As an Americanist, I have often found it a challenge to keep a global perspective in my thinking about Cold War archaeology. Admittedly, and obviously, the Cold War affect millions of lives beyond those in North America, but I have often found myself so intently focused on the populations and material culture I know that I neglect to fully consider those with whom I am less familiar.
Here's an example, in my recent studies of the Cold War nuclear weapons testing I had focused primarily on the material culture aspects of American and British testing, while neglecting some very interesting aspects of French nuclear testing. While this was easily remedied by incorporating some additional components into my research, the premise upon which I built my original claims would have been much more robust from the start had I employed a more international perspective from the start.
While I do not admit to this ethnocentric slip gladly, I do so to make the point that it seems to be a natural human tendency to follow our human programming, even in intellectual pursuits. As a child of the Cold War, I was programmed by society to recognize the two superpowers-the United States and the Soviet Union-as the focus of the arms race and as an adult tended to neglect countries like Britain, France, and China in my material culture studies of nuclear weapons work and the countries of the Warsaw Pact from my Cold War studies in general.
While the obvious importance of seeking and keeping a global perspective in studies of Cold War archaeology lies principally in being able to make better claims in scholarly work, a more fundamental benefit might be derived from the coincidence of interests, purposes, and identity that might develop among the members of a global Cold war archaeology community intent on maintaining and enhancing the field.
The shared interests, purposes, and identity that a Cold War archaeology community might possess would ultimately benefit the academic community as a whole.
