Man’s Discovery of His Past (1962). Ezra Zubrow (“Environment, Subsistence and Society: The Changing Archaeological Perspective,” Annual Review of Anthropology, 1972) pioneered the application of a formal thematic analysis to archaeological publications, and Eugene Sterud was the first to employ citation analysis.

Over the years, historians of archaeology such as McKusick, Hinsley, Grayson, and Meltzer have made increasingly effective use of archival sources. More recent works strongly influenced by archival materials include Mark Bowden’s biography of Pitt Rivers (1991); Ian Jenkin’s Archaeologists and Aesthetes (1992), a study of the conceptual basis for the changing displays in the sculpture galleries of the british museum between 1800 and 1939; and Ronald Ridley’s The Eagle and the Spade (1992), a study of archaeology in Rome during the Napoleonic era. Historians of archaeology gradually are becoming more aware of the need to record the recollections of older archaeologists and to preserve field notes, films of excavations, drawings and photographs, speeches, old artifact collections, and institutional records as sources of information about the history of the discipline. At least one important early manuscript source has been published in a scholarly fashion by J.A. Brongers 1833: Reuvens i Drenthe (1973), a Dutch antiquarian’s account of his researches in a northern province of the Netherlands.

This growing concern with the method and theory of studying the history of archaeology resulted in a conference on the subject at Southern Illinois University in May 1987. The proceedings, edited by the organizer, Andrew Christenson, were published as Tracing Archaeology’s Past (1989). This first work to examine problems related to studying the history of archaeology constitutes a milestone in the development of the field. The conference also stimulated the professionalization of the history of archaeology in other ways. In 1987, a committee on the history of archaeology was established within the society for american archaeology and charged with identifying, preserving, and making documentary material more accessible, as well as with promoting an interest in the history of the discipline. In 1988, a series of annual symposia on the history of archaeology was initiated, which now alternates between the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association and the Society for American Archaeology. Some of the papers from the first two of these conferences were published in Rediscovering Our Past (1992), edited by Jonathan Reyman. Finally, the Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, edited by Douglas Givens and appearing since 1991, contains short articles, bibliographies, book reviews, and notices of activities and events relevant to the study of the history of archaeology around the world.

Tentative steps are currently being taken to promote the study of the history of archaeology in the United Kingdom, and more studies relating to the history of archaeology are being published in Europe, Latin America, Australia, russia, and elsewhere. Among the most substantial of these works is Dilip Chakrabarti’s A History of Indian Archaeology from the Beginning to 1947 (1988). Heightened interest in the history of archaeology is also leading to the production of illustrated histories, biographical compendiums, and encyclopedias aimed at an international market.

Some professional historians are interested in the history of archaeology, but they generally study happenings prior to the twentieth century whereas archaeologists tend more often to be interested in developments closer to the present. This difference has lessened the incentives for archaeologists and historians to learn from one another. Such lack of contact is particularly regrettable since the skills that each group brings to such research are generally complementary.

Nevertheless, the growing number of people studying the history of archaeology is stimulating useful controversies. Some of these concern specific issues, others relate to the general nature of the history of archaeology and the goals and methods that are appropriate for its study. It is being questioned, for example, whether the emphasis currently being placed on the contributions of “great archaeologists” may not be distorting our understanding of the development of archaeology. It is suggested that there are still too few studies of the institutional structures of the discipline, of the impact of funding on archaeological