You are on page 1of 8

Archaeological Remains, Documents, and Anthropology: A Call for a New Culture History Author(s): Robert L.

Schuyler Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1988), pp. 36-42 Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615658 . Accessed: 10/08/2011 01:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

ROBERT L. SCHUYLER

Archaeological Remains, Documents, and Anthropology:

a New CultureHistory a Call for

2 credits) pology 294 ("Historical Archaeology" in the Spring 1964 semester at the University of Arizona. Cotter's class was more important be cause of its continuity which almost spanned two decades and because itwas a graduate offering. It was only when historical archaeology entered an setting that its intellectual foundation be finalized by training scholars solely dedicated to that specialization. After at least a quarter of a century of existing as a recognized area of research a 1987 evaluation of the field must answer one basic question. Is historical archaeology a successful endeavor? Dis academic could

ABSTRACT
Historical archaeology is either a significant or superfluous endeavor, depending on the level one stands on to critique If theoretical questions concerning the na the discipline. ture, dynamics and evolution of cultures are the starting

point, or equally ifmore substantive but similarly broad questions of modern "world systems" are selected, then the results of a quarter century of excavations on historic sites are indeed weak and unconvincing. In contrast, a view grounded on "culture history" or "historic ethnography" finds historical archaeology to be potentially an impressive, productive field, equal inmany ways to other data sources including written records. It is suggested that "historic

cussion of thisquestion is usually deflected by two obstacles of our own making which must be pushed aside. The first impediment is the "P-P-P
P-P Complex," an acronym for the "Psuedo

tantly, have successfully issued processual state ments, while historical archaeology is floundering on a particularistic level. This belief is erroneous tury). and is diverting attention from the real problems. The possibility that two social groups, rather than one, may have occupied Lindenmeier, the proba Introduction bility thatmatrilocal residence structured the as semblage at Carter Ranch, the observation that since the have Upper Paleolithic cave artmay be related to social passed Although twenty years Archaeol boundaries between groups, or the embeddedness Historical the for Society founding of or disembeddedness of Monte Alban within an to more of historical is it ogy, speak appropriate as civilization are all statements of second its quarter-century cient Oaxacan entering archaeology of growth. The 1967 organizational meeting in culture history, not process. Our colleagues are Dallas was the culmination of the "proto-history" dealing with a black box?prehistory; any enlight of the field; a "proto-history" initiated within ening statements are legitimately impressive but none as as The the 1930s. of these advances have done much to directly early governmental agencies a illuminate the nature of culture or why it evolves. for of any precise starting point designation more a Historical is field archaeology is no less accomplished on arbitrary; nevertheless, scholarly the In that 1960. date would be processual level; it simply is dealing with a box important founding with windows in it. Civiliza American introduced Cotter John year, A second intermittentobstruction can be re tion 770 ("Problems and Methods of Historical moved with a suggestion. If I were crude I would terms 6 credits, Thursday Archaeology"?Both His of at the say 'stop trying to kiss the derriere of historians' Pennsylvania. 2-4) University but since I am not crude I will urge, 'stop trying to was in which orientation, course, anthropological was soon paralleled on the other side of the make uncalled for offerings at the altar of Clio.' This error is serious, has nothing to do with continentwhen ArthurWoodward offeredAnthro
ethnography," based equally on archaeology and written sources, is the future natural sphere for the archaeological 1400-20th cen investigations of themodern world (A.D.

Processual Progress Proffered by Prehistorians." This complex confuses historical archaeologists with the self defacing belief thatprehistorians use more sophisticated methodology and, more impor

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

37

historians, with whom indeed we have potential connections, which I will return to, but rather involves a misidentification of the points of inter

1400, geographical European society after A.D. expansion into the non-Western world and estab lishment of European hegemony, reaction of na tive cultures and civilizations as active participants action. in this process, transformationof the process itself Evaluating the success of historical archaeology on one is the industrial revolution and a secondary but with the internal, depends perspective chosen; more pervasive global impact carrying the world the other external. Within its own boundaries historical archaeol ogy is impressively productive. It is taught as a set-off, specific subject at a growing number of colleges and universities and there are a good ten graduate programs (M.A. and Ph.D.) with a pri into the 20th century.Wolf's scholarship is ex haustive reaching to a detailed level of recent synthesis and interpretationby both social scien tists and historians. Even prehistoric archaeology (surprisingly, considering the temporal focus of the book) is utilized. In the Introduction (Wolf 1982:4) is found a

mary commitment to the field. Compared to 1960 an astonishing amount of field research advances have been made, not in one but three spheres:

statement: If social and cultural distinctiveness and mutual separation were a hallmark of humankind, one would expect to find it most easily among the so-called primitives, people "without his tory," supposedly isolated from the external world and from findings thatEuropean trade goods appear in sites on theNiagra frontier as early as 1570, and that by 1670 sites of theOnondaga subgroup of the Iroquois reveal almost no items of native manufacture except pipes? the archaeological this presupposition, what would we make of

contract, governmental agencies (now ranging from the federal to themunicipal levels), and the academic-museum world. A massive, descriptive, and occasionally interpretive, literature has been produced, our knowledge and control of historic assemblages is improving each year and general archaeological methodology has been adapted to historic sites. When a younger social historian such as James Borchert, the author of Alley Life in Washington (1980:244) states:

one another. On

This use of data from contact-period sites, is the volume that in any only reference in Wolf's A third possible way [the first being oral history; the second, manner derives from historical archaeology and ethnography] to avoid the problem of biased sources is through even it is drawn secondarily from Francis Jen historical archaeology. nings, a well known ethnohistorian.We must not it would seem, even as he adds "it was not be tempted to fault Eric Wolf because Europe and the People Without History only embarrassingly practical for this study," that historical archaeol ogy has joined the panoply of established fields. highlights the fact that the findings of 25 years of Or has it? Is there external evidence of work on intensive research on the archaeological record of historic sites and assemblages making meaningful the modern world (A.D. 1400-20th century) is additions to general social scientific and historical being successfully ignored by not only historians but even our immediate colleagues in social an scholarship? In 1982 Eric Wolf, a social anthropologist, thropology. Externally in its relationship to gen published a major work entitled Europe and the eral scholarship historical archaeology shows little People Without History. This book is a significant impact. indicator for archaeology not because of its theo retical stance, which isMarxist, but because of its is the first contemporary subject matter. Wolf to anthropologist successfully attempt a global Why? Why is historical archaeology internally successful but externally relatively unproductive? Archaeologists, because of the influence of cultural resource management, tend to speak in terms of Phase I, II and III. I propose that the growth of historical archaeology as a field should logically follow a tripartite-phased advance. Phase I?the creation of a distinctive, new area of re

synthesis of the emergence and transformationof themodern world. Its topical divisions practically define historical archaeology as it is practiced in North America: Post-medieval development of

38 search has been achieved. We have arrived at the boundary of Phase II?a joining with general via scholarship descriptive, interpretive contribu but have failed to cross over and are now tions, the risk of turningback on ourselves into running an involutionary dead end. We must return to the

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22

initial years of the existence of the Society for Historical Archaeology to understand this situa tion. During the late 1960s a series of articles opened a discussion on the interrelationship of archaeology, history and anthropology. Many feel this debate has spent itself;however, I disagree. It is a set of unresolved problems that all too fre quently are expressed as relationships between history and archaeology when actually they almost exclusively involve anthropology thathave frozen historical archaeology on Phase I.

thropologists, may have a non-human reference point: culture. If this division between history and social sci ence is accepted then historical archaeology must be placed with history, anthropology, on the fence or in its own self contained category. I believe it exclusively should be classed with anthropology because of all the factors listed above but particu larly the relationship with itsdata source. For over two decades historians, unless they were unem

ployed, have been politely rebuffing theoccasional wooings of some historical archaeologists. I be lieve this rejection is understandable because the

I will reexamine these questions by simply stating a position on the relationship of history and science which is neither original nor very radical. There are two major traditions of scholarship concerned with human beings as social creatures: the historical and the social scientific. These tra ditions are not dichotomous, nor, necessarily in conflict, but they are different.These differences involve at least the following threeaspects. First, a specific subject may be studied as a legitimate end in itself,or it may be viewed as merely an example of something else: a generalization, preferably a
process, or even a "covering law" (which are

archaeological record has little to say in regard to their perspective. Artifacts do not communicate while written documents, even of a social historic nature, talk directly to the researcher. If, in con trast, the reference point is shifted to an entity which is not equal to people, single or in groups, then potentially the data sources also shift and expand. I will return to this possibility later. The boundary between Phase I and Phase II of historical archaeology has turned into a barrier for a number of complex reasons involving culture theory, but more basic is the simple fact that almost no historical archaeologists are using their birthright as anthropologists. The problem in volves anthropology not history. Historical archae ologists are only analyzing one of the data sources available by definition to their field, the archaeo logical record. They do not treat the documentary record, the second data source, equally. Either they ignore or at best allow the archaeological remains to structure their use of written sources.

greater willingness to simplify (or, if you prefer, violate) that richness of a given phenomenon; historians tend to the former, social scientists to the latter. Third, themost significant difference, which is more blurred because certain schools of anthropological thought are fundamentally histor ical and not scientific in theirpractice, is the basic on point of reference in research. Historians focus humans, either, as with narrative and chronicle history, as individuals, or, as with social history, as groups, while social scientists, particularly an

probabilistic not absolute statements); historians tend to the formerperspective, social scientists the latter. Second, which is a corollary of the first,has thesis" but more been called the "uniqueness fairly should be seen as a deep respect for the singularity of events in history as contrasted with a

Egress from this predicament is possible ifhistor ical archaeologists start to act like anthropologists and produce, what I will call, "historic ethnogra
phy."

Anthropologists and a few anthropologically influenced historians have already began work on the ladder needed to get out of the excavation pit historical archaeology has started to dig for itself by remaining on Phase I. Ethnohistory is the first rung. By ethnohistory I mean an operational defi nition: the analysis of documentary sources leftby cultural group A about group B. An analogy exists between the ethnographic distance between a so

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

39 (1982:5), one of the historians, has suggested the term "ethnographic history":
cross frontiers to explore communities other Anthropologists than their own. Social historians cross time spans to study earlier periods. Whether one moves away from oneself in cultural space or in historical time, one does not go far before one is in a world where so. Translation then becomes the taken-for-granted must cease to be necessary. Ways must be found of

cial anthropologist and the foreign society being studied and thedistance preserved in such complex sources (Thurman 1982). Ethnohistory has two is relationships to historical archaeology. The first all of Half substantial. substantive and archaeolog 1400 ical research on periods post-dating A.D. the field in that ethnohistoric considered could be with not concerned is deeply European and only with transcul but also societies colonial European cultures. and native these between turation groups also on should contact sites All scholars working to want not do I be doing ethnohistory. However, more a but rather this discuss general requirement and simple message. Ethnohistory has taught both

attaining an understanding of themeanings that the inhabitants of other worlds have given to their own everyday customs.

Isaac has produced a convincing example of "eth nographic history" in his 1982 prize winning book, The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. Ten years earlier Anthony F. C. Wallace produced another example, although he uses the label "eth anthropologists and historians that documentary the Growth of an sources are much more complex than a direct nohistory," with Rockdale, in the source American to am not I would Early Industrial Revolu Village referring imply. reading two works differ in several a These as tion nature of documents to the but (1972). very analysis with a community, the is concerned (one cultural product. The richness of the symbolic and aspects other with a culture area, one is Geertzian in its material meaning preserved in documents is only theoretical approach, the other more generally now being recognized and itwas in part themore sources that mentalist) but together they offer a significant of ethnohistoric nature complex advance in diachronic scholarship. They present a fore. The helped to bring this potential to the uses an is it that is historical for history"?that method?"ethnographic archaeologists message as anthropologists to analyse not explicit definition of culture to explore the past, for them possible sources which if one can jduge by the reaction of both only the archaeology but also thewritten within the traditions of their own field. anthropologists and historians is different enough It is the failure of archaeologists dealing with the from traditional approaches to draw a great deal of modern period to do such analyses thatcreated the positive attention and comment. barrier between Phases I and II. The archival "Ethnographic history," nevertheless, is not, I sources may well be explored, perhaps in some believe, the final rung on the ladder to Phase II we detail, but these investigations are structured need as historical archaeologists. Wallace utilizes within the needs of the archaeological record. This only documentary sources in his reconstruction of artificial narrowness must be abandoned. We can Rockdale and its history; indeed, even the selec tion of documents is narrowed by the theoretical not solve the problem by turning to a group of our stand. Isaac seems on the surface to be more mythical historians who supposedly will do a holistic giving the reader insightful thick descrip research for us, nor should we want such a tions of mature colonial Virginia that include relationship which would fundamentally cripple movement to Phase II. dance, music, architecture (exterior and interior) and landscape. These images on closer examina tion dissolve because there is an almost exclusive primacy of documents over other sources in his research. He really does not use archaeology, material culture or even the illustrative sources (engravings, paintings) in a convincing style. His are also documentary sources, like Wallace's,

History Ethnographic
The second rung on the scaffolding is now under construction by a few scholars including social anthropologists and social historians. Rhys Isaac

peculiar in their selection. The Transformation of

40 Virginia is predominately based on a very limited number of classic, personal documents that to the researcher seeking an emic analy "speak" sis. Landon Carter's diary is a fine internal exam ple, while the journal of Philip Fithian, a good external, indeed ethnohistoric, example. In a sim ilar manner Rockdale is constructed on the rich

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22

I would suggest that "historic ethnography" is more amenable to our interests as archaeologists.

correspondence, diaries and personal papers of its with differingdata bases is a partial explanation so is the selection of a limited definition of culture, 19th century local elites. Delimitation of the evidential sources is directly (3) and, finally, "historic ethnography" must involve the explicit presentation of a theoretical related to the mentalist, delimited definition of cul ture chosen for doing "ethnographic history." position and explain how it is being operationa lized as a research design. Such a selection isproductive as the success of these Historical archaeologists must simultaneously two volumes demonstrate; nevertheless, a mental ist, actor-centered definition of culture, like the analyze both the archaeology and the textual sources from an anthropological perspective. The historical tradition of scholarship, passes over sources such as the archaeological record. "Eth combining of these differentdata sources will en nographic history," which is still in its formative able us to at least attempt "historic ethnography" and move historical archaeology out of Phase I. It stage,moves us forward but itsbasic elements need is indicative that almost all current archaeological substantial readjustment. Borrowing a phrase from theDepartment of American Civilization at Penn, reports assume a final format that divides into an

and weaknesses of these sources are unknowable from case to case. "Historic ethnography" must give equal attention to the archaeological and the documentary records, and possibly other sources (oral history, contemporary ethnography or eth noarchaeology). This is where "ethnographic his tory" falls short and although a lack of familiarity

archaeology section, a history section (if it is present at all), and a section on methodology. It is necessary that an adequate statement is offered on

Historic Ethnography "Historic ethnography" would involve the fol lowing three elements: (1) the recognition that culture comes to us in functional history in the form of "packages," units with temporal and spatial boundaries, not as disembodied variables or processes, nor decontex tualized research topics (e.g., class conflict, women in history, urbanism's influence on ethni city). Context is thekey to producing ethnography, synchronic or historic, and a return to an earlier image of cul

partially functional anthropological ture is long overdue, (2) the culture concept utilized must be consis tent and holistic on two levels: (a) itmust not arbitrarilydelimit culture to only symbolic or only material phenomena; technology, economy, socio political structures and ideology are all equally aspects of culture, (b) if culture is not equal to

"Historic ethnography" can not be written un less an anthropological analysis of the archival sources has been undertaken firstwith commit ments of time and effortequal towhat goes into the excavation, analysis and synthesis of the archaeo logical data. of Scale

though a social historian, such as Borchert, divided his final monograph into: Part 1, historical conclu sions based on documents written on white paper, Part 2, historical conclusions based on documents written on yellow paper; general conclusions, none.

how the researcher handled the archaeological data and a parallel statement (almost always lacking) on how the documents were handled, to get us to the point of a final culture historical or processual syn thesis. Yet at thepoint where the historical archae ologist should be displaying a higher level of his or her anthropological training the report stops. It is as

A Question

people or only human mental processes, then it exists in all data sources and the relative strengths

The natural unit for "historic ethnography" is the "community" or some subunit of the commu

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

41 cal archaeologist is specialized on plantation-slave archaeology, it is absolutely necessary that the current literature on the subject, most of which comes from the pens of historians, be controlled. There is littlereciprocity because historical archae ologists have yet to produce much in the way of final cultural syntheses which would interestother scholars. More specifically itmay be possible to

cultural tradition to "world systems." All of these cultural levels can only exist ifmanifested in the material realm. Therefore, all scales are present in the archaeological record and historical archaeol ogy can explore the entire range. However, there is a basic problem which is relative and perhaps absolute. You do not dig up the state of Georgia, unless you are William Tecumseh Sherman; you do not excavate on a global level. For the time being, the unit of study must be the community (the site) or some smaller subunit. "Community" does not, at the same time, imply a total, function

nity, and yet it is now recognized, because of researchers such as Eric Wolf, Immanuel Waller stein and Fernand Braudel, thatculture appears on a number of different historic-functional scales ranging from the individual as a member of a

compare individual "historic ethnographies" with work produced by historians, especially social and economic historians, on specific types of commu nities. Such comparisons are not ideal because the units will not be based on the same range of data; however, such comparisons will allow a more rapidmovement of thefield toward Phase III as the archaeologist awaits the creation of plural "his toric ethnographies" on a given community type. As I opened this paper with a recognition of the twomajor traditions of scholarship, the historical

ration in 19th century Lowell, with its factories as a and housing, are as much "communities" Puritan village. This specificity of focus may be absolute in thathistorical archaeology will always make its major contribution at the site level of analysis. Certainly there is no way to approach a higher scale, a higher historically connected scale, a region for example, until several "historic eth nographies" have been produced within itsbound
aries.

ing society but rather a historically integrated cultural unit. Thus a fur trading post, a frontier Merrimack Corpo fort, a lumbering camp, or the

Phase

III?Historic

Ethnology

"Historic ethnology" or comparative studies, a goal frequently discussed by historical archaeolo gists, will only be possible when there are similar units to compare. If the division between a social scientific tradition and a historical tradition in general scholarship is recognized this does not mean that the division is absolute. There is a methodological linkage but thatcommonality is all too frequently exaggerated. Source analysis is not complex and can be easily learned by doing. A more significant cross-fertilization involves the secondary scholarly literature being successfully produced by historians. If, for example, a histori

tive understanding of reality, especially human reality to the degree that it is humanly possible. This perspective is in contrast to a humanistic point of view?not particularly concerned with being neutral or even objective but rather an attempt to gain an emotional understanding, or perhaps it would be better to say appreciation, of reality, especially human reality. It is necessary to keep these two purposes separate during research. As Stanley South has so aptly put it, he writes poetry and digs science (archaeology) but does not con fuse the two. Yet even this ultimate division is not absolute. For archaeologists they connect at the end and at the beginning. Once historical archaeology has produced some worthwhile to general scholarship, which has thing yet to happen, these "historic ethnographies" may indeed be used to enhance the heritage of nations, ethnic groups or other divisions of humanity.

research of all scientists (social and physical) and all historians into a category of "objective schol is not very arship." I know thework "objective" a this is but restorative popular today, polemic. I have already urged old fashion holism, a return to functionalism, so why not objectivity, and that is what I mean?an attempt to gain a neutral, objec

and the social scientific, I would like to conclude by referringto an even broader division. I place the

42 all of science, social science, his tory, anthropology and archaeology have at their most basic level a bedrock of humanistic support. We do not do anthropology or archaeology because we hope to uncover the six great laws of culture Nevertheless, but simply because it is enjoyable to do archaeol ogy. As Stuart Piggott, the English prehistorian, pointed out, there is a "romance to archaeology.'' The message of this paper is that as anthropology there is an equal mystery, romance and potential richness to thedocument. No one will or should do our archival research for us and it is only after the first generation of true historical archaeologists, the younger people currently enrolled in our grad uate programs, take the place and surplant us retreaded prehistorians who currentlydominate the discipline, many of whom like their social anthro pological colleagues, enjoy floating on canoes between theTrobriand Islands, or sitting in pits at Lindenmeier, or having intimate relationships with

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22

nography" followed by comparative studies will help to reestablish a culture historic core to both historical and prehistoric archaeology.

REFERENCES
Lewis R. Binford, 1968 Archaeological In New Perspectives in Perspectives. edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Bin Archaeology, ford, pp. 5-32. Aldine Publishing Company, Chi cago. James Borchert, 1980 Alley Life inWashington. Urbana. Robert Dunnell, 1986 Five Decades C. of American Archaeology. In American Past and Future, edited by David J. Archaeology Meltzer, Don D. Fowler and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 23-49. Published for the Society for American Ar chaeology Washington, by the Smithsonian D.C. Institution Press, University of Illinois Press,

gorillas in East Africa, but simply do not love archival dust as they love the field dirt under their fingernails; it is itonly after this generational shift occurs that a fully anthropological historical ar chaeology will emerge and take its place within general scholarship.

John W. Griffin, 1958 End Products of Historic posium on Role

Sites Archaeology. In Sym in Historical Re of Archaeology search, edited by John L. Cotter, pp. 1-6. Reprinted as Chapter 6 inHistorical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, ed. Robert (1978), Farmingdale, pp. 20-23. Baywood New York. Publishing

L. Schuyler Company,

A New CultureHistory
Two years before John Cotter offered the first course in historical archaeology in Philadelphia, issued a little heeded W. Griffin (1958:1-6) John call for a form of culture history in historical archaeology. Almost thirtyyears later this plea must be resurrected and repeated. "Culture his tory" has been given an almost fatally negative connotation by processual archaeologists (Binford 1968) who arbitrarily and erroneously limited it to 1986). If time-space systematics (cf., Dunnell culture history is recognized in itsoriginal entirety, W. W. Taylor included both chronicle which after and the reconstruction and interpretation of past life ways, then the development of "historic eth

Rhys Isaac, 1982 The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. sity of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. D. Melburn Thurman, 1982 Plains Indian Winter history. Plains Counts and the New

Univer

Ethno

Anthropologist

27 (97): 239-43.

Anthony F. C. Wallace, the Growth of an American Village in the 1972 Rockdale, Early Industrial Revolution. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Eric R. Wolf, 1982 Europe and thePeople Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Robert University University

L.

Schuyler Museum of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 19104

Philadelphia,

You might also like