Several prominent anthropology departments in the US have either split into separate departments or are in effect acting as separate faculties under a single administrative unit. Some archaeologists currently housed in anthropology departments around the country argue that they must have their own departments to flourish. The basis of these tensions is largely theoretical and philosophical. In many instances, even archaeologists are split amongst themselves. In one prominent instance, an anthropology department that split into two had some archaeologists joining one department, while other archaeologists joined the other.

Fortunately, the Department of Anthropology at UCLA is united and there is no danger of any fracturing. However, most departments in other universities face increasingly strong separatist pressures from their various academic wings. At the recent meeting of the Society for American Archaeology held in Denver, a special session was devoted to discussing the place of archaeology in anthropology. I was intrigued by the number of colleagues who asked me how well the Cotsen was functioning. I am also intrigued by the fact that a number of universities are creating archaeological institutes like the Cotsen. One department that had archaeologists split among themselves a few years ago is rejuvenating an archaeology institute that will bring those same archaeologists back together in an interdepartmental program like ours. Splitting away from anthropology departments to create separate archaeology departments does not seem to work. The tensions within anthropology departments, however, continue to cause problems for archaeologists in many universities.

Alongside this development, archaeological institutes are springing up around the university world, without any coordination or professional association to guide them. Why is this happening? The simple answer is that interdepartmental archaeological institutes like the Cotsen make sense and can be very effective. They resolve many of the theoretical and philosophical problems facing departments without creating the new problems that separate archaeology programs engender. Archaeologists are a diverse group, and the inherent danger of creating purely archaeology departments is that one theoretical perspective would tend to dominate. Another risk is that the department would devolve into a technical program without an overarching theoretical framework to guide the research.

In Denver, it occurred to me that the Cotsen Institute is the future face of archaeology in North America. The purpose of bringing any faculty together is to foster an environment where knowledge can best be created and disseminated to the next generation. Departments also review faculty for promotion and create the courses deemed appropriate for the discipline. One of the problems today is that many archaeologists do not feel theoretically or philosophically comfortable in their departments. As a result, tensions develop over curriculum, student funding, and the evaluation of faculty work.

The Cotsen represents an ideal solution for administering and fostering archaeological research and teaching, while permitting archaeologists to choose the home department that suits them best. Archaeologists span the theoretical universe in their approach to studying the past. Some are interested in decidedly humanistic approaches while others view themselves as comparative social scientists. In the Cotsen, for instance, we have over twenty archaeologists from departments including Art History, Classics, East Asian Languages and Cultures, Germanic Languages, History, and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, as well as Anthropology. We expect to have more faculty join, particularly from the biological and physical sciences. Entering graduate students can choose to pursue a Ph.D in one of these departments with their major advisor, or they can take a Ph.D in the Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Archaeology. Faculty are evaluated by their home department for their work; so, there is less likelihood of conflicts over philosophically different approaches. These departments, in turn, recognize the contribution made by the faculty to the Cotsen. In short, each archaeologist on campus finds the academic department that most suits their theoretical needs and research focus. The Cotsen serves to bring this diverse group of archaeologists together in a coherent program and collegial environment that promotes archaeological teaching and research. I predict that the next ten to fifteen years will see archaeological institutes like the Cotsen emerge in most research universities. Once again, the Cotsen Institute is leading the way.