Paynter 2000 PDF

P1: FPY
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar]
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2000
Historical and Anthropological Archaeology:

Forging Alliances
Robert Paynter1
Historical and anthropological archaeology have had a somewhat disjointed relationship. Differences in theoretical perspectives, methodological concerns, and
material records have led to a lack of cross talk between these branches of
Americanist archaeology. This paper presents recent issues in historical archaeology, points out areas of common concern, and argues that both archaeologies
would benefit from informed discussions about the materiality and history of the
pre- and post-Columbian world.
KEY WORDS: landscape; epistemology; history.
INTRODUCTION
In 1493 Columbus set off for North America on a voyage that truly deserves
to be part of our public memory, for it, rather than the voyage of 1492, was
a harbinger of the world to come. His first voyage of 1492 was a low-budget,
three-ship reconnaissance survey. The second voyage began in 1493 with at least
17 ships, 1200 to 1500 men, and explicit plans to establish enterprises to begin
the real work of colonization. The goals of the second voyage were those for
centuries throughout the Western Hemispherefind converts and gold; and on
Hispaniola, as throughout the Western Hemisphere, conversion took second place
to accumulation. The gold, never plentiful, was rapidly depleted through despotic
taxes and enforced mining. Seeking an alternative form of accumulation, Columbus
enslaved 1500 of Hispaniolas people. Five hundred were transported to Spain
of whom only 300 survived the passage. The survivors died shortly after arrival.
History shows that Columbuss idea of an Atlantic slave trade in Native Americans
was not realized, in part because of the colonizers practices of terrorizing the
1 Department
of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003.

1
C 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
1059-0161/00/0300-0001$18.00/0
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
local population and savagely exploiting their labor in mines and fields, driving the
native population of Hispaniola virtually extinct by 1550. However, and somewhat
unwittingly, Columbus did bring the source of Caribbean profits on this second
voyagesugar plants. By 1516 the first capital-intensive sugar mill was established
on Hispaniola and by the mid-1500s sugar exports from the island were a major
source of Spanish wealth. The decimated indigenous population was not a large
enough labor force for this commodity, and thus came to the Western Hemisphere,
in chains, the people of Africa who tilled the fields, cut the cane, and worked the
mills. The transport of enslaved Africans to Hispaniola was first sanctioned in
1501, and by 1517 a contract was let by the crown of Spain for 4000 Africans
(Jane, 1988, pp. 20188; Koning, 1976, pp. 7094; Las Casas, 1992, pp. 1425;
Morison, 1991, pp. 389399, 481495; Williams, 1970, pp. 2345).
Columbuss second voyage is a capsule of the practices and processes by
which European culture moved from its position on the periphery of the medieval
world (Abu-Lughod, 1989) to become part of the core of our post-Columbian world
system. More generally, the late 15th century was the beginning of a historically
unique conjunction of forces that resulted in dreams and practices of European
global conquest. It began with European advances into Africa, followed shortly
thereafter by the invasion of the Americas. Later the peoples of South, East, and
Central Asia, and then Oceania, were caught up in what eventually became our
world, a world of global scale struggles to extract surpluses, to exert political dominance, to build communities, and to foster senses of political and personal identities.
It is these multiple and diverse processes and the variety of responses to
them that constitute the subject matter of historical archaeology. That historical
archaeology is about the archaeology of European expansion is a thesis with a
solid history in the discipline. Initially (and it was only some 30 years ago that
the journal Historical Archaeology was founded) there were those who based the
disciplines definition on methodologyhistorical archaeology being the study of
a peoples material culture with the aid of their documents. Schuyler (1978) compiles many of these early arguments; Historical Archaeology 27(1), introduced by
Cleland (1993), also has a number of articles on the history of the society (see also
Deagan, 1982; Little, 1994; Orser, 1996, pp. 128; South, 1994). However, many
practitioners always saw historical archaeology as staking a claim to a slice of
world history largely unexamined by anthropologists. For example, Deetz (1968)
early on conceived of the task as the study of Late Man in North America and more
recently advocates the study of the spread of European societies worldwide, beginning in the 15th century, and their subsequent development and impact on native
peoples in all parts of the world (Deetz, 1991, p. 1). South (ed., 1977) stresses
the importance of studying the British colonial system and not just particular sites,
and more recently in studying the energetics of world cultural systems riven by
class distinctions (South, 1988). Schuyler (1970, p. 83) succinctly describes historical archaeology as the study of the material manifestation of the expansion
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
Historical and Anthropological Archaeology
22:2
of European culture into the non-European world starting in the 15th century and
ending with industrialization or the present (see also Schuyler, 1991). Leone
(1977, p. xvii), working with insights from Marx, argues that historical archaeology deals with modern society or with its direct historical foundations . . . people,
places, and processes tied up with the Industrial Revolution, the founding of the
modern English-speaking world, or directly with modern Americans. For Leone,
this problematic provides a place for historical archaeology within anthropology:
it has a special way of analyzing our society (1977, p. xxi).
Today, many practitioners trained in North America adhere to the position
that historical archaeology is about the ways of life of post-Columbian peoples
(e.g., Deagan, 1982, 1988; Falk, 1991; Leone, 1995; Orser, 1996). Less certainty surrounds the key features and dynamics of this way of life. Deetzs (1977)
structuralist-idealist paradigm is a major research perspective. Approaches emphasizing traditional and revised ecological models also have been advocated (e.g.,
Hardesty, 1985; Mrozowski, 1993, 1996). Although mainstream social science
perspectives dominate the conception of politics and economy, others have argued
for the relevancy of any of a number of marxian and other critical approaches (e.g.,
Leone, 1995; McGuire and Paynter, 1991; Orser, 1988). Theoretical approaches
rarely dominate the discussion in historical archaeology as most of what historical
archaeologists have done is the very familiar work of archaeography (Deetz,
1988b, p. 18), the detailing of aspects of the post-Columbian way of life. Thus,
much of what is done in historical archaeology is what is done in any archaeology,
teasing out the methodological issues about interpreting material remains with the
added issue of the interplay of documentary and material sources of information
[see Little (1994) and Orser (1996) for very useful overviews of the intellectual
currents in historical archaeology].
What is the place of the post-Columbian world in the discipline of anthropological archaeology? It should represent an important subject matter for a discipline
interested in a comparative perspective on such matters as faction process, state
formation, world systems, and identity construction (e.g., Blanton et al., 1996;
Brumfiel, 1992; Brumfiel and Fox, 1994; Chase-Dunn, 1992; Friedman, 1992;
Patterson and Gailey, 1987; Rowlands et al., 1987; Yoffee, 1995). Nonetheless,
the post-Columbian world constitutes an understudied subject in anthropological
archaeology (cf. Patterson, 1993). It is understudied, perhaps, in much the same
way the ethnography of Europe and of the United States are understudied due to
anthropologys aversion to the ways of life of the West (Cole, 1977; Wolf, 1982).
It is also, perhaps, understudied by anthropological archaeologists because its use
of documents seems somehow to circumvent the difficult task of material interpretation that is at the heart of pre-historic archaeology (Hodder, 1989, p. 141;
Watson and Fotiadis, 1990, p. 615). All the same, historical archaeologists have
been seeking a disciplinary understanding that bridges between the concerns of
anthropology and history, that uses objects to study the mediation of actions and
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
meanings. This can be accomplished only if its analysis of the past 500 years
approaches the creation of a vast array of ways of life through the understanding
that comes from the anthropological archaeological perspectives of comparison
and material analysis.
With its emphasis on studying the West, using documents and objects, historical archaeology inhabits a liminal space in the anthropological imagination (Orser,
1996, p. 10). And, this liminal position of historical archaeology, caught between
history and anthropology, between culture and action, between ethnohistory and
ethnography, between the past and the present, has bedeviled my writing of this
review. How do I simultaneously address the concerns of anthropological archaeologists, historians, historical archaeological colleagues, and colleagues in other
disciplines interested in the particular versions of theory to which I subscribe?
Moreover, since historical archaeology is so clearly a discipline in the making,
how do I write a review knowing that it is from an admittedly constrained position
(Harding, 1986; Morgen, 1997)?
Part of the answer is to note what is not being reviewed here and in a subsequent article. Specifically, I have tried to cover topics as they are addressed by
historical archaeologists. I do not take on a comprehensive study of how historians and social theorists have taken on the post-Columbian world. However, for
areas that have only recently begun to receive historical archaeologys attention,
especially with regards to framing the discussion, I draw on historians and social
theorists who open up particularly useful lines of research.
Another part of the answer is to recognize some of my constraints. I principally study the post-Columbian world as it has played out in the North American
northeast. Although I try to bring a global perspective to this task, my thinking is
enmeshed within the practices of historical archaeology in this area, where I also
live and work in an anthropology department. As a result, the political movements
and the intellectual milieu all contribute to how I understand the past of this region
and its place in the world. Additionally, I am interested in developing a critical archaeology, one that confronts the ideological structures and practices that promote
inequality in this region and in the globe at large. Thus, I am interested in developing understandings of the recent past that work against the fairly common cultural
givens in the United States of global dominance based on inevitable technological
progress, grounded fuzzily in biological determinisms concerning racial and gender superiority (e.g., Escobar, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Since deconstructing these
ethnocentric common senses can be at the heart of the anthropological enterprise, I
want to contribute to the project of bringing this sort of anthropological perspective
to historical archaeologys study of the post-Columbian world.
From this perspective, the nexus of the development of mercantile and then industrial capitalist class relations, the use of race in relations of class exploitation and
national conquest, the development of a conquest state tied to capitalist wealth accumulation, and the formation of heterosexual, patriarchal gender relations creates
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
the social dynamics that give distinctive shape to the past 500 years. Although I
believe that in general, regardless of ones global location over the last 500 years,
one would have to come to grips with the class, race, state formation, and gender
relations spun out of northwestern Europe and North America, I also acknowledge
that the particulars at any one place will be interestingly different from how things
worked themselves out in these areas. Learning these additional histories is an
important task for historical archaeology. Moreover, in the vein of anthropological
inquiry, learning about histories elsewhere on the globe will affect understandings of the general theoretical constructs of capitalism, racism, and patriarchy,
and reflect back on our particular understandings of the histories of the core areas
themselves (Schmidt and Patterson, 1995). Building this larger set of understandings is the unfinished task of historical archaeology; and as a result, this paper is
far from a complete synthesis. It is a review given these concerns, for the sake
of colleagues in anthropological archaeology interested in social stratification,
regardless of whether their data include written documents.
The review is developed in two articles. The first considers the practice of
historical archaeology, the issues of contemporary interest, the debates of contemporary concern, and the articulation of historical archaeology and anthropological
archaeology. The second, which will appear in a subsequent issue of the journal,
considers the history of the last 500 years, as seen from the vantage point of historical archaeology. A recent literature section for both these articles accompanies
the second article, People and Processes of the Post-Columbian World.
GLOBAL RESEARCH
Historical archaeology has been mostly practiced in eastern North America
and the Caribbean, pursuing the goals of documenting the cultures of people of
European descent (principally from the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula) and
to lesser, but increasing extents, for people of African and Native American descent.
Although the eastern United States and the Caribbean are the areas of greatest
volume of research, one of the most important trends in historical archaeology is
the study of the European colonial practices and the resultant resistances around
the world.
In North America in addition to the English, the Dutch and the French
also were significant colonial powers, and their material remains have come under greater scrutiny (e.g., Huey, 1991; Janowitz, 1993; Moussette, 1996). Studies of the North American West are of increasing frequency (e.g., Farnsworth,
1989; Hardesty, 1988; Praetzellis and Praetzellis, 1992; Praetzellis et al., 1987,
1988; Purser, 1989; Wegars, 1993), with provocative suggestions for thematic research issues to frame site-specific work found in Hardestys (1991b) collection of
plenary papers on Historical Archaeology in the American West (Ayres, 1991;
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Greenwood, 1991; Hardesty, 1991b; Schuyler, 1991) and Lightfoots (1995) archaeology of pluralism at Fort Ross in northern California (see also Marshall and
Maas, 1997).
For the areas of North and South America influenced by the Spanish Empire
the articles in Thomass (1989, 1990, 1991) quincentennial volumes on the Spanish
Borderlands are indispensable contributions and reviews (see also Farnsworth and
Williams, 1992). Kathleen Deagan, as reported in a number of publications (e.g.,
1983, 1985; Deagan and Cruxent, 1993), has been directing research on and writing detailed case studies and regional syntheses about the Spanish Caribbean
and Florida. Kowalewski (1997) is bringing the notable studies of prehistoric
Oaxaca into the historic period with considerations of regional change in the
post-Columbian world. Sued-Badillo (1992, 1995) and Rouse (1986, 1992) offer contrasting versions of the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean first caught up
in European colonial schemes (see also Patterson, 1991). Jones (1989) has begun
the study of the long history of Spanish-Mayan domination and resistance, and
Kepecs (1997) and Alexander (1997) have conducted regional-scale archaeological and ethnohistorical research on the conquest period in Yucatan. Armstrong
(1985, 1990) and Delle (1996, 1998) present detailed studies of Jamaican plantations. Handler (e.g., 1997; Lange and Handler, 1985) has reported extensively
on plantation life and its impacts on the African population in Barbados. Galways
Plantation on Montserrat has been studied by Pulsipher (e.g., 1991). Orser (1994)
and Agorsah (1993, 1995) have studied maroon populations in Brazil and the
Caribbean, respectively (see also Funari, 1996). Schaedel (1992), summarizing the
sparse archaeological studies from historical South America, sets out a sweeping
agenda for a historical archaeology of the past 500 years. Rice has been investigating wineries in colonial Peru with an eye to studying issues of technological transfer
(e.g., Rice and Van Beck, 1993; Rice and Smith, 1988). Jamieson (1996) offers
analyses of social life in Ecuador, with attention to gender relations. In lowland
South America Vargas Arenas and Sanoja (e.g., Vargas Arenas, 1995) are bringing
their distinctive and sophisticated theoretical approach of social archaeology to
understand the colonial period, especially in its urban manifestations.
An extensive literature exists on the British Isles that self-identifies as being
about post-Medieval archaeology (e.g., Crossley, 1989). Among this important
body of information, M. Johnsons (1993, 1996) studies of the class and gender processes operating in England is essential reading [see also Driscoll (1992), Samson
(1992), and Webster (1997) for similar concerns for earlier periods in the British
Isles]. Mangans study of the landscapes of Catalonia during the transition from
feudalism to capitalism (1994) is one of the few historical archaeological works
in English from continental Europe [see Crumley (1994), McGovern (1990), and
Woolf (1997) for overviews of precursor situations]. Baram (1996) and Silberman
(1989; Handsman and Silberman, 1991) have begun to take apart how European
capitalism came to Palestine and how this archaeology figures in the contemporary
state-building efforts in the region.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Southern Africa has developed an extensive literature on what Hall calls the
archaeology of impact (1993). Some of the works are singular contributions to archaeological theory deserving broad readership. Halls (1992) study of the ideology
of race coded in the material record of South Africa, for instance, is an important
theoretical intervention into the interpretation of meaning using material culture.
Carmel Schrires (1995) extraordinary book informs us about the construction
of race and apartheid with first-rate interpretations of the past and provocatively
reflexive understandings of the conduct of archaeology (see also Schrire, 1991,
1992) Warren Perrys (1996) archaeologically based reconsideration of Shaka and
the Zulu state demonstrates the inextricable role of European slavers in this process, an interpretation that should affect the ethnology of state origins. West and
Central Africa have a growing body of research. De Corse (1999) has surveyed
West African archaeology with an eye to interpreting the material remains of North
American and Caribbean African-American peoples. The Kingdom of Benin has
been the subject of archaeological research by Kelly (1997a,b). Rowlands (1989)
and Thomas-Emeagwali (1989) lay out the contours for a historical archaeology of
Cameroon and Nigeria, respectively, that take into account the long-term processes
of political economy indigenous to the area, and the distinctive nature of their interdigitation with European accumulation. Studies of modern material culture, such
as Rowlands and Warniers (1996) analysis of magic and iron smelting or Steiners
(1994) study of the African art trade have obvious relevance for understanding the
historical period. Peter Schmidt (1978, 1995; Schmidt and Childs, 1995), in his
significant body of work on East Africa, has sought to uncover the dynamics of
these societies hidden in colonial histories. As in West Africa, understanding
these hidden histories is a necessary precursor for conducting a historical archaeology of the area, one that will necessarily involve understanding the dynamics
of the Islamic world system (see also LaViolette et al., 1989; Pearson, 1997). Of
course Africa north of the Sahara has a long history of contact with Europeans.
Nonetheless, the most recent stage of European expansion began in the 1400s with
the Portuguese invasion of Morocco, an episode given exemplary consideration in
Redmans (1986) study of the strategic town of Qsar es-Seghir (see also Boone
et al., 1990).
Oceania has seen significant work in Australia (e.g., Connah, 1994) as another
of the growing centers of historical archaeology. A remarkable collaboration by
Patrick Kirch and Marshall Sahlins (1992) brings the perspectives of Sahlinss
structural history into the study of the archaeology and ethnography of Hawaii.
Nicholas Thomass (1991) studies of contemporary material entanglements in
Polynesia are important reading for anyone interested in material culture theory
and the cultural workings of objects in the borderlands of colonial situations.
All of these world areas, and others, are developing distinctive understandings
of how European culture arrived and entangled itself in indigenous social, political, cultural, and economic affairs. In some areas, such as southern Africa, enough
studies have been conducted for practitioners to develop critiques of conventional
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
understandings of European conquest; most are consumed with foundational descriptive work of excavation, chronology, and archival research. All the same,
Schmidt and Patterson (1995) have brought together an important collection of articles that point to what alternative archaeologies of the colonial and postcolonial
periods might look like.
Historical archaeology has not settled on a world-scale narrative to tie together
the events and trajectories noted from around the globe. One influential model is
offered by Deetz (1977, 1988a). For North American New England Deetz suggests
a cultural progression from yeoman to folk to Georgian as a temporal succession
of culture types. The yeoman-period culture is an initial close approximation to
the colonizing fragment of European culture. Cultural mutations resulting from
isolation from Europe characterize the folk period. And, a reintegration of New
England into the emerging consumer capitalist culture of the 19th century is the
force behind the Georgian period. Critics note limitations of this model in applications elsewhere on the globe. Kelso (1992) evaluates Deetzs tripartite model using
Virginian houses and gravestones and finds continuity where Deetz finds breaks
and breaks where Deetz finds continuity, evidence for the different immigration
and class histories of New England and Virginia. Hall (1992) notes the obvious
material differences encountered in South Africa and uses the discrepancy in a very
clear argument for thinking about the discourses on class and slavery characteristic
of European colonial ventures. It would seem that a Deetzian characterization of
culture change might be quite accurate for some factions in some colonies at some
periods, but has limited utility as a general narrative framework. Nonetheless, it
is the most productive, regionalnational-scale model developed and worked with
by practitioners of historical archaeology to date (see also Harrington, 1989b;
Sweeney, 1994).
A very different narrative has been offered by Patterson (1993, pp. 349367).
His textbook, Archaeology: The Historical Development of Civilizations, after reviewing the familiar terrain of state formation in the Near East, Egypt, China, South
America, and Mesoamerica, concludes with a chapter entitled Civilization and Its
Discontents: The Archaeology of Capitalism. He surveys the global development
of capitalism as an economic system . . . concerned with the production and sale of
commodities in markets (Patterson, 1993, p. 350). In this narrative, the plunder of
mineral wealth from the Americas and the theft of African labor provide the basis
for mercantile accumulation in northwestern Europe from the 15th through the
18th centuries. Industrial production in northwestern Europe spread throughout
the globe in the 19th and 20th centuries, knitting the world together through the
strands of the market and the politics of imperialism and neocolonialism.
Two key points underwrite Pattersons narrative: the post-Columbian world
is the story of the rise of capitalism, and this story must be told on a world
stage. The former is a point assertively argued by Leone and Potter (1988, p. 19):
Whether or not historical archaeology is to be an archaeology of the emergence
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative. A number of

authors have taken up the charge to understand capitalism from the perspective of
material culture (Beaudry et al., 1991; Handsman, 1983; Leone, 1995; McGuire,
1988; Orser, 1988; Paynter, 1988). Indeed, Leone (1988b) makes use of the systematic tendency of capitalist political economies to go through crises to provide
a causal argument for Deetzs culture periods. Pattersons second point about the
world scale of the phenomenon, and hence of the discipline, reverberates with a
large body of theoretical work (e.g., Brewer, 1980), such as Wallersteins (1974,
1980, 1989) school of world-systems analysis, Wolfs (1982) historical anthropology (Schneider and Rapp, 1995), Samir Amins (1989) analyses of world-scale
accumulation and accompanying culture of Eurocentrism, and work on precapitalist world systems (e.g., Abu-Lughod, 1989; Blanton et al., 1993; Champion, 1989;
Chase-Dunn, 1992; Rowlands et al., 1987). Historical archaeology has sought to
articulate world-scale and local processes in such studies as Lewiss (1977, 1984)
studies of settlement systems, Delles (1996, 1998) studies of Caribbean plantations, Schuylers (1991) thoughts on the American West, and my own work on
New England regional settlement patterns (Paynter, 1982, 1985).
A point widely recognized, though too often honored in the breach, is that
world-scale processes must be understood as the articulation of European and indigenous processes, and not simply the response to the imperatives of European
political economics (e.g., Blaut, 1993; Mintz, 1977; Wolf, 1982). Part of the problem of giving dynamic force to both sociocultural trajectories is how to imagine
the process of cultural interaction. Most commonly, this is addressed with notions
of assimilation and acculturation. However, Wolf (1982, pp. 67) warns about the
dangerous metaphors that underlie such constructs. He cautions that understanding
world cultural history as the collision of so many differently colored billiard balls,
heretofore isolated cultures, blinds us to the processes at the core of historical
changethe continual interpenetration of ways of life with resulting cultural, political, and economic reconfigurations. Unfortunately, words like Contact period
commonly used by archaeologists to talk about the interactions between would-be
colonizing Europeans and their targets sound too much like the comforting click of
billiard balls on the cosmic billiard table of world history. Schuyler (1991) captures
the scale of the process with his idea of ethnohistoric interaction spheres, though
such a conceptualization runs the risk of becoming a very much bigger billiard
ball. Perry (1996) reconceptualizes the colonial period of intense interaction and
reconfiguration, drawing on the work of Hall (1993, pp. 183186) and N. Thomas
(1991), as a period of impact and entanglement. These metaphors have the merit of
suggesting the violence of the interactions and the agency of both the indigenous
and European cultures. That historical archaeology has yet to find a replacement
for the bland Contact period does not hide the disciplines recognition that the
post-Columbian world is about the sudden and persistent intertwining of formerly
unrelated historical processes. This intertwining affected historical trajectories in
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
10
Paynter
the Americas, in Africa and Asia, and reverberated and affected the trajectories
of Europe. The study of this post-Columbian world can be undertaken only by
simultaneously conducting local studies informed by theoretical frameworks that
allow for the influence of global-scale processes, a task that clearly needs much
more empirical and theoretical work.
Charles Orser (1996) has recently articulated an important sustained vision
of a global archaeology. He makes use of a mutualist social theory to cast a net of
relationssocial, material, and ideologicalacross the globe. Arguing for historical archaeology as the study of the modern world, he identifies key themes
colonialism, capitalism, Eurocentrism, and modernityfor understanding this
world. Along with reviewing work by other historical archaeologists reflecting
these themes, he presents his very interesting and recent work on the maroon
community of Palmares in Brazil and famine-period villages in Ireland by way of
illustrating global networks. Along the way, the reader is introduced to the history
of historical archaeology and post-Medieval archaeology, the intricacies of the
present debates in historical archaeology on interpreting meaning, and the development of landscapes as important objects of study. Though I do not use his notion
of haunts to set my theory in motion or frame my discussion in the terms of his
four themes, there is much in his work that reverberates with my understandings
of the post-Columbian world. Orser has produced a very provocative introduction
to historical archaeology as well as a significant conceptualization of how to study
global cultures; it is a good starting place for further study of this subdiscipline.
THE MATERIALITY OF AND METHODOLOGIES FOR THE STUDY

OF THE POST-COLUMBIAN WORLD
An Ontology of Objects and Landscapes
Historical archaeology is both blessed and cursed with studying a way of life
awash in material culture (Deetz, 1973). Not surprisingly, much of the work of
historical archaeology involves detailing these objects, work that discloses who
made what, when, where, and how it was used. Noel Humes (1969) classic compendium still stands as a much needed reference and paradigm for this important work (e.g., Beaudry et al., 1988; Carskadden and Gartley, 1990; Gates and
Ormerod, 1982; Jones and Sullivan, 1985; Kenmotsu, 1990; Lister and Lister,
1987). Such studies also seek to link the objects, their makers, and their users
to the larger economic and social forces (e.g., D. Miller, 1987, 1997; G. Miller,
1991; Turnbaugh, 1985). The impact of anthropological archaeology can be seen
in the analysis of faunal and floral remains to disclose dimensions of subsistence
(e.g., Reitz and Scarry, 1985), especially within a commodified food system (e.g.,
Bowen, 1992; Geismar and Janowitz, 1993; Landon, 1996; Reitz, 1987; Rothschild
and Balkwill, 1993), to analyze landscaping and gardening practices (e.g., Kelso,
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
11
1994, 1996; Kelso and Beaudry, 1990; Kelso et al., 1987; Miller, 1989; Mrozowski,
1991; Mrozowski and Kelso, 1987), to investigate disease (e.g., Mrozowski, 1991;
Reinhard et al., 1986), and as the raw material in manufacturing (e.g., Claassen,
1994).
How then does the researcher move from this myriad of detail to understanding
action and thought in the past? Recent work in historical archaeology has developed
new ontologies as well as analyses of new classes of information beyond the
mainstays of portable artifact analyses. There is considerable overlap with similar
discussions in anthropological archaeology that have called for new methods for
studying the material world and new approaches to materiality that have expanded
definitions of data. In historical archaeology, these critiques have addressed the
traditional fall-out models of material culture and added cultural landscapes to
the domain of archaeological analysis.
The traditional ontological precept relating culture and objects is the notion
that culture, the subject of inquiry, leaves material correlates. This fall-out model
of material culture relations is exemplified in idealist theories, such as Deetzs
(1967, pp. 4549, 1977) notion of mental templates and worldviews that guide the
production of the material world, and in more materialist theories, such as Souths
(1977) notion of patterns of material culture. The task for the investigator operating
from either of these theoretical positions is to discover the culture by studying the
material patterns (e.g., Schiffer, 1976).
Increasingly, historical archaeologists are writing with a different ontology,
one that embeds material culture within systems of meaning and action, one that
gives objects an active voice in cultural practices (Hodder, 1986, 1989; Shanks and
Tilley, 1987a,b; Tilley, 1990; Wobst, 1977). From this angle, studying material culture is not about studying the residue of culture, but is about studying an important
aspect of culture itself. The problem for the investigator is less to imagine material
transforms or implications and more to imagine intricate and repetitive sequences
of human-object interaction that result in the construction of meaning embedded
in social relations. In historical archaeology, authors have investigated the role
of objects with concepts of discourse, habitus, cultural biography, resistance, and
ritual (for a review see Shackel and Little, 1992). For instance, Hall (1992) recasts
material evidence of racisms and their concomitant resistances from a Deetzian
structural analysis to one based in the analysis of discourses. Nassaney and Abel
(1993) investigate sabotage at a cutlery factory as a significant humanobject interaction in capitalist societies. De Cunzo (1995) studies the rituals that weave
together people, objects and ideologies as they were used by the middle class
reformers to address the problem of prostitution in Philadelphia. Delle (1996,
1998) expands on the work of Harvey (1989), Soja (1989), and Lefebvre (1991) to
understand the active use of space in structuring Jamaican coffee plantations (see
also McKee, 1992; Orser, 1988). Orser (1992) advocates the use of the notion of
cultural biography to capture the shifting meanings objects take during their path
from production to forgotten trash.
P1: FPY
12
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Of all the objects studied by historical archaeologists, space has been going through a significant rethinking, from a neutral and objective dimension of
measurement to a culturally mediated object. The reconceptualization is to such
an extent that one might say that a whole new class of artifact has been discovered, namely, the landscape (e.g., Beaudry, 1986; Delle, 1996, 1998; Handsman
and Harrington, 1994; Harrington, 1989a; Hood, 1996; Kelso and Most, 1990;
Mrozowski, 1991; Rubertone, 1989b; Yamin and Metheny, 1996). Hood (1996,
p. 121) refers to these nuanced notions of space as cultural landscapes . . . [places
that] . . . physically embody the history, structure and contexts of a given way of
life. For Rubertone (1989b, p. 50) these cultural landscapes have been shaped and
modified by human actions and conscious design to provide housing, accommodate the system of production, facilitate communication and transportation, mark
social inequalities, and express aesthetics. Not restricted to sites alone, Hood
(1996, p. 122) notes that landscapes exist in a continuum of human perception
and usage ranging from formally planned spaces, such as gardens, to seemingly
natural places, such as abandoned fields and pastures (1996, p. 122). In between
these extremes are a very large category of spaces that have been increasingly
referred to by such terms as houselots, yardscapes, streetscapes, vernacular landscapes, and so on (Hood, 1996, p. 122). All of these have come increasingly under
the attention of archaeological investigation.
A focus on landscapes has proven a productive research plan in historical
archaeology for a number of reasons. Landscapes have proven to be a productive
way to merge information from resource management projects with that of pure
research studies (e.g., Bradley, 1984). Information on landscapes is always recovered during excavation, even if artifact assemblages or decipherable architectural
fragments are absent. Moreover, landscapes have proven more realistic artifacts
for understanding the contours of life in the constantly churning world of mature
capitalism; at least landscapes are by definition primary deposits.
Archaeologists have studied various places on the North American historical landscape, including regions (e.g., Lewis, 1984; Paynter, 1982; Purser, 1989),
commercial and industrial cities (e.g., Beaudry, 1989; Beaudry and Mrozowski,
1989; Cressy et al., 1982; Dickens, 1982; Harrington, 1989b; McGuire, 1991;
Mrozowski, 1991; Rothschild, 1990; Shackel, 1996; Staski, 1987; Upton, 1992),
towns and villages (e.g., Adams, 1977; Wurst, 1991), seaports (e.g., Harrington,
1992), maroon communities (e.g., Agorsah, 1993, 1995; Feder, 1994; Orser, 1996),
logging camps (Franzen, 1992), forts (e.g., Clements, 1993; Faulkner, 1986;
Monks, 1992; South, 1977; Staski, 1990), gardens (e.g., Kelso and Most, 1990;
Leone, 1988b), and the walls, roads, canals, and railroads used to demarcate and
flow between these places (e.g., Gordon and Malone, 1994, pp. 55223; Leone,
1978; Samson, 1992). Farmsteads, plantations, and homelots are the most frequent
form of report, and thus there are too many good examples to cite [Adams (1990)
and Worrell et al. (1996) are good overviews].
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
13
The investigation of landscapes has led to the development and modification

of various techniques and methods. For instance, remote sensing and geophysical
survey have been put to good use in site survey (Clark, 1990; Garrison, 1996;
Parrington, 1983). The complex stratigraphy of historical-period sites has benefited from analysis using Harris matrices (Harris, 1979; Harris et al., 1993). As
noted above, palynological analysis has provided evidence of the flora on previous landscapes. The primary documents of maps and papers have given insight
into the minds of cartographers, developers, architects, and preservationists (e.g.,
Delle, 1995a,b; Harley, 1989, 1992; Paynter, 1995; Potter, 1994; Seasholes, 1988).
Though these studies provide a better understanding of how space was represented,
we have only begun to explore their connections to what Harvey (1989, pp. 220
221) refers to as spaces of representation (imagination). Savulis (1992) considers
such landscapes of the imagination in her study of Shaker poetry and spirit drawing. Investigating these ideologies of space might take clues from Williamss study
of the ideology of the city and the countryside (1973), Fryers investigations of
gender and space in the work of Edith Wharton and Willa Cather (1986), and
Dorsts study of the positioning of Chadds Ford in the high culture of the Wyeths
and the popular culture of historical America (1989). These concerns bridge well
to work done on the shifting meaning of historical landscapes in Great Britain,
especially by Barbara Bender in her original study of Stonehenge (1993, 1998; see
also Tilley, 1994).
What we do know is that these rich spatial ideologies gave meaning to the
physical objects people built and encountered. Although yet to be synthesized,
these encounters happened in a spatial terrain that was simultaneously part of a
system, such as that so masterfully described and analyzed in Meinigs geographical history of North America (1986, 1993) and fractured into parts, as presented
in Leone and Silbermans (1995) remarkable atlas/travel guide/catalog of the U.S.
historical terrain. The challenge of studying this landscape is to keep clear that state
formation, race, gender, and class were enmeshed in these spatialities so that the
cultural landscape was constructed and experienced differently depending upon
whether one was white, black or red, whether one was rich or poor, and whether
one was male or female (e.g., De Cunzo, 1995; Epperson, 1990; Paynter, 1992;
Upton, 1985, 1992).
Documents and Meanings

Historical archaeology also is blessed and cursed with a form of data distinct from that studied by most anthropological archaeologistswritten documents
(Deagan, 1988; Schuyler, 1988). Hodder (1986, p. 141) damns with faint praise
the volume of data and the presence of texts as providing the potential for more
richly networked data. As a result, historical archaeology has an easier approach
P1: FPY
14
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
to contextual archaeology (1986, p. 141), something that seems to separate it from

the real task of analyzing the harder, document-free data of anthropological
archaeology [see also Beaudry (1996 pp. 479480) or Orser (1996 p. 11) for a
tracing of this prejudice]. On the other hand, historical archaeologists are all too
familiar with historians who, as discussants at meetings, question the need for
doing archaeology by pointing out that some observation based on hours of tedious excavation and analysis was readily available in a document (Little, 1992,
p. 5). So, do documents provide historical archaeology with an embarrassment of
riches or simply make archaeology embarrassing? How to handle documents and
material objects has concerned the discipline since its inception. Ultimately, its
answer infringes on questions of both epistemology and the study of meaning.
Mary Beaudry (1988, p. 1) has productively criticized common misuses of
documents: Many view archival material as a control lacking in prehistory . . . they
may use historical sites as test cases for models developed in prehistory; or they set
out to discover whether archaeological evidence properly reflects the documentary
record or vice versa. She argues that documents are complex artifacts reflecting
a partial reality and need to be paid their intellectual due. Little (1992, p. 4) similarly criticizes simplistic uses of documents by archaeologists: Documentary
and archaeological data may be thought of as interdependent and complementary, or as independent and contradictory. Oddly enough, both of these views are
viable. . . . Historical archaeologists argue today that documents must be seen as
a problematic source of information in and of themselves requiring careful study
and interpretation (e.g., De Cunzo, 1995, pp. 94100; Deagan, 1988; Galloway,
1991; Schuyler, 1978, 1988). Both Beaudry (ed., 1988) and Little (ed., 1992) have
edited important volumes that explore methods to meld documents and objects.
Less attention has been devoted to the integration of oral histories into the
research of historical archaeologists. Among others, Schmidt (1995), Perry (1998),
Purser (1992), Kus (1997), Bender (1998), and Holland (1990) have all made use
of and thought critically about oral traditions. Oral histories bring their own sets of
problems, much more familiar to ethnographers who have to be concerned about
their own place in the society they are studying and why some people choose to
become their key informants. Though oral histories represent untapped potentials
and uninvestigated problems, their use would be a reminder of who the documents
have forgotten and what the objects may record.
One of the most sophisticated considerations of how to consider documents
and objects can be found in Leones notion of middle-range theory (e.g., Leone,
1988a,b; Leone and Crosby, 1987; Leone and Potter, 1988). This is obviously an
appreciative nod to Binford; nonetheless, what Leone suggests is a transformation of Binford. Specifically, the idea is to compare the results of a documentary
study and a study of the material record. The most familiar strategy in historical
archaeology looks for points of similarity, of confirmation: deed chains that can
be matched with assemblage dates, social status indices that can be matched with
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
15
probate and/or tax and/or census class assessments (Miller, 1980; Spencer-Wood,
1987). Points of disjuncture typically suggest problems of sample bias on the part
of the material record, a methodological stance that contributes to the position by
many historians (and historical anthropologists) that anything they can learn from
objects is already known in the documents. Leone makes a key argument. First,
he acknowledges that documents and objects are not really independent lines of
evidence; they are, after all, the results of people participating in the same cultural
practices. Nonetheless, they track very different moments of that process subject
to very different biases and social processes. If, as Leone argues, they are thought
of as if they are independent, one can guard against unwarranted functionalism.
Guarding against undue functionalism is important. When documents and objects
tell different stories, especially stories in which one record is met with silence in
the other, this may be due to sample problems, or it may be due to the operations
of that past way of life, operations that seek to hide, silence, and thereby dominate.
In short, points of mismatch between objects and documents can be used to track
the work of social power.
Leones middle-range theory is quite compatible with the insights of Alison
Wylie on method in historical archaeology. Wylie (1993), in her typically clear
and lucid manner, considers the limits of a Binfordian epistemology of logical
positivism for historical archaeology, given its enmeshment of a documentary and
objectified data base, and the archaeologists simultaneous position as participant
and observer [see also Saitta (1989) for an important critique of positivist epistemologies]. She concludes that an appropriate epistemology is one that uses the
notion of cables of inference. Such an exposition is one in which no individual
line of evidence may enjoy foundational security, [but] taken together, multiple
(independent) lines of evidence can impose decisive empirical constraints on what
we can reasonably accept (or entertain) as a plausible account of the past. Indeed,
this seems the more favored, if rarely explicitly articulated, epistemology of most
historical archaeologists (see also Deagan, 1988; Deetz, 1993, pp. 158163).
Historical archaeology also finds itself enmeshed in more familiar debates
about epistemology. The common anthropological archaeology epistemology of
testing and verification has been argued for in historical archaeology; as in anthropological archaeology, there has been the recent advocacy of an interpretive
epistemology that seeks an insiders view of these past cultures (e.g., Beaudry,
1996; Cleland, 1988; South, 1977; Yentsch, 1994). The promise of an interpretive
approach, as Hodder notes above, is all the stronger because of the presence of
documents that give access to an emic perspective, the meaning systems of past
peoples (Schuyler, 1977). This possibility for the study of meaning is the source
of some of the most intense debates and fruitful methodological developments in
the subdiscipline. Little and Shackel (1992) cogently parse the debates in historical archaeology, cataloging the various perspectives as processual approaches that
consider meaning to be secondary and invisible, structural approaches that see
P1: FPY
16
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
creating meaning as the goal of culture, and postprocessual approaches that eschew
the distinction between action and meaning (e.g., Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1).
Despite the heat generated by these arguments, there are points of general
agreement among the holders of these different positions. For one there is considerable agreement that the meanings of things need to be and can be considered
in historical archaeology. The reason historical archaeologists can use objects to
approach meaning is because of a general agreement that objects are recursive, that
objects recycle culture, returning it to the concrete and empirical world where it
may be experienced, learned, and changed (see also Leone, 1986, pp. 416417;
Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1). Moreover, there is agreement that the meanings
of objects can emerge from studying objects in their contextual relations. Disagreement exists about exactly what the relevant contexts are, whose meanings
are interpretable, whether the perceptions of some factions dominate those of all
members of society, and whether the interpretation of meaning is an end in itself
or part of a larger enterprise (Beaudry, 1996). A wide range of methods (e.g.,
Leone and Potter, 1988; Shackel and Little, 1992) has been suggested to get at
meaning, including structural analysis (e.g., Deetz, 1977; Yentsch, 1991), contextual analysis (e.g., Beaudry, 1993; Beaudry et al., 1991; Little and Shackel,
1992; Mrozowski, 1993, 1996), dialogical analysis (Hall, 1992), Foucauldian approaches (e.g., Shackel, 1993), analyses of ideology (e.g., Leone, 1984; McGuire,
1991; Shackel, 1995; Wurst, 1991), studies of ritual (De Cunzo, 1995; Wall, 1991),
analyses of double-consciousness (Mullins, 1996, 1999; Paynter, 1992), analyses drawn from a humanistic anthropology (e.g., Yentsch, 1994), and hermeneutic
readings (Garman, 1994). The history of the debates is well-tilled ground, worth
the attention of any archaeologist interested in linking meaning and material remains (e.g., Beaudry, 1996; Beaudry et al., 1991; Deetz, 1977; Leone, 1984, 1986;
Little, 1994; Orser, 1996, pp. 159182).
The approach to how meaning worked in the past has had implications for how
archaeologists construct meanings today, resulting in experimentations in writing
archaeology. Some of the strongest writing that makes implicit use of the idea of
cables of inference can be found in the work of Anne Yentsch (1988a,b, 1994).
Be the subject old houses in New England, fishing communities of Cape Cod,
or the relations between masters and slaves, Europeans and Africans, whites and
blacks, Yentsch builds strong cables that disclose in intricate interweavings the
texture of past lives, structures, and histories.
Russell Handsmans (1987) experimental narratives in New England history
provide both a critique of how New Englands past has been represented and a
prospectus for the writing of the regions hidden histories. Other experiments have
included forays into fiction. In an important study, Spector (1993) explores the
limits of traditional scientific methods and epistemologies for bridging the present
to the past. Her study offers a powerful mix of fiction and biography to the end of
decolonizing our understandings of Dakota lives in the 19th century and those of
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
17
archaeologists in the 20th. Another important move in this direction is Fergusons

(1992) assessment of colonoware. He, too, mixes genres, using fiction to force on
himself and his reader a confrontation with the texture and the humanity of the
African and African-American people who constructed these distinctive ceramic
vessels. Ferguson (1992) also offers another important departure from standard social scientific prose in historical archaeology, a strong authorial voice. In a striking
conclusion, Ferguson relates some of his personal experiences in the desegragating
South, experiences that unite personal, political, and structural history to give an
urgency to his inquiry into African American folkways. A similar strong voice
can be found in the work of Schrire (1995), who recounts the enmeshment of
her historical archaeology of South Africa with her life experiences within South
Africas various faces of prejudice. Far more than the professional reminiscences
(e.g., Binford, 1972) or fictional parables (e.g., Flannery, 1976), these strong voices
and experimental writing techniques seek to convince us about the past, and our
own practices, in new ways. This marks quite an epistemological distance for a
discipline to travel given that its leading journal advised authors to avoid the use
of the first person pronoun in submitted articles (Anonymous, 1991, p. 124).
From landscapes to self-reflection, historical archaeology has been discovering new ways to open up its subject matter, to give a more textured understanding
of its subject, and to be responsive to intellectual currents in the broader disciplines
of anthropology, history, and contemporary academic ideology. In all these issues
there are many parallels between work in historical archaeology and in anthropological archaeology. There is one additional way in which, at least as practiced
in North America, these two subdisciplines differthe treatment of the cultural
relationship between the archaeologist and the people of the past.
PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS
Let us for the moment construe this problem [of writing history] in a more empirical
or commonsense fashion as being simply that of our relationship to the past, and of our
possibility of understanding the latters monuments, artifacts, and traces. The dilemma
of any historicism can then be dramatized by the peculiar, unavoidable, yet seemingly
unresolvable alternation between Identity and Difference. (Jameson, 1988, p. 150)
Archaeology often assumes a difference between the people of the present

and the people of the past. An alternative position recognizes the significance
of identity in the construction of the past: Archaeological interpretations are as
much a function of the social setting in which they are formulated and presented as
they are of the social matrix from which they are excavated (Leone and Preucel,
1992, p. 119). Obviously, thinking about history involves the simultaneous recognition of identity and difference, a complex problem in and of itself (e.g., Gero,
1989; Gero et al., 1983; Leone, 1981, 1986; Lowenthal, 1985; Patterson, 1995;
Shanks and Tilley, 1987a; Tilley, 1989; Wobst, 1989). The problem takes on a
P1: FPY
18
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
peculiarly empirical, rather than simply philosophical, twist in historical archaeology, since indeed historical archaeology is the study of the origins of modern
cultures (e.g., Deetz, 1977, pp. 156161). In a very straightforward sense, and unlike the epistemological problems facing anthropological archaeologists, historical
archaeologists are simultaneously observers of and participants in the subject of
their inquiry.
Within historical archaeology, studies that take on this dilemma are referred
to as critical archaeology. Themes in a critical historical archaeology include
bringing class relations into view in a society that insists on the omnipresence of
the middle class, bringing people of color into view in a culture that is Eurocentric,
arguing against the master themes of triumphalist history (Hu-DeHart, 1995),
such as the vanishing Indian or the inevitability of progress, and identifying the
historical contexts that gave rise to key and seemingly universal metaphors that
undergird such narratives, such as the naturalness of individuals and the reality of
objective time.
Handsman and Leone (1989) present a particularly clear brief for and exemplification of the method of critical historical archaeology. They begin by noting
that there is a remarkable separation in capitalist societies between life as it is,
life as it is thought to be, and life as it might have been (p. 118). Life as it is
thought to be, ideology, is taken to be an understanding that serves the interests
of societys elites. Critical social science has as its goal the unmasking of these
ideologies, and critical archaeologys task is to analyze how modern ideology
is projected into the past and how that projection reproduced present societys
relations of domination (p. 119). The object of analysis should be the interpretive models, museum interpretations, or more generally, the stories that are
told about the prehistoric and historic past (p. 119). In these stories and interpretations, archaeologists should look for how life is constructed as timeless or
matter of fact, masking separations and oppositions that might have led to different
presents. These timeless qualities specifically hide the historical contingency of
todays power structures; disclosing their contingency is the goal of the analysis.
This analysis should not simply remain in the domain of the scholar, but, they
argue, should be presented in equally public and accessible forms to empower
the general public. The end goal of such public presentations should be not only
negatively critical, but also positively critical, by suggesting that there have been
many possible ways of life and that the future also is rich with possibility (p. 119).
Handsman and Leone go on to make particularly deft analyses of how exhibits
about such diverse figures as George Washington and working-class Connecticut
clock makers are used by and mystified in service to the ideological precepts of individualism. Their analyses include counter-exhibits, whose aim would be to alter
the impression that the social world is made up of historically-constituted, selfdetermining, sentient . . . individuals [who] are assumed to have existed in all times
and places (p. 133) and replace this with an understanding that our conception of
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
19
individualism is bound up with the histories of merchant capital and industrial

capitalism (p. 133).
A number of studies take the analysis of public exhibits and monuments
as points of departure for a critical archaeology. For instance, Michael Blakey
(1990) analyzes the presentation of whites and people of color at the Smithsonian
Museums in Washington, D.C. He condemns the consistent association of EuroAmericans with the powerful technological and intellectual strands of American
national identity and Afro-Americans and Native Americans with the ethnically
and emotionally distinct and passive ways of life that somehow cohabited America
but were separate from and insignificant to the formation of an American identity. I
(Paynter, 1990) took the public historical landscape of Massachusetts, its museums,
living history exhibits, and National Register sites, as a text that wrote AfroAmerican life out of the history of the north, thereby recreating a distinctly northern
form of white racism. Paul Shackel (1995) uses the changing treatment of the
engine house at Harpers Ferry where John Brown made his famous stand to
penetrate the shifting contours of armed resistance in the national story of the
Civil War.
Parker Potter (1994), in his monograph on critical historical archaeology, begins with ethnography rather than exhibits (see also Leone et al., 1987). He studied
the cultural history of Annapolis as part of the Archaeology at Annapolis Project.
The past has long been used by elite Annapolitans to establish their social position. One particularly significant contemporary use, in an economy dominated
by tourists and nonlocal state legislators, separates those knowledgeable about
colonial artifacts and architecture (the locals) from other more transient elites (the
legislators). Another use of the past is to present George Washington as a model of
appropriate tourist behavior. In an attempt to unmask these ideological uses of the
past, Archaeology at Annapolis developed archaeological tours that acknowledged
the social position of the interpreter and the visitor in the present, with the goal of
teaching about how knowledge of the past is created. The model narratives explicitly seek to historicize modern patterns of behavior, such as dining etiquette and
equipment, and architectural codes and conventions, by identifying their origins
during the Georgian revolution, and to disclose the historically inaccurate construction of George Washington as a tourist. Potter also presents the instruments
used to evaluate the significant impacts these tours had on the general public. The
study, framed with informative discussions about the philosophies of critical research, the history of historical archaeology, and the history of Annapolis, is an
engaging and important book, of significance for any archaeologist interested in
how the past and present interweave.
Critical historical archaeology springs from anthropologys distinctive general lack of interest in the white core of the contemporary world system. Thus, there
is little in the way of ethnography produced by nonarchaeologists that is readily
amenable to material study in the past. As a result, historical archaeologists are
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
20
Paynter
filling some of this void, an enterprise of interest to cultural anthropologists as

well as anthropological archaeologists, with cultural analyses and ethnographies
of how American culture makes history. Part of that history making is the practice of anthropological archaeology, but only part. Thus, the questions deemed
significant in anthropological archaeology are but one source of what constitutes
significance in historical archaeology; significance also comes in the construction
of hegemonic and alternative understandings by historical archaeologists who are
participants as well as observers of the American way of life.
HISTORIES AND ARCHAEOLOGIES

Given the range of issues confronted by historical archaeology, why is there
the persistent sense that it is somehow lacking? I referred at the start to the pervasive
sense that historical archaeology is, in Barbara Littles phrase, the junior varsity
of anthropological archaeologies (1994, p. 30). This sense also is found within
the field. In 1987, the Society for Historical Archaeology ran a plenary session
about the Questions that Count in Historical Archaeology (Honerkamp, 1988). A
general concern for the lack of theoretically significant contributions by historical
archaeologists was expressed by the distinguished presenters, captured explicitly
in Deagans (1988, p. 7) observation that historical archaeology has not produced
the original and unparalleled insights into human cultural behavior or evolution
that we might expect to result from the unique perspective and data base of the
field. Various sources of difficulty were identified, including being trapped with
methodologies generated by prehistorians and limited for historical archaeologys
documentary, oral, and material data base (Deagan, 1988), too great a concern with
description, especially in the name of particularism and the idiosyncratic, at the
expense of concern with enduring issues of culture process (Cleland, 1988; South,
1988), and an unwarranted sense of deference to anthropological archaeology and
history, characterized by Schuyler (1988, pp. 3637) as the Pseudo-Processual
Progress Proffered by Prehistorians complex and the need to stop trying to make
uncalled for offerings at the altar of Clio. Remedies offered by all the authors
include making use of the unique data bases of historical archaeology and directing
attention to issues of broad anthropological concern (Leone, 1988a; Mrozowski,
1988). And yet these remedies are all directed toward celebrating some future,
rather than some past, contribution by historical archaeology.
Trigger (1984), Patterson (1995), and Kohl (1998) embed archaeological
theory within the context of Western culture, and their perspectives put the status
of historical archaeology in a different light. Trigger (1984, p. 616) distinguishes
different archaeologies, appropriate to the roles that particular nation states play,
economically, politically, and culturally, as interdependent parts of the modern
world-system. One is the nationalist archaeology, whose primary function is to
bolster the pride and morale of nations or ethnic groups (p. 620). Colonialist
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
21
archaeologies by emphasizing the primitiveness and lack of accomplishments of

[colonized] peoples [seek] to justify their own poor treatment of them (p. 620).
Imperialist archaeologies seek to understand and underpin why imperial power
has its worldwide sway. American archaeology began as a colonialist endeavor
but, with the advent of the New Archaeology, took on the characteristics of an
imperialist archaeology. Its emphasis on nomothetic generalizations implies not
simply that the study of native American prehistory as an end in itself is trivial but
also that this is true of the investigation of any national tradition (p. 620). Kohls
(1998) recent consideration of Triggers argument notes the variety of ways that
nation-states have used archaeology to underwrite their legitimacy, noting the wider
range of nationalist archaeologies than apparent in Triggers analysis. Seeking to
escape an involvement in politics by developing an archaeology that trivializes any
particular history seems, on the basis of the studies by Trigger, Patterson, and Kohl,
unlikely to succeed. Rather, the move to trivializing national traditions seems to
be the ideological device of elevating the interest of a segment of world society to
the status of a universal as a means to hide the particularity of that segments point
of view (Miller and Tilley, 1984).
There is no explicit consideration of historical archaeology by Trigger; however, it does seem caught between an underdeveloped form of a nationalist
American archaeology and the dominant American imperialist anthropological
archaeology. Born in the strife of the 1960s, some of historical archaeologys fascination with the dramatic or beautiful significant places on the American historical landscape represents a tendency towards being a handmaiden to a consensus
and nationalist history of the United States. But another outcome of the 1960s
is the critical tradition (Patterson, 1995, pp. 133139) in historical archaeology,
which seeks to contest aspects of the consensus vision, out of populist impulses
that recognize the importance of common people, and out of more radical impulses that seek to unmask ideologies of race, class, and gender consensus, or that
are dissatisfied with stories of national technological progress that ignore global
impoverishment. As if being caught between consensus and critical traditions of
history were not enough, historical archaeology also was born in the 1960s enthusiasm for the New Archaeology, Triggers imperialist American archaeology that
trivializes concern with either version of a local history. No wonder it is difficult
for historical archaeologists to match aspirations with achievements.
The imperialist impulses in anthropological archaeology are facing a severe
test from an anti-colonialist, nationalist direction. NAGPRA has forced a conversation with native peoples of the United States about access to the materials of
the North American past and the significance of an imperialist perspective for
their interpretation. Minimally, as Leone and Preucel (1992, p. 123) point out,
Archaeologists have been markedly less effective in making their professional
interests known to the public and to Native Americans. Appeals to universal scientific truths and universal benefits of education have failed to register with the
nationalist goals of Native Americans or with United States national institutions
P1: FPY
22
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
(McGuire, 1992a, p. 827; Spector, 1993). These conversations have led an increasing number of archaeologists to seek to deimperialize and decolonize the discipline
(e.g., Handsman and Richmond, 1995; Leone and Preucel, 1992; McGuire, 1992a;
Rubertone, 1989; Schmidt and Patterson, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989), a move that
leads to the revaluation of the local history of the North American past.
In other words, American anthropological archaeology increasingly finds
itself caught in what has been historical archaeologys dilemma, that of trying to
understand local history with perspectives that tend to trivialize such an endeavor
(Patterson, 1990, 1995; Ramenofsky, 1991; Trigger, 1989, 1991). Anthropological
archaeologists have increasingly turned attention to the issue of history (such as
at the 1997 Chacmool Conference on The Entangled Past . . . Integrating History
and Archaeology). The problem, in part, is making structuralist models of human
society take on a nonteleological diachronic dimension. Some approaches seek
the parallels between biological and cultural evolution (e.g., Dunnell, 1980, 1982,
1989; Schiffer, 1996). Others have advocated the perspectives of Braudel and
the Annales school (e.g., Hodder, 1987; Knapp, 1992; Smith, 1992). And others
approach history within the broad parameters set by Marxs (1984, p. 97) notion
that men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they
do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances
directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past (see also Kohl, 1987;
Marquardt, 1992; McGuire, 1992b; McGuire and Saitta, 1996; Patterson, 1995;
Saitta, 1989; Spriggs, 1984; Trigger, 1991).
Feinman has been working on aspects of an archaeological history that bridges
between the idiosyncretism of the post-Processual archaeology and the universalism of Processual archaeology (1994, 1997a,b). These differences often are constructed as the difference between science and history. However, he argues that
science and history are not necessarily diametrically opposite endeavors. Conceived as an historical science, archaeology can take its place alongside other
historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology (Feinman, 1994, pp. 1825). In
this, the goal is to wind our way through particulars and specific sequences, while
not losing sight of general, comparative, and theoretical questions concerning cultural differences, similarities, and change (Feinman, 1994, p. 19). Doing this
involves, among other tasks, writing particular histories for specific places, times,
and people while maintaining an interest in systemic processes, making use of
any relevant data without privileging texts over objects (or vice versa), eschewing normative narratives by recognizing the ordered diversity of social life, and
structuring arguments so that ideas and data confront and constrain one another
(Feinman, 1997b).
These are sensible responses to the polemical debates of Processual and postProcessual archaeologists (see also Trigger, 1991). In addition, critical archaeology
suggests extending these ideas to address the role of archaeology within our culture. For anthropological archaeology this point has been most acutely made in
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
23
the contests between archaeologists and Native Americans over writing the Native
past. As noted above, the reemergence of the Native history of North America is
due in part to the contest between archaeologists and some Native nations over
the content and stewardship of this history (e.g., Deloria, 1992a,b; Wylie, 1992).
McGuire (1992b) has ably chronicled this contest and detailed the role that archaeology has played in conservative and liberal theories concerning Native North
Americans (see also Patterson, 1995; Trigger, 1980, 1989). McGuires analysis
makes clear that regardless of intention, the results of anthropological archaeology will be used within mainstream society as it continually comes to grip with the
legacy of conquest. It also makes clear that with few exceptions, archaeology has
gravitated to the liberal, noble savage position, a position with honor but, nonetheless, a position caught in the dialectic of noble and ignoble savages characteristic of
colonialist ideologies. A way out is to imagine a world of different social relations,
of Native autonomy, of Native anticolonial nationalism. Regardless of what one
thinks of McGuires challenge (and I find it worth our attention), any attempt to
write, in theory or in particular, the history of Native North America will need to
recognize explicitly that it is inextricably caught in discourses about colonialism
and anticolonialism in the culture that is producing archaeology.
Trying to understand where archaeology fits within nationalist ideologies is
familiar terrain for historical archaeology. Historical archaeologists have taken
on the task of writing antitriumphalist histories that emphasize the role of social
relations as well as individuals, the common people as well as the prominent, the
struggles along class, color, and gender lines, and the emergent social and cultural
diversity of a supposedly uniform nation-state. To say that it is familiar terrain is
not to say that it has been solved. For instance, adding the anticolonialist histories to be written by anthropological archaeologists about resistant and persistent,
as well as vanquished, indigenous peoples would be a powerful synthesis. Historical and anthropological archaeologists have much in common in developing
epistemologies, theories, and methods to engage this important area of research.
A dynamic blending of the scientific abstraction of the New Archaeology with the
historical concerns of archaeologists who recognize their engagement in their own
culture would provide a salutary amalgamation in the Untied States and in other
archaeology-producing cultures around the globe.
In sum, historical archaeology and anthropological archaeology face many of
the same issues. Theorizing diverse forms of materiality (especially regarding the
methods and theories of landscapes), working on the epistemological problems
of using written documents as well as material objects, and studying the place of
archaeology in archaeology-making cultures are three areas of congruence. Most
important is the problem of devising disciplinary agreement on what constitutes
culture history. What standards of proof are relevant? What processes should be
given research priority? What questions are of pressing import? And, how do
answers fit into the various ways the past is used in the contemporary world?
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
24
Paynter
Insights from anthropological and historical archaeologies are needed to negotiate

these issues. A forthcoming review will investigate how historical archaeologists
have sought to develop an understanding of the post-Columbian world based in
the analysis of the formation of race, class, state, and gender relations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks go to Marge Abel, Uzi Baram, Mark Bograd, Claire Carlson, Marta
Carlson, Liz Chilton, Jim Delle, Jim Garman, Rick Gumaer, Susan Hautaniemi,
Steve Himmer, Ed Hood, Ross Jamieson, David Lacy, Kerry Lynch, Patricia
Mangan, Ruth Mathis, Paul Mullins, Nancy Muller, Juliana Nairouz, Mike
Nassaney, Sacha Page, Richard Panchyk, Marlys Pearson, Rita Reinke, Mary
Robison, Ellen Savulis, Marta Yolanda Quezada, and Dean Saitta. Thanks go, too,
to Martin Wobst, Dena Dincauze, Art Keene, Alan Swedlund, Helan Enoch Page,
Jackie Urla, Arturo Escobar, Warren Perry, Steve Mrozowski, Randy McGuire,
and Tom Patterson. I especially benefited from Gary Feinman and Doug Prices
patience and sage advice.
REFERENCES CITED
Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1989). Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 12501350, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Adams, W. H. (1977). Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural American Community, Reports
of Investigation 54, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Adams, W. H. (1990). Landscape archaeology, landscape history, and the American farmstead. Historical Archaeology 24(4): 92101.
Agorsah, E. K. (1993). Archaeology and resistance history in the Caribbean. African Archaeology
Review 11: 175195.
Agorsah, E. K. (1995). Vibrations of maroons and marronage in Caribbean history and archaeology.
In Alegria, R. E., and Rodriguez, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the XV International Congress for
Caribbean Archaeology, Centro de Estudiao Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe, San Juan,
pp. 401413.
Alexander, R. T. (1997). Haciendas and economic change in Yucatan: Entrepreneurial strategies in the
Parroquia de Yaxcaba, 17751850. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 331351.
Amin, S. (1989). Eurocentrism, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Anonymous (1991). Publication and style guidelines for historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology
25(1): 124137.
Armstrong, D. V. (1985). An Afro-Jamaican slave settlement: Archaeological investigation at Drax
Hall. In Singleton, T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Academic Press,
Orlando, FL, pp. 261287.
Armstrong, D. V. (1990). The Old Village and the Great House: An Archaeological and Historical
Examination of Drax Hall Plantation, St. Anns Bay, Jamaica, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Ayres, J. E. (1991). Historical archaeology in Arizona and New Mexico. Historical Archaeology 25(3):
1823.
Baram, U. (1996). Material Culture, Commodities, and Consumption in Palestine, 15001900, Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Beaudry, M. C. (1986). The archaeology of historical land use in Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology
20: 3846.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
25
Beaudry, M. C. (1988). Introduction. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology in the New

World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13.
Beaudry, M. C. (ed.) (1988). Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Beaudry, M. C. (1989). The Lowell Boott Mills complex and its housing: Material expressions of
corporate ideology. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 1832.
Beaudry, M. C. (1993). Public aesthetics versus personal experience: Worker health and well-being in
19th century Lowell, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 90105.
Beaudry, M. C. (1996). Reinventing historical archaeology. In De Cunzo, L. A., and Herman, B. L.
(eds.), Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, Henry Francis du Pont
Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, pp. 473497.
Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (1989). The archaeology of work and home life in Lowell,
Massachusetts: An interdisciplinary study of the Boott Cotton Mills corporation. IA, the Journal
of the Society for Industrial Archaeology 14(2): 122.
Beaudry, M. C., Long, J., Miller, H. M., Neiman, F. D., and Stone, G. W. (1988). A vessel typology for early Chesapeake ceramics: The Potomac typological system. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.),
Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5167.
Beaudry, M. C., Cook, L. J., and Mrozowski, S. A. (1991). Artifacts and active voices: Material culture
as social discourse. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality,
Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 150191.
Bender, B. (ed.) (1993). Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Berg, New York.
Bender, B. (1998). Stonehenge: Making Space, Berg, New York.
Binford, L. R. (1972). An Archaeological Perspective, Seminar Press, New York.
Blakey, M. L. (1990). American nationality and ethnicity in the depicted past. In Gathercole, P., and
Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 3848.
Blanton, R. E., Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G., and Finsten, L. (1993). Ancient Mesoamerica, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A., and Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processual
theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 114.
Blaut, J. M. (1993). The Colonizers Model of the World, Guilford Press, New York.
Boone, J. L., Myers, J. E., and Redman, C. L. (1990). Archaeological and historical approaches to
complex societies. American Anthropologist 92: 630646.
Bowen, J. (1992). Faunal remains and urban household subsistence in New England. In Yentsch, A. E.,
and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 267281.
Bradley, J. W. (1984). Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut Valley: A Framework
for Preservation Decisions, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston.
Brewer, A. (1980). Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Brumfiel, E. M. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem: Gender, class, and faction steal the show.
American Anthropologist 94: 551567.
Brumfiel, E. M., and Fox, J. W. (eds.) (1994). Factional Competition and Political Development in the
New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Carskadden, J., and Gartley, R. (1990). A preliminary seriation of 19th century decorated porcelain
marbles. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 5569.
Champion, T. C. (ed.) (1989). Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, Unwin
Hyman, London.
Chase-Dunn, C. (ed.) (1992). Special Number: Comparing World-Systems. Review 15(3).
Claassen, C. (ed.) (1994). Women in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Clark, A. (1990). Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, B. T. Batsford, North
Pomfret, VT.
Cleland, C. E. (1988). Questions of substance, questions that count. Historical Archaeology 22(1):
1317.
Cleland, C. E. (1993). The Society for Historical Archaeology and its first twenty-five years: Introduction. Historical Archaeology 27(1): 3.
Clements, J. M. (1993). The cultural creation of the feminine gender: An example from 19th century
military households at Fort Independence, Boston. Historical Archaeology 27(4): 3964.
P1: FPY
26
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Cole, J. W. (1977). Anthropology comes part-way home: Community studies in Europe. Annual Review
of Anthropology 6: 349378.
Connah, G. (1994). The Archaeology of Australias History, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Cressy, P., Stephens, J. F., Shepard, S. J., and Magid, B. H. (1982). The core-periphery relationship
in Alexandria, Virginia. In Dickens, R. S., Jr. (ed.), Archaeology of Urban America, Academic
Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 143173.
Crossley, D. (1989). Post-Medieval Archaeology in Britain, Leicester University Press, London.
Crumley, C. L. (ed.) (1994). Historical Ecology, School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
De Cunzo, L. A. (1995). Reform, Respite, Ritual: An Archaeology of Institutions: The Magdalen Society
of Philadelphia, 18001850. Historical Archaeology 29(3).
Deagan, K. (1982). Avenues of inquiry in historical archaeology. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in
Method and Theory, Vol. 5, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 151177.
Deagan, K. (1983). Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community, Academic
Press, Orlando, FL.
Deagan, K. (1985). Spanish-Indian interaction in 16th century Florida and the Caribbean. In Fitzhugh,
W. W. (ed.), Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native Cultural Institutions in Eastern
North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 281318.
Deagan, K. (1988). Neither history nor prehistory: The questions that count in historical archaeology.
Historical Archaeology 22(1): 712.
Deagan, K., and Cruxent, J. M. (1993). From contact to criollo: The archaeology of Spanish colonization
in Hispaniola. In Bray, W. (ed.), The Meeting of Two Worlds, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 67104.
DeCorse, C. R. (1999). Oceans apart: African perspectives on New World archaeology. In Singleton,
T. (ed.), I, Too, am America: Studies in African American Archaeology, University of Virginia
Press, Charlottesville (in press).
Deetz, J. F. (1967). Invitation to Archaeology, Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
Deetz, J. F. (1968). Late man in North America. In Meggers, B. J. (ed.), Anthropological Archaeology
in the Americas, Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, pp. 121130.
Deetz, J. F. (1973). Ceramics from Plymouth, 16351835: The archeological evidence. In Quimby,
I. M. G. (ed.), Ceramics in America, University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, pp. 1540.
Deetz, J. F. (1977). In Small Things Forgotten, Anchor Press, New York.
Deetz, J. F. (1988a). Material culture and worldview in colonial Anglo-America. In Leone, M. P., and
Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.), The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United
States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 219233.
Deetz, J. F. (1988b). History and archaeological theory: Walter Taylor revisited. American Antiquity
53: 1322.
Deetz, J. F. (1991). Introduction: Archaeological evidence of 16th- and 17th-century Encounters.
In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 19.
Deetz, J. F. (1993). Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 16191864, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Delle, J. A. (1995a). The ideology of space. In Leone, M. P., and Silberman, N. A. (eds.), Invisible
America: Unearthing Our Hidden History, Henry Holt, New York, pp. 1819.
Delle, J. A. (1995b). What atlases are. In Leone, M. P., and Silberman, N. A. (eds.), Invisible America:
Unearthing Our Hidden History, Henry Holt, New York, pp. 2021.
Delle, J. A. (1996). An Archaeology of Crisis: The Manipulation of Social Spaces in the Blue Mountain
Coffee Plantation Complex of Jamaica, 17901865, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Delle, J. A. (1998). An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaicas Blue
Mountains, Plenum Press, New York.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1992a). Indians, archaeologists, and the future. American Antiquity 57: 595598.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1992b). Conclusions: Anthros, Indians and planetary realities. In Biolsi, T., and
Zimmerman, L. (eds.), Indians and Anthropologists and the Critique of Anthropology, University
of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 209221.
Dickens, R. S. (ed.) (1982). Archeology of Urban America: The Serrate for Pattern and Process,
Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
27
Dorst, J. D. (1989). The Written Suburb: An American Site, An Ethnographic Dilemma, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Driscoll, S. T. (1992). Discourse on the frontiers of history: Material culture and social reproduction
in early Scotland. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 1225.
Dunnell, R. C. (1980). Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 3599.
Dunnell, R. C. (1982). Science, social science, and common sense: The agonizing dilemma of modern
archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 125.
Dunnell, R. C. (1989). Aspects of the application of evolutionary theory in archaeology. In LambergKarlovsky, C. C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 3549.
Epperson, T. W. (1990). Race and the disciplines of the plantation. Historical Archaeology 24(4):
2936.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Falk, L. (ed.) (1991). Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Farnsworth, P. (1989). Native American acculturation in the Spanish colonial empire: The Franciscan
missions of Alta California. In Champion, T. C. (ed.), Centre and Periphery, Unwin Hyman,
London, pp. 186206.
Farnsworth, P., and Williams, J. S. (eds.) (1992). The Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial and Mexican
Republican Periods. Historical Archaeology 26.
Faulkner, A. (1986). Maintenance and fabrication at Fort Pantagoet, 16351654: Products of an Acadian
armorers workshop. Historical Archaeology 20(1): 6394.
Feder, K. L. (1994). A Village of Outcasts: Historical Archaeology and Documentary Research at the
Lighthouse Site, Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.
Feinman, G. M. (1994). Toward an archaeology without polarization: Comments on contemporary
theory. In Marcus, J., and Zeitlin, J. F. (eds.), Caciques and Their People: A Volume in Honor
of Ronald Spores, Anthropological Papers, No. 89, Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 1343.
Feinman, G. M. (1997a). Thoughts on new approaches to combining the archaeological and historical
records. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 367377.
Feinman, G. M. (1997b). Discussants comments. Presented at the Symposium on the Edge of History
in the Desert West, 1997 Chacmool Conference on The Entangled Past . . . Integrating History and
Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Ferguson, L. (1992). Uncommon Ground, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Flannery, K. V. (ed.) (1976). The Early Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press, New York.
Franzen, J. G. (1992). Northern Michigan logging camps: Material culture and worker adaptation on
the industrial frontier. Historical Archaeology 26(2): 7498.
Friedman, J. (1992). General historical and culturally specific properties of global systems. Review 15:
335372.
Fryer, J. (1986). Felicitous Space: The Imaginative Structures of Edith Wharton and Willa Cather,
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Funari, P. P. A. (1996). Historical archaeology in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. World Archaeology
Bulletin 7: 5162.
Galloway, P. (1991). The archaeology of ethnohistorical narrative. In Thomas, D. H. (ed.), Columbian
Consequences, Vol. 3. The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 453469.
Garman, J. C. (1994). Viewing the color line through the material culture of death. Historical Archaeology 28(3): 7493.
Garrison, E. G. (1996). Archaeogeophysical and geochemical studies at George Washington Carver
National Monument, Diamond, Missouri. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 2240.
Gates, W. C., and Ormerod, D. E. (1982). The East Liverpool pottery district: Identification of manufacturers and marks. Historical Archaeology 16: 1358.
Geismar, J. H., and Janowitz, M. F. (eds.) (1993). Health, Sanitation, and Foodways in Historical
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 27.
P1: FPY
28
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Gero, J. M. (1989). Producing prehistory, controlling the past: The case of New England beehives. In
Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the
Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 96103.
Gero, J. M., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. (eds.) (1983). The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, Research
Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Gordon, R. B., and Malone, P. M. (1994). The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of the
Industrialization of North America, Oxford University Press, New York.
Greenwood, R. S. (1991). Historical archaeology in California. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 2428.
Hall, M. (1992). Small things and the mobile, conflictual fusion of power, fear, and desire. In Yentsch,
A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 373399.
Hall, M. (1993). The archaeology of colonial settlement in Southern Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 177200.
Handler, J. S. (1997). An African-type healer/diviner and his grave goods: A burial from a plantation
slave cemetery in Barbados, West Indies. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 1(2):
91130.
Handsman, R. G. (1983). Historical archaeology and capitalism, subscriptions and separations: The
production of individualism. North American Archaeologist 4(1): 6379.
Handsman, R. G. (1987). Material things and social relations: Toward an archaeology of antistructures. Conference on New England Archaeology Newsletter 16(2): 919.
Handsman, R. G., and Harrington, F. (1994). A place for archaeology, an archaeology of place. Conference on New England Archaeology Newsletter 13: 18.
Handsman, R. G., and Leone, M. P. (1989). Living history and critical archaeology in the reconstruction
of the past. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology:
Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 117135.
Handsman, R. G., and Richmond, T. L. (1995). Confronting colonialism: The Mahican and
Schaghticoke peoples and us. In Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.), Making Alternative
Histories, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 87117.
Handsman, R. G., and Silberman, N. A. (1991). John DeForest and US: Critical perspectives on the
archaeological alienation of Palestinian and Algonkian Indian histories. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, VA.
Hardesty, D. L. (1985). Evolution on the industrial frontier. In Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.),
The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 213229.
Hardesty, D. L. (1988). The Archaeology of Mining and Miners: A View from the Silver State, Special
Publication Series, 6, Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson, AZ.
Hardesty, D. L. (1991). Historical archaeology in the American west: Papers from the plenary session,
1990 meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 36.
Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Catographica 26(2): 120.
Harley, J. B. (1992). Rereading the maps of the Columbian encounter. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 82: 522536.
Harrington, F. (1989a). The archaeological use of landscape treatment in social, economic, and ideological analyses. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 1.
Harrington, F. (1989b). The emergent elite in early 18th century Portsmouth society: The archaeology
of the Joseph Sherburne houselot. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 218.
Harrington, F. (1992). Deepwater fishing from the Isles of Shoals. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C.
(eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 249266.
Harris, E. C. (1979). Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, Academic Press, New York.
Harris, E. C., Brown, M. R. I., and Brown, G. J. (eds.) (1993). Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the Past: Current Approached to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
29
Hodder, I. (ed.) (1987). Archaeology as Long-Term History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. (ed.) (1989). The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin
Hyman, London.
Holland, C. C. (1990). Tenant farms of the past, present, and future: An ethnoarchaeological view.
Honerkamp, N. (1988). Questions that count in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology 22(1):
56.
Hood, J. E. (1996). Social relations and the cultural landscape. In Yamin, R., and Metheny, K. B.
(eds.), Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape,
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 121146.
Hu-DeHart, E. (1995). P.C. and the politics of multiculturalism in higher education. In Gregory, S.,
and Sanjek, R. (eds.), Race, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 243256.
Huey, P. (1991). The Dutch at Fort Orange. In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 2167.
Jameson, F. (1988). The Ideologies of Theory: Essays, 19711986, Volume 2, Syntax of History, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Jamieson, R. W. (1996). The Domestic Architecture and Material Culture of Colonial Cuenca, Ecuador,
A.D. 16001800, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta.
Jane, C. (ed.) (1988). The Four Voyages of Columbus, Dover, New York.
Janowitz, M. F. (1993). Indian corn and Dutch pots: 17th century foodways in New Amsterdam/New
York. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 624.
Johnson, M. (1993). Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Johnson, M. (1996). An Archaeology of Capitalism, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Jones, G. (1989). Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Jones, O., and Sullivan, C. (1985). The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers,
Tableware, Flat Glass and Closures, National Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Kelly, K. G. (1997a). The Archaeology of African-European interaction: Investigating the social roles
of trade, traders, and the use of space in 17th- and 18th-century Hueda Kingdom, Republic of
Benin. World Archaeology 28: 351369.
Kelly, K. G. (1997b). Using historically informed archaeology: 17th and 18th century Hueda/European
interaction on the Coast of Benin. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 353366.
Kelso, G. K. (1994). Palynology in historical rural-landscape studies: Great Meadows, Pennsylvania.
American Antiquity 59: 359372.
Kelso, G. K. (1996). Pollen analysis in urban historical landscape research. In De Cunzo, L. A., and
Herman, B. L. (eds.), Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 259283.
Kelso, G. K., and Beaudry, M. C. (1990). Pollen analysis and urban land use: The environs of Scottows
Dock in 17th, 18th, and early 19th century Boston. Historical Archaeology 24(1): 6181.
Kelso, G. K., Mrozowski, S. A., and Fisher, W. F. (1987). Contextual archaeology at the Kirk Street
Agents House. In Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Investigations
of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts, Vol. II: The Kirk Street Agents House, North Atlantic
Region, National Park Service, Boston, MA, pp. 97127.
Kelso, W. M. (1992). Big things remembered: Anglo-Virginian houses, armorial devices and the impact
of common sense. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical
Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127145.
Kelso, W. M., and Most, R. (eds.) (1990). Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, University
Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Kenmotsu, N. (1990). Gunflints: A study. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 92124.
Kepecs, S. (1997). Native Yucatan and Spanish influence: The archaeology and history of Chikinchel.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 307329.
Kirch, P. V., and Sahlins, M. (1992). Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii:
Vol. 1. Historical Ethnography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Knapp, A. B. (ed.) (1992). Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
P1: FPY
30
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Kohl, P. L. (1987). The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age world-system.
In Rowlands, M., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient
World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1324.
Kohl, P. L. (1998). Nationalism and archaeology: On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223246.
Koning, H. (1976). Columbus, His Enterprise, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Kowalewski, S. A. (1997). A spatial method for integrating data of different types. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 287306.
Kus, S. (1997). Archaeologist as anthropologist: Much ado about something after all? Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 199213.
Landon, D. B. (1996). Feeding colonial Boston: A zooarchaeological study. Historical Archaeology
30: 1153.
Lange, F. W., and Handler, J. S. (1985). The ethnohistorical approach to slavery. In Singleton, T. (ed.),
The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 1632.
Las Casas, B. D. (1992). A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, Penguin Books, New York.
LaViolette, A., Fawcett, W. B., and Schmidt, P. R. (1989). The coast and the hinterland: University of
Dar es Salaam archaeological field schools, 198788. Nyame Akuma 32: 3846.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Leone, M. P. (1977). Foreword. In South, S. (ed.), Research Strategies in Historical Archeology,
Academic Press, New York, pp. xviixxi.
Leone, M. P. (1978). Archaeology as the science of technology: Mormon town plans and fences. In
Schuyler, R. (ed.), Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions,
Baywood, Farmingdale, NY, pp. 191200.
Leone, M. P. (1981). Archaeologys relationship to the present and the past. In Gould, R., and Schiffer,
M. (eds.), Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, Academic Press, New York, pp. 513.
Leone, M. P. (1984). Interpreting ideology in historical archeology: The William Paca garden in
Annapolis, Maryland. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehistory,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 2535.
Leone, M. P. (1986). Symbolic, structural and critical Archaeology. In Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D.,
and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.), American Archaeology Past and Future, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Leone, M. P. (1988a). The Georgian order as the order of merchant capitalism in Annapolis, Maryland.
In Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.), The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in
the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 235261.
Leone, M. P. (1988b). The relationship between archaeological data and the documentary record: 18th
century gardens in Annapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 2935.
Leone, M. P. (1995). A historical archaeology of capitalism. American Anthropologist 97: 251268.
Leone, M. P., and Crosby, C. A. (1987). Epilogue: Middle-range theory in historical archaeology. In
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (ed.), Consumer Behavior in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New
York, pp. 397410.
Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.) (1988). The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archeology in
the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. (1992). Archaeology in a democratic society: A critical theory
perspective. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.), Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeologys Future,
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 20, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, pp. 115135.
Leone, M. P., and Silberman, N. A. (1995). Invisible America: Unearthing Our Hidden History, Henry
Holt, New York.
Leone, M. P., Potter, P. B., Jr., and Shackel, P. A. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology. Current
Anthropology 28: 283302.
Lewis, K. E. (1977). Sampling the archeological frontier: Regional models and component analysis.
In South, S. (ed.), Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 151201.
Lewis, K. E. (1984). The American Frontier: An Archeological Study of Settlement Pattern and Process,
Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Lightfoot, K. G. (1995). Culture contact studies: Redefining the relationship between prehistoric and
historical archaeology. American Antiquity 60: 99217.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
31
Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1987). Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A Cultural
Register from the 3rd Century B.C. to 1700, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Little, B. (1992). Text-aided archaeology. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 16.
Little, B. (ed.) (1992). Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Little, B. (1994). People with history: An update on historical archaeology in the United States. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 540.
Little, B. J., and Shackel, P. A. (1992). Introduction. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 14.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past Is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mangan, P. H. (1994). Changes in the Landscape During the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism:
A Case Study of Montblanc, Catalonia, Spain, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Marquardt, W. H. (1992). Dialectical archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 101140.
Marshall, Y., and Maas, A. (1997). Dashing dishes. World Archaeology 28: 275290.
Marx, K. (1984). The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In Marx, K., and Engels, F. (eds.), Selected
Works in One Volume, International, New York, pp. 97180.
McGovern, T. (1990). The archaeology of the Norse North Atlantic. Annual Review of Anthropology
19: 331351.
McGuire, R. H. (1988). Dialogues with the dead: Ideology and the cemetery. In Leone, M. P., and
Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.), The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archeology in the Eastern United
States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 435480.
McGuire, R. H. (1991). Building power in the cultural landscape of Broome County, New York, 1880 to
1940. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 102124.
McGuire, R. H. (1992a). Archaeology and the first Americans. American Anthropologist 94: 816836.
McGuire, R. H. (1992b). A Marxist Archaeology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.) (1991). The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
McGuire, R. H., and Saitta, D. (1996). Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly:
The dialectics of prehispanic Western Pueblo social organization. American Antiquity 61:
197216.
McKee, L. (1992). The ideals and realities behind the design and use of 19th century Virginia slave cabins. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127145.
Meinig, D. W. (1986). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 years of History,
Vol. 1. Atlantic America, 14921800, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Meinig, D. W. (1993). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History,
Vol. 2. Continental America, 18001867, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Miller, D. (1987). Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Miller, D. (1997). Capitalism: An Ethnographic Approach, Berg, New York.
Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (1984). Ideology, power and prehistory: An introduction. In Miller, D.,
and Tilley, C. (eds.), Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 115.
Miller, G. L. (1980). Classification and economic scaling of 19th century ceramics. Historical Archaeology 11: 140.
Miller, G. L. (1991). A revised set of cc index values for classification and economic scaling of english
ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1): 125.
Miller, N. F. (1989). What mean these seeds: A comparative approach to archaeological seed analysis.
Mintz, S. (1977). The so-called world system: Local initiative and Local response. Dialectical Anthropology 2: 253270.
Monks, G. G. (1992). Architectural symbolism and non-verbal communication at Upper Fort Garry.
Morgen, S. (1997). Constitution of knowledge-producing communities. Anthropology Newsletter
38(5): 1, 45.
Morison, S. E. (1991). Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, Little, Brown,
Boston.
P1: FPY
32
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Moussette, M. (1996). The site of the Intendants palace in Quebec City: The changing meaning of an
urban space. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 821.
Mrozowski, S. A. (1988). For gentlemen of capacity and leisure: The archaeology of colonial newspapers. In Beaudry, M. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University
Press, New York, pp. 184191.
Mrozowski, S. A. (1991). Landscapes of inequality. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The
Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 79101.
Mrozowski, S. A. (1993). The dialectics of historical archaeology in a post-processual world. Historical
Archaeology 27(2): 106111.
Mrozowski, S. A. (1996). Nature, society, and culture: Theoretical considerations in historical archaeology. In De Cunzo, L. A., and Herman, B. L. (eds.), Historical Archaeology and the Study of
American Culture, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, DE, pp. 447472.
Mrozowski, S. A., and Kelso, G. K. (1987). Palynology and archaeobotany of the proposed Lowell
Boarding House Park Site. In Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary
Investigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts, Vol. 1. Life at the Boarding Houses,
North Atlantic Region, National Park Service, Boston, MA, pp. 139151.
Mullins, P. R. (1996). The Contradictions of Consumption: An Archaeology of African America and
Consumer Culture, 18501930, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Mullins, P. R. (1999). Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
Nassaney, M. S., and Abel, M. R. (1993). The political and social contexts of cutlery production in the
Connecticut Valley. Dialectical Anthropology 18: 247289.
Noel Hume, I. (1969). A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, Knopf, New York.
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1988). Toward a theory of power for historical archaeology: Plantations and space.
In Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.), The Recovery of Meaning, Smithsonian Institution,
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1992). Beneath the material surface of things: Commodities, artifacts, and slave
plantations. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 95104.
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1994). Toward a global historical archaeology: An example from Brazil. Historical
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1996). A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, Plenum Press, New York.
Parrington, M. (1983). Remote sensing. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 105124.
Patterson, T. C. (1990). Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and postprocessual
archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 9: 189200.
Patterson, T. C. (1991). Early colonial encounters and identities in the Caribbean: A review of some
recent works and their implications. Dialectical Anthropology 16(1): 114.
Patterson, T. C. (1993). Archaeology: The Historical Development of Civilizations, 2nd ed., Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Patterson, T. C. (1995). Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United States, Harcourt Brace,
New York.
Patterson, T. C., and Gailey, C. W. (eds.) (1987). Power Relations and State Formation, Sheffield,
Salem, WI.
Paynter, R. (1982). Models of Spatial Inequality, Academic Press, New York.
Paynter, R. (1985). Surplus flow between frontiers and homelands. In Green, S. W., and Perlman, S.
(eds.), The Archeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 163211.
Paynter, R. (1988). Steps to an archaeology of capitalism. In Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.), The
Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archeology of the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, pp. 407433.
Paynter, R. (1990). Afro-Americans in the Massachusetts historical landscape. In Gathercole, P., and
Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 4962.
Paynter, R. (1992). W. E. B. Du Bois and the material world of African-Americans in Great Barrington,
Massachusetts. Critique of Anthropology 12: 277291.
Paynter, R. (1995). Practicing critical archaeology: Problems and methods. Paper presented in the
symposium Archaeology, Architecture, and Artifacts: Critical Approaches to Interpreting the
Past at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
33
Pearson, M. P. (1997). Close encounters of the worst kind: Malagasy resistance and colonial disasters
in Southern Madagascar. World Archaeology 28: 393417.
Perry, W. (1996). Archaeology of the Mfecane/Difaqane: Landscape Transformations in Post 15th Century Southern Africa, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, City University of New
York, New York.
Perry, W. (1998). Dimensions of power in Swaziland research: Coercion, reflexivity and resistance.
Transforming Anthropology 7(1): 214.
Potter, P. B. (1994). Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Marylands
Ancient City, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Praetzellis, A., and Praetzellis, M. (1992). Faces and facades: Victorian ideology in early Sacramento.
In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology,
Praetzellis, A., Praetzellis, M., and Brown, M. R. (1987). Artifacts as symbols of identity: An example
from Sacramentos gold rush era Chinese community. In Staski, E. (ed.), Living in Cities: Current
Research in Urban Archaeology, Special Publication, No. 5, Society for Historical Archaeology,
Tucson, AZ, pp. 3848.
Praetzellis, M., Praetzellis, A., and Brown, M. R. (1988). What happened to the silent majority?
Research strategies for studying dominant group material culture in late 19th century California.
In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 192202.
Pulsipher, L. M. (1991). Galways plantation, Montserrat. In Viola, H. J., and Margolis, C. (eds.),
Seeds of Change, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 138159.
Purser, M. (1989). All roads lead to Winnemucca: Local road systems and community material culture
in 19th century Nevada. In Carter, T., and Herman, B. L. (eds.), Perspectives in Vernacular
Architecture, III, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp. 120134.
Purser, M. (1992). Oral history and historical archaeology. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology,
Ramenofsky, A. F. (1991). Historical science and contact period studies. In Thomas, D. H. (ed.),
Columbian Consequences: Vol. 3. The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 437452.
Redman, C. (1986). Qsar es-Seq-hir: An Archeological View of Medieval Life, Academic Press,
Orlando, FL.
Reinhard, K. J., Mrozowski, S., and Orloski, A. K. (1986). Privies, pollen, parasites and seeds: A
biological nexus in historical archaeology. The MASCA Journal 4(1): 3136.
Reitz, E. J. (1987). Vertebrate fauna and socioeconomic status. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.), Consumer
Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 101119.
Reitz, E. J., and Scarry, C. M. (1985). Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from 16th
Century Spanish Florida, Special Publication Series, No. 3, Society for Historical Archaeology,
Tucson, AZ.
Rice, P. M., and Smith, G. C. (1988). The Spanish colonial wineries of Moquegua, Peru. Historical
Archaeology 23: 4149.
Rice, P., and Van Beck, S. L. (1993). The Spanish colonial kiln tradition of Moquegua, Peru. Historical
Rothschild, N. A. (1990). New York City Neighborhoods: The 18th Century, Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.
Rothschild, N. A., and Balkwill, D. (1993). The meaning of change in urban faunal deposits. Historical
Rouse, I. (1986). Migrations in Prehistory, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Rouse, I. (1992). The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus, Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Rowlands, M. (1989). The archaeology of colonialism and constituting the African peasantry. In Miller,
D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London,
pp. 261283.
Rowlands, M., and Warnier, J.-P. (1996). Magical iron technology in the Cameroon grassfields. In
Arnoldi, M. J., Geary, C. M., and Hardin, K. L. (eds.), African Material Culture, Indiana University
Press, Bloomington, pp. 5172.
P1: FPY
34
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Rowlands, M. J., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.) (1987). Centre and Periphery in the Ancient
World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rubertone, P. E. (1989a). Archaeology, colonialism and 17th century Native America: Towards an
alternative interpretation. In Layton, R. (ed.), Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions,
Unwin and Hyman, London, pp. 3245.
Rubertone, P. E. (1989b). Landscape as artifact: Comments on The archaeological use of landscape
treatment in social, economic and ideological analysis. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 5054.
Saitta, D. J. (1989). Dialectics, critical inquiry, and archaeology. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.),
Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 38
43.
Samson, R. (1992). Knowledge, constraint, and power in inaction: The defenseless medieval wall.
Savulis, E. (1992). Alternative visions and landscapes: Archaeology of the Shaker social order and built
environment. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 195
203.
Schaedel, R. P. (1992). The archaeology of the Spanish colonial experience in South America. Antiquity
66: 217242.
Schiffer, M. B. (1976). Behavioral Archeology, Academic Press, New York.
Schiffer, M. B. (1996). Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies.
American Antiquity 61: 643662.
Schmidt, P. R. (1978). Historical Archaeology: A Structural Approach in an African Culture,
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Schmidt, P. R. (1995). Remaking history in Africa. In Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.), Making
Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings, School
of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 119147.
Schmidt, P. R., and Childs, S. T. (1995). Ancient African iron production. American Scientist 83:
524533.
Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.) (1995). Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings, School for American Research Press, Santa
Fe, NM.
Schneider, J., and Rapp, R. (eds.) (1995). Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the Influence of
Eric R. Wolf, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Schrire, C. (1991). The historical archaeology of the impact of colonialism in 17th century South
Africa. In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, pp. 6996.
Schrire, C. (1992). Digging archives at Oudepost I, Cape, South Africa. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry,
M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 361
372.
Schrire, C. (1995). Digging Through Darkness: Chronicles of an Archaeologist, University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville.
Schuyler, R. L. (1970). Historical and historic sites, archeology as anthropology: Basic definitions and
relationships. Historical Archaeology 4: 8389.
Schuyler, R. L. (1977). The spoken word, the written word, observed behavior and preserved behavior:
The contexts available to archeologists. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 10:
99129.
Schuyler, R. L. (ed.), (1978). Historical Archeology, Baywood, Farmingdale, NY.
Schuyler, R. L. (1988). Archaeological remains, documents, and anthropology: A call for a new culture
history. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 3642.
Schuyler, R. L. (1991). Historical archaeology in the American West: The view from Philadelphia.
Seasholes, N. (1988). On the use of historical maps. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology
in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 92118.
Shackel, P. A. (1993). Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis,
Maryland, 16951870, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Shackel, P. A. (1995). Terrible saint: Changing meanings of the John Brown fort. Historical Archaeology
29(4): 1125.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
35
Shackel, P. A. (1996). Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American
Industrial Era, Plenum, New York.
Shackel, P. A., and Little, B. J. (1992). Post-processual approaches to meanings and uses of material
culture in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 511.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987a). Re-Constructing Archeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987b). Social Theory and Archaeology, University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Silberman, N. A. (1989). Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the
Modern Middle East, Anchor, New York.
Smith, M. E. (1992). Rhythms of change in postclassic central Mexico: Archaeology, ethnohistory, and
the Braudelian model. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5174.
Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory,
Verso, London.
South, S. (1977). Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, Academic Press, New York.
South, S. (ed.) (1977). Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, Academic Press, New York.
South, S. (1988). Whither pattern? Historical Archaeology 22(1): 2528.
South, S. (1994). Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New Ground, Plenum Press, New York.
Spector, J. D. (1993). What This Awl Means: Feminist Archeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village,
Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (ed.) (1987). Consumer Choice in Historical Archeology, Plenum Press, New
York.
Spriggs, M. (ed.) (1984). Marxist Perspectives in Archeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Staski, E. (ed.) (1987). Living in Cities: Current Research in Urban Archaeology, Special Publication
Series, No. 5, Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson, AZ.
Staski, E. (1990). Site formation processes at Fort Fillmore, New Mexico: First interpretations. Historical Archaeology 24(3): 7991.
Steiner, C. B. (1994). African Art in Transit, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sued-Badillo, J. (1992). Facing up to Caribbean history. American Antiquity 57: 599607.
Sued-Badillo, J. (1995). The theme of the indigenous in the national projects of the Hispanic Caribbean.
In Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.), Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe,
NM, pp. 2546.
Sweeney, K. (1994). High-style vernacular: Lifestyles of the colonial elite. In Carson, C., Hoffman, R.,
and Albert, P. J. (eds.), Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the 18th Century, University
Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 158.
Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1989). Columbian Consequences. Volume One: Archaeological and Historical
Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1990). Columbian Consequences: Volume Two: Archaeological and Historical
Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1991). Columbian Consequences. Volume Three: The Spanish Borderland in
Pan-American Perspective, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Thomas, N. (1991). Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thomas-Emeagwali, G. (1989). Class formation in precolonial Nigeria: The case of eastern and western
Nigeria and the middle belt. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Domination and
Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 299315.
Tilley, C. (1989). Archaeology as socio-political action in the present. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie,
A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 104
116.
Tilley, C. (ed.) (1990). Reading Material Culture, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Tilley, C. (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape, Berg, Oxford, England.
Trigger, B. G. (1980). Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:
662676.
P1: FPY
36
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
Paynter
Trigger, B. G. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355370.
Trigger, B. G. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Trigger, B. G. (1991). Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Constraint and freedomA new synthesis
for archaeological explanation. American Anthropologist 93: 551569.
Turnbaugh, S. P. (1985). Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern United States, 16251850, Academic
Press, Oralando, FL.
Upton, D. (1985). White and black landscapes in 18th century Virginia. Places: A Quarterly Journal
of Environmental Design 2(2): 5972.
Upton, D. (1992). The city as material culture. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art
and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 5174.
Vargas Arenas, I. (1995). The perception of history and archaeology in Latin America. In Schmidt,
P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.), Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and
History in Non-Western Settings, School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 47
67.
Wall, D. di Z. (1991). Sacred dinners and secular teas: Constructing domesticity in mid-19th century
New York. Historical Archaeology 25(4): 6981.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the
European World-Economy in the 16th Century, Academic Press, New York.
Wallerstein, I. (1980). The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the
European World-Economy, 16001750, Academic Press, New York.
Wallerstein, I. (1989). The Modern World-System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the
Capitalist World-Economy, 17301840s, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Watson, P. J., and Fotiadis, M. (1990). The razors edge: Symbolic-structuralist archaeology and the
expansion of archaeological inference. American Antiquity 92: 613629.
Webster, J. (1997). Necessary comparisons: A post-colonial approach to religious syncretism in the
Roman provinces. World Archaeology 28: 324338.
Wegars, P. (1993). Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology of the Overseas Chinese, Baywood,
Amityville, NY.
Williams, E. (1970). From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean, Vintage, New York.
Williams, R. (1973). The Country and the City, Oxford University Press, New York.
Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In Cleland, C. (ed.), For the Director,
Anthropological Papers, No. 61, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
pp. 317342.
Wobst, H. M. (1989). Commentary: A socio-politics of socio-politics in archaeology. In Pinsky, V., and
Wylie, A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp. 136140.
Wolf, E. (1982). Europe and the People Without History, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Woolf, G. (1997). Beyond Romans and natives. World Archaeology 28: 339350.
Worrell, J., Stachiw, M. O., and Simmons, D. M. (1996). Archaeology from the Ground Up. In De
Cunzo, L. A., and Herman, B. L. (eds.), Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture,
Henrey Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, DE, pp. 3569.
Wurst, L. (1991). Employees must be of moral and temperate habits: Rural and urban elite ideologies.
In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 125149.
Wylie, A. (1992). Rethinking the quincentennial: Consequences for past and present. American Antiquity 57: 591594.
Wylie, A. (1993). Invented lands/discovered pasts: The westward expansion of myth and history.
Yamin, R., and Metheny, K. B. (eds.) (1996). Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the
American Historical Landscape, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Yentsch, A. E. (1988a). Legends, houses, families, and myths: Relationships between material culture
and American ideology. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology in the New World,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 519.
Yentsch, A. E. (1988b). Farming, fishing, whaling, trading: Land and sea as resource on 18th-century
Cape Cod. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology of the New World, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 138160.
P1: FPY
PL120-73
August 30, 1956
22:2
37
Yentsch, A. E. (1991). The symbolic divisions of pottery: Sex-related attributes of English and AngloAmerican household pots. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archeology of Inequality,
Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 192230.
Yentsch, A. E. (1994). A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yoffee, N. (1995). Political economy in early Mesopotamian states. Annual Review of Anthropology
24: 281311.
Zimmerman, L. J. (1989). Made radical by my own: An archaeologist learns to accept reburial.
In Layton, R. (ed.), Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, Unwin Hyman, London,
pp. 6067.

Paynter 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paynter 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: FPY

Journal of Archaeological Research [jar]

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2000

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology:

of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003.

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative. A number of

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

THE MATERIALITY OF AND METHODOLOGIES FOR THE STUDY

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The investigation of landscapes has led to the development and modification

Documents and Meanings

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

to contextual archaeology (1986, p. 141), something that seems to separate it from

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

archaeologists in the 20th. Another important move in this direction is Fergusons

Archaeology often assumes a difference between the people of the present

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

August 30, 1956

Historical and Anthropological Archaeology

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

individualism is bound up with the histories of merchant capital and industrial

August 30, 1956

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

filling some of this void, an enterprise of interest to cultural anthropologists as