachin
g
progr
am
cae
n
viewed
h
w has already been provided for upon
completion of
construction phase III of the university. flasic field
and laboratory equipment, •
a photographic dark
r'oo:.
arid cue field
vehicle (a land rover) are already on hand.
Research Program: odern archaeological programs in universit ics
require a combined teaching and research program on the undergraduate
level. Teaching and research are in our opinion couple::ientary rather than
exclusive aspects of educating students in which teaching is of primary
importance. The following four programs are currently in operation:
0
(
(1)
Analysis of the Paicolithic (Old Stone Age) materials cxc. vated
in
North Africa. This project is combined with the teach5ng
-
program fcr advanced students in giving them experience with
Old World Paleolithic materials, There is no other institution
in Canada which can offer this program. These sDecimens arc also
available for legitimate use by students in othcr faculties, i.e.
an
Education student recently made casts of specimens for' use as
teaching aids in Junior High School classes.
(2)
An Arc ,
haeolog5.cal survey of Dean Channel and the Della Coola
Valley was carried out this last summer as a preliminary to an
extensive excavation project in that area.
(3)
An Archaeological survey and the excavation of one site in the
vicinity of Lilloet was corrLp].eed in August, 1.96.
(Li.) An Archacoloicn3. field school for training students was held
this last sunir;0r in the Gulf Islands.
The last three projects above are aimed primarily at student
involvement and also provi1e new }no.ilodgc of the prehistoric cultures of
British Columbia.
Present Faculty: Two archaeologists are on the Faculty.
R.L. Carlson joined the facult
y in ay, 1966.
P.H. Ilohier joined in September, 1967. A ootential appointee, U. Alexander
who specialixes in areas and topics not covered by the present faculty has
been interviewed
and has
indicated his willingness to come to this
University.
S
.
L;
Present Course Frorau: There are precntly 20 courses in the
Archaeology course program. EighL of these courses are specific
Archaeology courses (PSA 272-3, 273--3, 372-5
173_5,
881
7
5, 8S3--5,
Twelve of these courses (PSI\ 4335
5
43
1
-_5, 35-2, 403-5, 375-5, 378-5,
891-5,
892-5, 897-5 )
898, 899) have open ended course numbers under which
various things are taught such as floncurs Reciding arid Nethods of flnau$.ry.
The Archaeologists have used these numbers to teach Archaeological subjects
and other members of the departnent have used then to teach other subjects.
Atcha eo1oy in British Columbia
British Colunbia is one of the least known archaeo3.ogical
areas of native North America even though its ex)r13'2nl culturns were
distinctive and archaeological sites are in abunJcnce. Fart of this
lack of knowJ.edge is the result of the weak dvclocnc:it of!.rchacology
in the universities of this
province.
The University of British Columbia
has one part-time lecturer in Archaeology and has maintained this single
appointment for almost the last twenty years. The
University of
Victoria
has at present one Assistant Professor spec5.aJ.izing in local
Archaeology.
The gleater portion of the province is little known archac-olog ice llv,
but what research has been done strongly indicates that it is an area
eminently suitable both for increasing our knowledge about man's past and
for teaching students those techniques of field research applicable to
any area.
S
